All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[numberthirty]

THEY VOTE IN THE GENERAL TOO. How hard is that to understand?

They will then "Regularly" vote against Bernie. Or not for him. Leaving the same problem Clinton supporters had with Bernie supporters. Why do I feel like I have to get puppets out for the next time I try and explain why this "He's SOOO popular.....jsut not in a primary. Or in that state. Or against that person. Or against beloved, warm and fuzzy Hillary Clinton. Or some schmo from Indiana. Or...well...you get the point. But he'd totally dominate the general obviously!"

Just. C'mon.

Which takes place after a nomination process where they have regularly weeded out likely more popular options.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Your reasoning behind this is that the "most popular" beats the "less popular". You state Bernie was the "most popular" in 2016.....yet he didn't win against someone who (by definition of the word "most") was less popular.

One wonders how you lose by 4 million votes when you are the most popular guy around.

Simple tell the whole world your opponent is unbeatable before it starts because the superdelegates pledged themselves to them and decrease turnout

[numberthirty]

"Not complicated" is accepting that people just weren't into Sanders so they voted for Hillary instead.

It's also "not complicated" to extrapolate from that that his policies won't appeal to the general electorate as many will view them as too far "left".

Or...

She was "Who's Next?..."

Which she was. Never mind that Democrats regularly nominate the "Who's Next?..." option.

[aja_christopher]

Or...

She was "Who's Next?..."

Which she was. Never mind that Democrats regularly nominate the "Who's Next?..." option.

Nah -- Obama proved she could be beaten.

Sanders just wasn't that appealing -- especially to black voters -- and got stomped.

Anyway, I'm done wasting time on this -- stop making excuses for your candidate, and attacking others, as it isn't doing Sanders any favors.

[Theleviathan]

Which takes place after a nomination process where they have regularly weeded out likely more popular options.

And they will vote against the person they view as less sensible. And, yes, that means voting against Bernie. Or not showing up.

I'll say again, you don't get to crow about popularity and then dismiss the POPULAR VOTE. At that point, we have to discuss what "popularity" actually means and if it matters at all. "He seems like a swell guy" isn't much of a basis for winning any election.

Popularity only matters if it convinces people to come out and vote you over the other guy or gal. Primary, general, city council, treehouse club president...you name the election. If it can't do that, it ain't worth planting your flag on.

(And as aj aptly points out...when your popularity is really and truly genuine...it DOES lead to upsets. Like, unfortunately, Trump. Or Obama. Or Bill Clinton. Seems to me that whatever it is we mean by Bernie being popular, doesnt' actually amount to much so far)

[Steel Inquisitor]

Ron Paul was never that popular

It's eerie how Ron Paul campaign back then mirrors Sanders runs for president. He made record breaking fundraising, his funds came from individuals, he was the anti-estalishment candidate, he was a front runner briefly, he won polls on socials media like Facebook, You Tube videos about him exploded, had a strong grassroots, it was called a "Revolution," he was popular among the young.

[numberthirty]

Nah -- Obama proved she could be beaten.

Sanders just wasn't that appealing -- especially to black voters -- and got stomped.

Anyway, I'm done wasting time on this -- stop making excuses for your candidate, and attacking others, as it isn't doing Sanders any favors.

"Apple"/"Orange"

When she was going up against Sanders was she coming out of Congress?

If the answer there is "No...", it's not a particularly apt comparison.

What it actually was amounts to a "Who's Next?..." call not unlike George HW Bush or Al Gore winding up with the nomination.

Simple "Who's Next?..." call made by party voters.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

It's eerie how Ron Paul campaign back then mirrors Sanders runs for president. He made record breaking fundraising, his funds came from individuals, he was the anti-estalishment candidate, he was a front runner briefly, he won polls on socials media like Facebook, You Tube videos about him exploded, had a strong grassroots, it was called a "Revolution," he was popular among the young.

It's really not. 99% of Ron Paul's campaign was stoners liking that he was for legalization. At no point were his ideas ever commonly accepted in debate and was he outside the fringe. Ron Paul came in 10th in Iowa and his best showing was 2nd place.

Not even close really unless your only metric was that he was not in the centrist wing of his party. But libertarians aren't the GOP equivalent to Sanders' wing of the party

[AnakinFlair]

1. Not a he.

2. Who are these people that don't want to vote for the best candidate because of their online interactions with supporters of that candidate? I don't believe most people will vote against medicare for all, stopping climate change, helping the poor, protecting immigrants, trans people and POC because they thought a Sanders supporter was rude to them online.

I'll tell you what. I listened to Bernie's speech in Iowa after that cluster of a Caucus, and I actually liked what he said, his tone, everything. And maybe I could like him as a candidate- except every freakin' day I have to wade through all of the **** Bernie supporters post- here, on Twitter, on Facebook, everywhere- and it just makes me sick of him all over again. Plus, I've never considered him to be the 'Best' candidate, just 'A' candidate.

[4saken1]

Bernie winning against Trump is a theory. I could be wrong about it but what isn't a theory is a moderate lost to Trump. That's a fact.

I'll go with the progressive than trying again with a losing strategy.

Your logic supposes that Hillary losing to Trump was a foregone conclusion. It wasn't. She had a comfortable lead for most of the race. That closed considerably in the last couple of weeks. The fact that Bernie Bros continued to campaign against her until the very end helped close this gap. Not to mention the complete lack in cognition between A) 'I will never, ever vote for Hillary', and B) 'See, she lost because she had a horrible losing strategy' is so mindnumbingly dumbfuck that I can't even fathom it!

[numberthirty]

Your logic supposes that Hillary losing to Trump was a foregone conclusion. It wasn't. She had a comfortable lead for most of the race. That closed considerably in the last couple of weeks. The fact that Bernie Bros continued to campaign against her until the very end helped close this gap. Not to mention the complete lack in cognition between A) 'I will never, ever vote for Hillary', and B) 'See, she lost because she had a horrible losing strategy' is so mindnumbingly dumbfuck that I can't even fathom it!

There is no version of things where putting right around "No..." focus into states that you lost during the primary is party of a strategy that is not "Horrible Losing". There is no version of thing where shrugging off someone from the Obama administration when he points out that you haven't canvased Wisconsin is not part of a strategy that is "Horrible Losing"

While I guess I get where you are coming from, there were some errors there that no one was forcing. Things that could only have come out of a horrible losing strategy.

At best, it was rolling the dice on that dumb moves wouldn't wind up costing you.

[Gray Lensman]

It's really not. 99% of Ron Paul's campaign was stoners liking that he was for legalization. At no point were his ideas ever commonly accepted in debate and was he outside the fringe. Ron Paul came in 10th in Iowa and his best showing was 2nd place.

Not even close really unless your only metric was that he was not in the centrist wing of his party. But libertarians aren't the GOP equivalent to Sanders' wing of the party

Even Libertarians have somewhat soured on Ron Paul. Last year the official website for the Libertarian Party of Nevada ran "Ron Paul Week", and while they stated they were grateful for him pulling attention to them, every segment was something bad about him, with the first one being his support for racist policy.

[Tazirai]

As a person who has lived around the world, and experienced medicine from the UK, Japan, Germany, and Canada. I can say easily the US system SUUUUUCCCCKKKKSSS.
People trying to defend it are insane.
I think John Oliver has the best take on why our system sucks...
This is why I have an issue voting for people who want half measures. We're compromising ourselves to death, literally.

[Tazirai]

FOX HAS BEEN “MORE FAIR”: WHY BERNIE’S TEAM HAS HAD IT WITH MSNBC
The liberal network’s talk of “digital brown shirts” and Fidel Castro admiration has Sandersworld seeing red. (More like “MSDNC,” says Glenn Greenwald). The blowback is classic Sanders-campaign ref-working—and a sign of a deepening Democratic divide.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020...-it-with-msnbc



Please tell me the Sanders campaign isn't actually this dumb.

I don't know about dumb, that's your bias.
But have you seen how they treat Sanders and his supporters?
Please tell me you don't think they are being fair?

If you do I can show you literally dozens of videos of MSNBC lying and shitting on him for the tiniest reasons. CNN was bad, but they've gotten their act together somewhat.

Liberals LOVE MSNBC, Progressives can't fuckin stand it.

[Tazirai]

1. She did not lie. She mistook reports of sexual harassment for sexual assault. She corrected her statement to note that Bloomberg had not been accused of assault.

2. What's bad for survivors and victims is when someone who has accusations made against them starts suing people. Something you encouraged.

Hey just to give you a heads up, You can't reason with that person, which is why I try my best to ignore the trolling they do.