All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Mister Mets]

I told you why -- because American voters rarely elect progressive candidates to the White House.

Jimmy Carter is the closest thing we've had in the modern era, and he lost re-election to Reagan, the forefather of modern Republican "conservative" politics, by a wide margin.

It's usually moderates from either side -- like Obama and Bill Clinton, or Bush and Reagan -- who win both the nomination and the general election.

If you feel that Sanders will be an exception, that's fine as anything is possible, but both history and data are not on his side.

That said, I've never made the argument that Biden can't lose -- in fact, the odds are that he will lose and so will Sanders.

Especially if people don't start focusing on the real problem -- Republicans.

You can also look at whether progressive candidates get trusted to be swing-state Governors.

I don't really see much indication of that.

I never argued against your policy points -- I just pointed out that most Americans don't vote for progressive candidates.

Progressive candidates run in the Democratic party all the time -- and they usually lose, just like Sanders lost -- and don't make it to the general election.

Sanders benefited from being the only other candidate in the running, and he still lost by four million votes.

You're treating this too much like an argument -- all of this is research you can do for yourself if you want to know more about why progressives don't usually win American elections.

You might as well ask why many Americans voted a racist like Trump into office.

To be fair to Sanders, he did better than Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb in the primary. O'Malley had been discussed as a potential presidential contender for a long-time, and Jim Webb had been talked about as a potential Obama running-mate. Sanders was a small-state Senator running against an opponent with incredible name recognition (former first lady, New York Senator on 9/11, 2008 presidential nomination runner-up, Secretary of State.)

If people are so thin skinned that they vote for racists and homophobes then thats their own damn fault

To win elections, you need to sway some disgusting people.

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/30/211134...-sanders-trans

As Dylan Matthews put it, liberals “think that discriminating against or maligning someone on the basis of membership in a protected class — women, trans people, black people, and other racially oppressed communities, etc. — violates a rule that should be inviolable. In this view, such discrimination (be it legal, or expressed through hate speech, etc.) is not just wrong because it has bad effects, or because it harms members of the groups in question; it’s wrong because we have a duty to treat humans as equals, and it is never acceptable to violate that duty, even when doing so seems politically expedient.”

This is a reasonable moral theory. But my suspicion is most people who embrace it are not thinking clearly about exactly how inexpedient it is. As of 2018, for example, 47 percent of African Americans told the General Social Survey that it is “always wrong” for two same-sex individuals to have sex.

Meanwhile, 40 percent of white Democrats deny that the black/white gap in jobs, income, and housing is mainly due to discrimination.

To complete the troika of unwoke views, about 40 percent of Hispanics tell the General Social Survey that “it is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.”

Democratic Party politicians have plenty to debate, but basically none of them would deny that discrimination is a major source of problems in black America, that same-sex relationships are fine, or that it’s okay for married women to have jobs. But if Democrats tried to demand unanimity on these very basic points from actual voters, they’d lose huge swathes of their base. The idea that there should be “zero tolerance for bigotry” or that some things should be beyond pragmatic politics might sound nice, but if you actually intend to live by them, get ready to lose every election ever — something that I don’t think will be very helpful to the people who anti-bigotry politics is supposed to protect.

[aja_christopher]

You can also look at whether progressive candidates get trusted to be swing-state Governors.

I don't really see much indication of that.

To be fair to Sanders, he did better than Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb in the primary. O'Malley had been discussed as a potential presidential contender for a long-time, and Jim Webb had been talked about as a potential Obama running-mate. Sanders was a small-state Senator running against an opponent with incredible name recognition (former first lady, New York Senator on 9/11, 2008 presidential nomination runner-up, Secretary of State.)

Sanders greatly benefited from all of the animosity aimed at Hillary.

And still does so until this very day.

Meanwhile, your chosen party has determined that extorting foreign nations for campaign assistance is acceptable behavior for a president after hiding all relevant documents and witnesses from view.

Good win, Mets.

[Theleviathan]

The problem is you guys often say things and never bother to actually quantify it and just assume something as fact because it fits your argument. Bernie supporters are supposedly divisive, but they did a better job supporting the last Democratic nom than that same candidate did 8 years earlier with her opponent. And that's just factual and data driven.

Also alot of the same people on here who pile on Bernie supporters have been outed for outright lying for making their arguments. Demonstrable lies at that. So whose to say they are not more toxic and divisive?

It's easy to say someone is one thing, but are they the predominate problem? Are they the originator of the problem? Can you quantify any of that? Or are you just saying it because it assists in your argument?

That's essentially the problem.

First, not all things are quantifiable. Can you tell me, for certain, what percentage of Republicans are full blown racists? Or frequent 4chan? It's a ridiculous standard to ask for because you wouldn't be able to do it yourself. Hell, I could even give you a comparably simpler demand like: How many Democrats are actually progressive? You wouldn't be able to nail that down at all. It's a bogus demand done intentionally to miss the point. (I could come up with hundreds of other examples. Like, how many cops are actually racist or profile? When the right-wing says they aren't the problem and you can't prove it, are you quick to say "yup! Can't argue with that because that's my logic too!" No? Yeah, didn't think so.)

You're hiding behind that bogus demand, a strawman out of leftfield about "predominate" problems, or (apparently) some childish argument about "who started it" so that you don't have to face an ugly truth. If we're going to talk about winning in 2020 there are segments of the left that create problems for various candidates and some that create problems for all of the candidates. Why is it so hard to acknowledge they cause problems? Further, why is it necessary to deny their very existence? How does that help?

(And I'll note, this line of discussion only came up because someone tried to deny it)

[Theleviathan]

So what, such people can exist in any movement.

Yes, but then you do what you can to reign them in so they sit on the fringes. Republicans effectively did this with racists and other kooks for a long time. They kept them in the mix to vote for them, kept them happy, but kept them from being too much of a problem as well.

Bernie Bros are nowhere near that bad and some of their reputation is inflated. Nevertheless, they did leave a lot of bitterness among some female democrat voters. SJWs are a bane on the left for getting independent white males. These problems do have consequences. It'd be nice to reign them in a bit.

[PwrdOn]

Yes, but then you do what you can to reign them in so they sit on the fringes. Republicans effectively did this with racists and other kooks for a long time. They kept them in the mix to vote for them, kept them happy, but kept them from being too much of a problem as well.

Bernie Bros are nowhere near that bad and some of their reputation is inflated. Nevertheless, they did leave a lot of bitterness among some female democrat voters. SJWs are a bane on the left for getting independent white males. These problems do have consequences. It'd be nice to reign them in a bit.

The people who are always complaining about SJWs also tend to be the same people who listen to Joe Rogan, so if you want to push away people from both of those categories, I wonder who you plan to actually win the election with. Running a generic centrist has always been a terrible idea because the vast majority of voters, uninformed though they may be, tend to be passionate about SOMETHING and you need to run someone who is inspiring and charismatic enough to lift voters from their apathy. Nobody's going to turn out to vote for Amy Klobuchar. The fact that the left has people who are passionate about social and economic justice does not make us the equivalent of fascists and racists, but rather a devoted base from which to build a movement that the Democrats choose to ignore because they are cowards who would rather play the role of loyal opposition than actually do something meaningful for a change.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

First, not all things are quantifiable. Can you tell me, for certain, what percentage of Republicans are full blown racists? Or frequent 4chan? It's a ridiculous standard to ask for because you wouldn't be able to do it yourself. Hell, I could even give you a comparably simpler demand like: How many Democrats are actually progressive? You wouldn't be able to nail that down at all. It's a bogus demand done intentionally to miss the point. (I could come up with hundreds of other examples. Like, how many cops are actually racist or profile? When the right-wing says they aren't the problem and you can't prove it, are you quick to say "yup! Can't argue with that because that's my logic too!" No? Yeah, didn't think so.)

You're hiding behind that bogus demand, a strawman out of leftfield about "predominate" problems, or (apparently) some childish argument about "who started it" so that you don't have to face an ugly truth. If we're going to talk about winning in 2020 there are segments of the left that create problems for various candidates and some that create problems for all of the candidates. Why is it so hard to acknowledge they cause problems? Further, why is it necessary to deny their very existence? How does that help?

(And I'll note, this line of discussion only came up because someone tried to deny it)

To your first point, you can't make a correlation that way, but you can reverse engineer that. We can look at objectively racist or problematic policies and see which voting blocks support them. We can also get data on 4chan and the views that are aspoused on there.

It's not a ridiculous standard. In this thread you would be hard to say there are more Bernie supporters that attack other candidates than supporters of other candidates that attack Bernie. Especially if we break out down to unsolicited attacks. Here you can just count. In the real world I can just look at how many mainstream Democrats in 08 supported the nominee and how many Democrats in 2016 supported the nominee. So yeah there is data to suggest that in the modern era and last 10 years of politics that one side is far more likely to be "my way or the highway" when you go by action.

There's data there, you just choose to not to use it or just make assumptions that conveniantly support your viewpoint. Like for instance if more Bernie supporters than usual didn't support Clinton, I'd have to own that. But by and large they did especially when you compare it to other nominees in primary's (in both parties).

You can't just say something unsubtantiated and then when people ask you to prove it say "no you can't prove it, it's just a fact we have to take at face value, and it's an ugly truth".

Let's by quantifiable things.

1. When Bernie announced there were a bunch of moderate Dems who got #NeverBernie trending
2. On this thread, Bernie supporters are the minority. With that said, I can flatout say that some of the most prominent regular posters have made unsolicited attacks against Bernie and many of them were demonstrably untrue. Are you going to just deny that or are you going to ask for evidence (I don't like naming names, but I can list examples)
3. The last Presidential canidate struggled to say they would support Bernie when Bernie stumped for her and flew all over the country.
4. That same nominee who represented that wing of the party failed to get their supporters to fall in line after a failed primary the same way Bernie did for her.
5. As soon as Bernie started doing well in 2016, his supporters got labled Bernie bros. When women were supporting Bernie a popular narrative the other side floated was "girls are just going where all the boys are. Bernie was also critcizied as being bad for minorities but then people outright ignore the tremendous support he enjoys with minority youth and all the endorsements he has there. So in summation the other side effectively calls his camp mysognists, but then says the girls who support him are effectively chasing dick, then they say he is racially problematic, but they complete dismiss the millions of minorities who support him (including some of the most notable in the government and the most notable activists). I find that deeply toxic and problematic.
6. As soon as Bernie started doing well in 2020, all of a sudden he was hit with attacks and all these articles popped up about who supports him. So whose really causing the division? Because it's no secret that as soon as the polls shifted, the people on here who you could tell didn't like him, started posting at a much greater frequency and this thread has been non stop at it the last few weeks.

So yeah I would say there is plenty of evidence to say your side is far more problematic and toxic based in how things are happening and in practice and in some cases there are complete measurables in circumstance and timing to support it. Why don't you ever acknowledge any of that?

Are there problematic Bernie supporters? Sure. You're talking about millions of people. Are they the big problem plaguing the party and causing division. I can't say that.

[Theleviathan]

The people who are always complaining about SJWs also tend to be the same people who listen to Joe Rogan.

Which is exactly why I said nothing negative about that endorsement. In fact, I said it was a good thing and people were being too negative about it.

Consistency isn't a problem you're going to use on me.

[Theleviathan]

Are there problematic Bernie supporters? Sure. You're talking about millions of people. Are they the big problem plaguing the party and causing division. I can't say that.

First, you didn't "quantify" anything. You merely suggested ways it might be quantified and more or less just acknowledged that they exist. You posted examples and evidence, not quantification. Why would that be? Well, because the scope and depth of the thing in which we're talking about, the variety of avenues through which it manifests, and the subjective nature of it all make quantification extremely difficult. And you just proved it by somehow thinking you posted a quantified argument that didn't even have a single statistic or even a number that wasn't a date in the entire post.

It wouldn't take much of a google effort to find a list of offenses that upset people by Bernie Bros and make a similar bullet point list. But if we're going to draw the line on "quantified", I'm failing to see where that happened even a single time in your post. I would only be able to give you credit for the Hillary/McCain thing in previous posts if I was being generous and even that barely addresses the point. You just demonstrated you can't meet your own standard. And of course you can't. I'd be a dick to demand such a thing of you because you simply can't substantiate any of that in a quantifiable way regardless of point of view. You can make arguments and have evidence for it as you did, but you can't quantify it. But only one of us tried to demand it......

Bernie Bros exist. There is ample evidence that they cause damage to Bernie's movement and create fissures among the left. There is ample evidence this group of Bernie supporters is not insignificant, but nowhere near a majority. They are, however, quite vocal. And they do create problems. The same argument can be said for the vile racists/breitbart types in Republican circles. Or SJWs among the Justice Dems. Or whatever you want to call the bitter folks on the Hillary side. These segments exist, they are hard to quantify, but they exist. Their damage exists as well. Finding ways to minimize that damage is crucial to winning and keeping people willing to vote with you.

[The Overlord]

Yes, but then you do what you can to reign them in so they sit on the fringes. Republicans effectively did this with racists and other kooks for a long time. They kept them in the mix to vote for them, kept them happy, but kept them from being too much of a problem as well.

Bernie Bros are nowhere near that bad and some of their reputation is inflated. Nevertheless, they did leave a lot of bitterness among some female democrat voters. SJWs are a bane on the left for getting independent white males. These problems do have consequences. It'd be nice to reign them in a bit.

Unless you can prove Bernie's is more toxic than any other base, I would consider this a sideshow that the vast majority of voters do not care about.

[Theleviathan]

Unless you can prove Bernie's is more toxic than any other base, I would consider this a sideshow that the vast majority of voters do not care about.

That's another actual strawman.

I would say a great number of centrist Democrats care about Bernie Bros. Some of whom care because that group is overinflated as a problem, some genuinely because of problems they create. Or you could avoid that and toss out strawmen, that, ugh, works too I guess.

[The Overlord]

First, you didn't "quantify" anything. You merely suggested ways it might be quantified and more or less just acknowledged that they exist. You posted examples and evidence, not quantification. Why would that be? Well, because the scope and depth of the thing in which we're talking about, the variety of avenues through which it manifests, and the subjective nature of it all make quantification extremely difficult. And you just proved it by somehow thinking you posted a quantified argument that didn't even have a single statistic or even a number that wasn't a date in the entire post.

It wouldn't take much of a google effort to find a list of offenses that upset people by Bernie Bros and make a similar bullet point list. But if we're going to draw the line on "quantified", I'm failing to see where that happened even a single time in your post. I would only be able to give you credit for the Hillary/McCain thing in previous posts if I was being generous and even that barely addresses the point. You just demonstrated you can't meet your own standard. And of course you can't. I'd be a dick to demand such a thing of you because you simply can't substantiate any of that in a quantifiable way regardless of point of view. You can make arguments and have evidence for it as you did, but you can't quantify it. But only one of us tried to demand it......

Bernie Bros exist. There is ample evidence that they cause damage to Bernie's movement and create fissures among the left. There is ample evidence this group of Bernie supporters is not insignificant, but nowhere near a majority. They are, however, quite vocal. And they do create problems. The same argument can be said for the vile racists/breitbart types in Republican circles. Or SJWs among the Justice Dems. Or whatever you want to call the bitter folks on the Hillary side. These segments exist, they are hard to quantify, but they exist. Their damage exists as well. Finding ways to minimize that damage is crucial to winning and keeping people willing to vote with you.

Anecdotal evidence does not prove a trend. Do you have non anecdotal evidence?

Also if you want to promote left wing unity to defeat Trump, is complaining about Bernie Bros helpful towards that goal?

[The Overlord]

That's another actual strawman.

I would say a great number of centrist Democrats care about Bernie Bros. Some of whom care because that group is overinflated as a problem, some genuinely because of problems they create. Or you could avoid that and toss out strawmen, that, ugh, works too I guess.

What are these problems the so called Bernie Bros create and what damage do these problems cause?

[numberthirty]

What are these problems the so called Bernie Bros create and what damage do these problems cause?

Along that line, are they potentially more or less problematic that Biden getting in people's faces and challenging folks who have said something he doesn't like to a pushup contest?

Because to me?

There's a lot of focus on nebulous issues that might come with Sanders while there's very little(that said, Thelevaithan has actually at least mentioned Biden doing it is an issue...) that looks like folks will even accept that Biden's behavior could wind up being an issue in an election that is anything like "Close..."

Never mind if it winds up being any more of a pattern than it already is.

[Tazirai]

Bernie’s Angry Bros

Remember Obama Boys Tami? Hillary started this. She started Bernie Bros. Why take what she says as true or any of these Pundit and talking heads. I've been attacked by Warren Sisters, and Biden bots, etc.

But we only call out the so called "Bernie Bros" even people of color like me and my daughter are ignored... or are we Bros too?

Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!
Young women are growing increasingly frustrated with the fanatical support of Barack and gleeful bashing of Hillary.

[Malvolio]

During the 2016 Democratic Primaries, I posted on Facebook that I supported Bernie Sanders and would vote for him in my state's primary. But I also said that I would vote for Hillary Clinton in November if she was named the Democratic Nominee. For that, I was called a Hillary-bot, not by some random Bernie-Bro, no I was called a Hillary-bot by Jeff Weaver, Bernie's campaign manager. Now granted, Weaver is not Bernie's campaign manager this time around, but he still works for the campaign and has some measure of influence. What does that tell you?