All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Kieran_Frost]

While I think there are definitely Superficial comparisons to Corbyn and Bernie their differences are large enough where I don't think we can look at Corbyn's utter defeat as a warning for Bernie.

It's not necessarily prophetic, but it IS a cautionary tale that should at-least be thought about, rather than steamrolled over as unimportant.

1: Brexit, obviously. Labour were fence sitting for the majority of the election. To do so on what was the #1 issue for most Brits was always going to bite them. Those for or against had plenty of other options with a far clearer stances on the issue.

2: Controversies: No (real or imagined) issue Bernie had the sticking power, or ability to turn off voters, as Corbyn/Labour's antisemitism controversy.

3: Tory Dominance: We might moan about the sometimes utter incompetence of the Democrats here, but outside of the Tony Blair years the last 40 or so have absolutely been dominated by the Tories. Compared to their record Democrats might as well look competent.

The antisemitism hurt him, generally the Jewish community is a Labour group. I don't think it was a fatal blow though. And Brexit didn't help (but seeing the post-reaction of some MPs -- his supporters -- blaming Brexit as the only reason they lost were missing the point). Losing the election over Brexit, sure, maybe, yes. Having THE WORST LABOUR DEFEAT in a hundred years. No, Brexit didn't do that. That was something else.

That is interesting about Tony Blair. People kept on telling the Corbynistas that they really shouldn't ignore the wisdom of the only Labour person to win an election since the 70s. But... much like the Bernie Bros, listening to logic and reality is not their strong suit.

No, I was right by definition and by what your intents were. I get why the Bernie Bro stuff is tough to defend and why you'd try and resort to what you did, but maybe (radical suggestion here) maybe just don't try and defend it.

Your lord and savior doesn't. Just follow his lead.

This made me smile, because in my head I thought "geez man, you can't ask for miracles" (and then found that rather amusing, due to your use of the 'Lord and Saviour' part, ha!)

[Kieran_Frost]

You can't, because there isn't any. You make claims that you can't back up.

I... I think you're missing the point. No-one can post what will happen the day of the election. Hence... time machine... It's cute that you're not getting it, I'll give you that. Score one for adorability.

Are you ever going to post those polls that showed Corbyn winning?

Nope. Trawling through the internet to find Corbynista propaganda isn't my idea of a fun Saturday. If you care so much, find it yourself. You not believing me that they were posting popularity polls showing him winning... isn't a concern of mine. I keep saying believe what you want to believe, and I already know nothing I say will change your mind on any topic. So why bother? Plus I'm trying to write my Drag Race review right now!
#priorities

Bernie's numbers keep going up. Supporters from other candidates keep going to him. He's the 2nd choice of most of the supporters of other candidates.

Coolio. Doesn't mean, come the crunch, he'll get the amount of support from the moderates he needs to win. Someone always wins the nomination. Always gets "the most support", but at the actual election... 50% of the candidates who had that claim just a day before... don't win.

Corbyn won the nomination in 2015 and 2016. Bernie is going to win the nomination this year and go into the general election this year while his popularity is still high.
Two different situations.

And I'm sure the Bernie Bros weren't going on about his popularity back in 2016; because what happened 4 years ago doesn't matter. Riiiiiiiiiiight Also there was an election in 2017 too. How did that landslide building on his popularity work out?

It's about being accurate, not how I feel.

[Superbat]

I... I think you're missing the point. No-one can post what will happen the day of the election. Hence... time machine... It's cute that you're not getting it, I'll give you that. Score one for adorability.

No one can post it, but you're going to keep saying Bernie is going to lose because of his supporters.

Nope. Trawling through the internet to find Corbynista propaganda isn't my idea of a fun Saturday. If you care so much, find it yourself. You not believing me that they were posting popularity polls showing him winning... isn't a concern of mine. I keep saying believe what you want to believe, and I already know nothing I say will change your mind on any topic. So why bother? Plus I'm trying to write my Drag Race review right now!
#priorities

You won't post proof for your 1st claim because it hasn't happened yet and you won't post proof for your 2nd claim because it isn't fun.

You won't post proof because you don't have any.

Coolio. Doesn't mean, come the crunch, he'll get the amount of support from the moderates he needs to win. Someone always wins the nomination. Always gets "the most support", but at the actual election... 50% of the candidates who had that claim just a day before... don't win.

If he does lose, you'll say it was because of the behavior of his supporters but like every other claim you have made, you won't post proof. I see your MO.

And I'm sure the Bernie Bros weren't going on about his popularity back in 2016; because what happened 4 years ago doesn't matter. Riiiiiiiiiiight Also there was an election in 2017 too. How did that landslide building on his popularity work out?

His popularity was a reason he should have been the nominee. Running the most popular politician in the country against the most hated would have been better than running the 2nd most hated nominee in the history of the US against the most hated.

That's Bernie's fault too, he should have run a better primary campaign.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

a) do I really need to provide evidence to the nastiness of Sander's on-line acolytes? I thought, at the very least, we'd all started to agree they exist. I didn't think I needed to prove that??? Literally go to any tweet by Mayor Pete. Evidence. Every. Tweet.
b) and then there is the UK election and Corbyne steamrolling into number 1- oh wait...
c) your data doesn't show everything (as data rarely does). It's not showing the degree of interest. A moderate picking X, Y or Z in a poll doesn't translate to a passion to go out and vote come the day. If they aren't invigorated, it's not enough. It also doesn't show the moderates who are ACTIVELY against him. That can turn the tide.

But as I've said, if you want to convince yourself this isn't a problem, you do you, keeping doing what you're doing. All Sanders supporters continue being their lovely selves on-line, not reacting or changing their tone and attitude one iota. I'm sure the tactic of head in the sand is a winning one.

A) Nobody denies they exist, but people keep trying to quantify it as bigger than it is. For every tweet you find I can find another canidates rabid supporter who says vile shit. I can also find the day "Never Bernie" trended and a bunch of Democrats said they would vote for Trump because of the debunct claim that Bernie somehow cost Clinton the 2016 election. And when you ask people on here to quantify it... weird how they all get defensive.

B) It's disengenious at best to compare Corbyn to Sanders. Anyone who followed UK politics knew what that election was about. It was about Brexit. Johnson was running on getting Brexit done. Farage had his party stand down to pave the way for Johnson. Corbyn had to run as the perceived anti-Brexit candidate while most of his party's strongholds all were in support of Brexit. If you talk about that election and you don't bring up the centerpiece of it, then you are not accurately describing it.

C) However it is a fact that Democrats win on turn out. That turnout is primarily based on if they can get the youth and minorities to come out. It's what gave Obama a record setting win. It's largely what hurt Hillary. Yes the older moderates are more likely to vote, but they aren't going to push you to a win. You need something else. Sanders does well with that group. So you have a choice. Do you hope the more reliable voters are still reliable with Sanders and then you bring his coalition. Or do you consolidate around the people who are likely to vote anyways but then risk turning off the people who often stay home. There's no clear answer to that.

Btw in this thread there is far more vitriol at Sanders and his supporters than the other way around. There are at least two posters who only pop in this thread out of context to post something negative about Sanders and leave. So I wouldn't want to start grouping people together

[Kieran_Frost]

No one can post it, but you're going to keep saying Bernie is going to lose because of his supporters.

Pretty much. And I'm not saying he "WILL" lose, I'm saying it's a very real danger. It's a possibility. It's something to give concern to. It's a cautionary tale from Corbyn's spectacular defeat. It's something that Sanders supporters REALLY should take an interest in, if they want him to stand the best chance of winning. Instead it's met with combative attitude, snide remarks, digs and belittling. All the wonderful things that prove my concerns. Every. Time. And the Bernie Bros don't even realise they do it, which is the most depressing/hilarious part of it all.

You won't post proof for your 1st claim because it hasn't happened yet and you won't post proof for your 2nd claim because it isn't fun.
You won't post proof because you don't have any.

Whatever makes you happiest to believe, go right ahead. Hillary is paying me to say it! It's fake news. I'm secretly wanting Trump to win. Whatevvvvvvvver you wanna believe to continue ignoring the very real danger of Sanders losing enough support from moderates due to how his supporters behave (coupled with the fact he is quite left of where people comfortable go, so was already fighting an uphill battle)... you go believe that.

If he does lose, you'll say it was because of the behavior of his supporters but like every other claim you have made, you won't post proof. I see your MO.

What is my MO? I'm now curious to hear this. And if he loses... oh my god, you betta believe I'll be posting that repeatedly. Possibly along with the tag-line "I told ya sooooooo".

His popularity was a reason he should have been the nominee. Running the most popular politician in the country against the most hated would have been better than running the 2nd most hated nominee in the history of the US against the most hated.

I wanna see the polling data on this claim!!!

A) Nobody denies they exist, but people keep trying to quantify it as bigger than it is. For every tweet you find I can find another canidates rabid supporter who says vile shit. I can also find the day "Never Bernie" trended and a bunch of Democrats said they would vote for Trump because of the debunct claim that Bernie somehow cost Clinton the 2016 election. And when you ask people on here to quantify it... weird how they all get defensive.

I see no evidence for that. If I look at Warren, Buttigieg or Biden tweets (which I do), I don't see Warren, Buttigieg or Biden followers showing up across those three, posting continued hate to anywhere close to the level of those red roses. Not even remotely.

B) It's disengenious at best to compare Corbyn to Sanders. Anyone who followed UK politics knew what that election was about. It was about Brexit. Johnson was running on getting Brexit done. Farage had his party stand down to pave the way for Johnson. Corbyn had to run as the perceived anti-Brexit candidate while most of his party's strongholds all were in support of Brexit. If you talk about that election and you don't bring up the centerpiece of it, then you are not accurately describing it.

You have no idea how amusing it is that a Bernie Bro is repeating the rhetoric of a Corbynista to prove there AREN'T similarities. I mean... I couldn't make it up if I tried. "It wasn't Corbyn, it was Brexit." Where's my "Sure Jan" gif, I think it needs a third outing today! BWAHAHAHAHA! If you think one of the biggest Labour defeats a hundred years was "just because of Brexit" then I both chuckle and despair.

C) However it is a fact that Democrats win on turn out. That turnout is primarily based on if they can get the youth and minorities to come out. It's what gave Obama a record setting win. It's largely what hurt Hillary. Yes the older moderates are more likely to vote, but they aren't going to push you to a win. You need something else. Sanders does well with that group. So you have a choice. Do you hope the more reliable voters are still reliable with Sanders and then you bring his coalition. Or do you consolidate around the people who are likely to vote anyways but then risk turning off the people who often stay home. There's no clear answer to that.

From memory Obama got a huge, HUGE surge (in both the primary and the elections) from "undecides" who turned up on the day. And I'm not sure that will happen this time.

Btw in this thread there is far more vitriol at Sanders and his supporters than the other way around. There are at least two posters who only pop in this thread out of context to post something negative about Sanders and leave. So I wouldn't want to start grouping people together

I have no problem with that; I'm not worried about how it looks. Why are you?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Bernie supporters...and Bernie himself...blaming superdelegates is not a strawman. It happened and got reignited again thanks to Bernie's about-face on the convention.

If you choose to differ from those Bernaid drinkers, kudos to you. But they exist.

The problem is... anybody who actually looks at elections realizes that it's quantifiable that turnout and votes have a strong level of correllation with the perception that you will win. That's just something that's been time tested.

Under the structure in 2016, Hillary Clinton had a lead before a single vote was cast because superdelegates were being counted for her. In 2016, Sanders would decisevly win a state and then the superdelegate total would be added in and Hillary would end up pretty near even with Sanders or even ahead of him in the delegate count.

So likely Sanders voters saw that and thought "oh shit he has no shot I have something better to do today than wait in line for a lost cause". And again pretty much anyone who has ever analyzed elections counts winnablility as a massive factor in voter turnout.

Now I want to make this abundantly clear. Hillary Clinton would have won regardless imo. However, nobody wants to watch a game where they think the refs are giving all the breaks to one team. It turns people off. Regardless I think this is a none factor. If the convention is brokered and the person with the most votes and delegates doesn't get the nomination, Trump should just take his victory speech that day.

[Kieran_Frost]

The problem is... anybody who actually looks at elections realizes that it's quantifiable that turnout and votes have a strong level of correllation with the perception that you will win. That's just something that's been time tested.

And again pretty much anyone who has ever analyzed elections counts winnablility as a massive factor in voter turnout.

Not to beat a dead horse, but again, Corbyn's last election very much had everyone of his supporters CERTAIN he'd win. Brexit... everyone thought Remain would, the polling, the politicians, the people. Hell, I swear no-one thought Trump would actually win (I could be wrong on that last one, I seem to recall everyone being utterly shocked, but that could just be election day PTSD).

[Superbat]

What is my MO? I'm now curious to hear this.

To make things up and then make excuses for why you can't post proof.

I wanna see the polling data on this claim!!! .

Posting proof is easy for me because my claims are based on fact.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/197231/...or-images.aspx

"Trump's 61% unfavorable score is worst in presidential polling history
Clinton's 52% unfavorable score is second-worst"

[Malvolio]

The problem is... anybody who actually looks at elections realizes that it's quantifiable that turnout and votes have a strong level of correllation with the perception that you will win. That's just something that's been time tested.

Under the structure in 2016, Hillary Clinton had a lead before a single vote was cast because superdelegates were being counted for her. In 2016, Sanders would decisevly win a state and then the superdelegate total would be added in and Hillary would end up pretty near even with Sanders or even ahead of him in the delegate count.

So likely Sanders voters saw that and thought "oh shit he has no shot I have something better to do today than wait in line for a lost cause". And again pretty much anyone who has ever analyzed elections counts winnablility as a massive factor in voter turnout.

Now I want to make this abundantly clear. Hillary Clinton would have won regardless imo. However, nobody wants to watch a game where they think the refs are giving all the breaks to one team. It turns people off. Regardless I think this is a none factor. If the convention is brokered and the person with the most votes and delegates doesn't get the nomination, Trump should just take his victory speech that day.

Some people love to watch a game where the refs are giving all the breaks to one team, because they love to complain about the refs. Sometimes, the refs are being totally fair to both sides, but these same people complain about the refs not being fair anyway.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

[Kieran_Frost]

To make things up and then make excuses for why you can't post proof.

But to what end? I mean, what's my motive? (*cackles sinisterly from his Fortress of Evil*)

Posting proof is easy for me because my claims are based on fact.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/197231/...or-images.aspx

"Trump's 61% unfavorable score is worst in presidential polling history
Clinton's 52% unfavorable score is second-worst"

I mean I said it as a joke, but good to know. Thank-you for posting that, very informative.

Some people love to watch a game where the refs are giving all the breaks to one team, because they love to complain about the refs. Sometimes, the refs are being totally fair to both sides, but these same people complain about the refs not being fair anyway.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

[dead horse] You mean like Corbynistas complaining about the press hating Corbyn if the story did anything but praise on him? Literally Corbyn could have punched someone in the face, and if the press said "Corbyn punched someone in the face" his acolytes would be screaming "classic right wing propaganda BBC!" I seem to recall them posting images of political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg as "Secretary of Spin" in Johnson's cabinet the day he announced it. Good ol' Labour, where the BBC correspondent had to have bodyguards at the Labour conference but no Corbynistas would acknowledge that's not bizarre and worrying and ABSOLUTELY NOT HOW IT SHOULD BE!

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Pretty much. And I'm not saying he "WILL" lose, I'm saying it's a very real danger. It's a possibility. It's something to give concern to. It's a cautionary tale from Corbyn's spectacular defeat. It's something that Sanders supporters REALLY should take an interest in, if they want him to stand the best chance of winning. Instead it's met with combative attitude, snide remarks, digs and belittling. All the wonderful things that prove my concerns. Every. Time. And the Bernie Bros don't even realise they do it, which is the most depressing/hilarious part of it all.


Whatever makes you happiest to believe, go right ahead. Hillary is paying me to say it! It's fake news. I'm secretly wanting Trump to win. Whatevvvvvvvver you wanna believe to continue ignoring the very real danger of Sanders losing enough support from moderates due to how his supporters behave (coupled with the fact he is quite left of where people comfortable go, so was already fighting an uphill battle)... you go believe that.


What is my MO? I'm now curious to hear this. And if he loses... oh my god, you betta believe I'll be posting that repeatedly. Possibly along with the tag-line "I told ya sooooooo".


I wanna see the polling data on this claim!!!


I see no evidence for that. If I look at Warren, Buttigieg or Biden tweets (which I do), I don't see Warren, Buttigieg or Biden followers showing up across those three, posting continued hate to anywhere close to the level of those red roses. Not even remotely.


You have no idea how amusing it is that a Bernie Bro is repeating the rhetoric of a Corbynista to prove there AREN'T similarities. I mean... I couldn't make it up if I tried. "It wasn't Corbyn, it was Brexit." Where's my "Sure Jan" gif, I think it needs a third outing today! BWAHAHAHAHA! If you think one of the biggest Labour defeats a hundred years was "just because of Brexit" then I both chuckle and despair.


From memory Obama got a huge, HUGE surge (in both the primary and the elections) from "undecides" who turned up on the day. And I'm not sure that will happen this time.


I have no problem with that; I'm not worried about how it looks. Why are you?

Just going to address the responses to me.

1. You can't provide no evidnence and then challenge someone because you "so no evidence of that". Like I said, if you want to go for the claim please quantify it. Sanders just had a building vandalized, he's had supporters who have been threatened with rape and racial slurs, I know at least two high end Clinton operatives who have already been exposed for smearing and trying to invade the personal lives of several progressives. We can go tit for tat if you want.

2. First off don't call me a "Bernie Bro". I went to a Warren rally last Sunday, I've campaigned in the past for Warren, I plan on voting for Warren on Tuesday. I just have the ability to not be myopic on which caniddates I prefer. The rest of your point was just ignorant. If you really feel confidant that an election that was almost universally about the Brexit topics, the victory speeches were about Brexit, the party that supported Brexit would stay down and Corbyn had low turnout in areas he needed to win largely because polls suggested Brexit was popular there.... somehow wasn't about Brexit..... I don't know how to help you at that point. It's kind of delusional to say it wasn't.

3. Obama had a huge turnout with young people and minorities who don't regular turnout. That was the biggest strength of his coalition that pushed him to record breaking numbers. He would have won just off the back of that. Neither of us can predict undecided voters so it's not really fruitful to say "And I'm not sure that will happen this time". If we want to try to analyze it we can talk about all the Obama voters in the midwest that went for Trump but preferred Sanders over Hillary in 2016. That's a starting point.

4. Yeah I'm not really into grouping people. There's some people on here that are just trolls, but then there are people like leviathon who aren't fans of Sanders but you can actually discuss things with. The more you generalize the less precise you are. I'd rather be accurate

[GindyPosts]

It was inevitable but we have our first coronavirus related fatality in the United States.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Some people love to watch a game where the refs are giving all the breaks to one team, because they love to complain about the refs. Sometimes, the refs are being totally fair to both sides, but these same people complain about the refs not being fair anyway.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Sure. But some people don't like to watch a game where the game starts each quarter by giving a few points to the other team to help the spread. In 2016 it was quite literally people watching Sanders do well in some places and then having all his voters being told "okay you did what you were supposed to do, here's your delegates, now watch us add these party elite superdelegates to the person you didn't vote for to even it out"

[Malvolio]

But to what end? I mean, what's my motive? (*cackles sinisterly from his Fortress of Evil*)


I mean I said it as a joke, but good to know. Thank-you for posting that, very informative.


[dead horse] You mean like Corbynistas complaining about the press hating Corbyn if the story did anything but praise on him? Literally Corbyn could have punched someone in the face, and if the press said "Corbyn punched someone in the face" his acolytes would be screaming "classic right wing propaganda BBC!" I seem to recall them posting images of political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg as "Secretary of Spin" in Johnson's cabinet the day he announced it. Good ol' Labour, where the BBC correspondent had to have bodyguards at the Labour conference but no Corbynistas would acknowledge that's not bizarre and worrying and ABSOLUTELY NOT HOW IT SHOULD BE!

Yeah. I meant it regarding certain Sanders supporters, but it probably applies to Corbyn, too.

[Superbat]

But to what end? I mean, what's my motive? (*cackles sinisterly from his Fortress of Evil*)

I'm not going to play that game.

You freaked out me after I answered your question about Pete because of what you thought were my "deceitful motives" when I didn't post anything that wasn't true.

Your motives don't matter to me. The truth does.

That's the difference between you and me.