Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:05 PM
Socsback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Here's a clue to winning an election;

You have to appeal to more than your base. Hillary didn't, why? Because if the Republican candidate is saying out loud 'I'll stop factories being shut down and being sent to Mexico' That resonates more than anything Hillary could have countenance with. Nobody owes you a vote.

You realize that it's hard to find anybody outside of Bernie's base that supports him, right?
  #52  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:05 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socsback View Post
This is a fair challenge.
It is, isn't it? The challenge was to back your beliefs up with evidence. So why do you respond with this?
Quote:
I assume we can all agree that the Russians want Trump to win, right? They do that by......... helping him win. Don't you think the same theory would hold true for Bernie? If they're helping him win, it's likely because they want him to win...... just like they've done for Trump.
That's not evidence. That's leading questions and rank speculation, and does very little more than restate one of the competing theories I offered.
  #53  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:07 PM
Socsback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
It is, isn't it? The challenge was to back your beliefs up with evidence. So why do you respond with this?
That's not evidence. That's leading questions and rank speculation, and does very little more than restate one of the competing theories I offered.
Of course it's simply a theory. That's what these forums are for, right? I recognized your question as rhetorical, since neither you or I have "evidence" of anything (unless you are working for the U.S. Intelligence Agency, and just playing me here).
  #54  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:08 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socsback View Post
You realize that it's hard to find anybody outside of Bernie's base that supports him, right?
That's not true.

Among Biden supporters, 33% hold Sanders as their second choice. Among Warren supporters, that's 38%. Among Buttigieg and Bloomberg supporters, that's 20%. Nobody else ranks as highly when you measure "second choice" as Sanders does.

I can tell you've got some pretty strong feelings about Sanders. But it may be that they're based on inaccurate information. Are you open to the idea that things aren't what you think they are?
  #55  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:10 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,450
Bernie dominated among non-white Democrats today. He had more Hispanic/Latino supporters than all other candidates combined, and came in a relatively close 2nd to Biden among black Democrats. His support has been growing from contest to contest.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-22-2020 at 09:13 PM.
  #56  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:10 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socsback View Post
Of course it's simply a theory. That's what these forums are for, right? I recognized your question as rhetorical, since neither you or I have "evidence" of anything (unless you are working for the U.S. Intelligence Agency, and just playing me here).
Well, no: the question wasn't rhetorical. I'm a big proponent of admitting ignorance and living in uncertainty when I lack the facts to form an opinion. Folks here keep stating with great certainty why Russia is interfering on Sanders's behalf. I don't think that certainty is warranted, but I was giving folks a chance to prove me wrong.

If you're just shooting the shit and have nothing to back up your speculation, that's cool, but it's good to be clear that's what's going on.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 02-22-2020 at 09:12 PM.
  #57  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:12 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Bernie dominated among non-white Democrats today. He had the more Hispanic/Latino supporters than all other candidates combined, and came in a relatively close 2nd to Biden among black Democrats. His support has been growing from contest to contest.
It sounds like this would indicate that Bernie Sanders is reaching out well beyond his base.
  #58  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
It sounds like this would indicate that Bernie Sanders is reaching out well beyond his base.
Exactly. South Carolina will be another great test for this.
  #59  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:15 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Bernie dominated among non-white Democrats today. He had the more Hispanic/Latino supporters than all other candidates combined, and came in a relatively close 2nd to Biden among black Democrats. His support has been growing from contest to contest.
I'm still amazed at black support for Biden. He has been a disaster for them pretty much his whole career whereas Sanders has been advocating for them his whole life.

But they still like Biden so I am missing something. Just curious why that is.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-22-2020 at 09:18 PM.
  #60  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:18 PM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,261
Nice win but I still say the field is very weak. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
  #61  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:19 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
But they still like Biden so I am missing something. Just curious what that is.
I think it's the same reason Hillary had an advantage over Obama with black voters in '08 until he won Iowa -- they weren't convinced an unconventional candidate could win until he had some success with white voters. Bernie's support among black voters is growing, and maybe growing fast. South Carolina will be a great test.
  #62  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:21 PM
str8cashhomie is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
There are a few theories as to why Russians would help Sanders.

1) They think he's the weakest candidate and want Trump to win, so they're helping Sanders now to prep the field for Trump.
2) They think Sanders is a strong candidate and know that helping him will be discovered, weakening him.
3) They want to fuck shit up in our country, and know that helping him will decrease trust in politicians and the media, because some segment of Sanders supporters will refuse to believe that Russia's helping him.
4) They want to fuck shit up in our country, and think that helping to move people who want major change to US institutions into the halls of power will do that, since that worked so well with Trump; Sanders wants to change US institutions, so supporting him will further their aims.
5) They want to fuck shit up in our country, and so they're supporting candidates that a lot of people dislike, so that everyone keeps yelling at each other.

If you're gonna support one of these theories above another, or if you have a different theory, can you back it up with evidence?
I'm still probably voting for Sanders, but I really don't think it's really reasonable to take 2 seriously, or it should at least essentially be the last explanation after eliminating the others. You can really just take an Occam's Razor approach and say that Russia is helping Sanders because they want to help Sanders - this being the more straightforward explanation for why they are helping him than because they want to hurt him. Additionally, it's not really consistent with their usual MO to be helping him as a form of sabotage in this way. They (in a much more brazen way) have been helping Trump since he announced his candidacy for 2016 and possibly earlier, so it's hard to believe they think their help is good in some cases and bad on others- they would either think that all candidates they help get a benefit or that they're all negatively impacted.

They scariest reason they could possibly be pumping him up is that they have an October Surprise waiting and are confident they can sink him in the general, but we don't really have a way of knowing whether that is the case.

I think Russia probably generally looks at Sanders' candidacy as a win-win. Sanders's pacifism/noninterventionism is definitely a positive for Russia compared with the other Dem candidates, so they probably think that if Trump loses he's not a bad option. I happen to agree with his pacifist outlook for the most part and definitely prefer it to the "normal" view of US foreign policy and think that he's doing it for the right reasons whereas Trump's foreign policy agenda is simply driven by his own corruption, but there's no doubt that it benefits Russia. I also think that Sanders ability to pull independent voters who are "fed up with politics" and may otherwise stay home or vote for Trump, but the "socialism" label is a huge risk in the general and it's very possible it hurts more than the outsider cred helps. And I definitely think that win or lose, a Sanders candidacy will have long-term disruptive effects to the Democratic party. This is another area I happen to be happy about as I think he'll continue to do what he's already done as far as encouraging the party to accept more radical positions on healthcare, the environment etc., but the turmoil while we figure that out will definitely help Russia who can continue to profit while we struggle with our internal problems.
  #63  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:21 PM
Socsback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
That's not true.

Among Biden supporters, 33% hold Sanders as their second choice. Among Warren supporters, that's 38%. Among Buttigieg and Bloomberg supporters, that's 20%. Nobody else ranks as highly when you measure "second choice" as Sanders does.

I can tell you've got some pretty strong feelings about Sanders. But it may be that they're based on inaccurate information. Are you open to the idea that things aren't what you think they are?
The very poll that you linked here talks about name recognition. Did you look at that part? I think that plays a significant role here. He's the second choice for some folks because voters don't know the other candidates. I saw a YouGov poll the other day that showed only 35% of people saying that they would vote for a Democratic Socialist, only 23% saying that they favor eliminating private health insurance, but Bernie gets 44%-54% of the votes in the head-to-head matchups (in the same poll). People honestly have no idea what they're supporting right now. It's why we may very well end up with a contested convention for the first time since what....... the 1950's? It's a fool's errand trying to conclude anything from the polls that you're looking at and referencing. Post a poll on this forum. See what you come up with.

"Second choice" isn't the kind of support that I was talking about. I'm talking about independent voters (who the party is going to need to beat Trump). I'm talking about suburban women who voted for Trump, and aren't thrilled with what they've seen. You think ANY of them are going to vote to have their private insurance taken from them? I don't. It sounds like Nevada didn't. Democrats are going to need some fringe voters to win. Bernie, God bless him, isn't exactly a "fringe" guy.

Last edited by Socsback; 02-22-2020 at 09:22 PM.
  #64  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:24 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
That's some mind-bending rationalization you have going on there.
I see. Which part am I rationalizing? That Biden remains in second place, despite relentless attacks on him throughout the Democratic nomination process? Or that that there was a phony investigation done into him and his son, intended solely to damage his reputation?

I'll just leave this here. (The Guardian) It's an opinion piece, but I think it is fair. You really should know what's coming in the months ahead for your candidate, once he's in a general election, and not a primary nomination process.

ETA: You might want to keep in mind that I am not your problem. I will vote Blue no matter who is the nominee. It's going to be a whole different kettle of fish in the general. Those voters won't be so easy to persuade -- especially when the Republicans/Russians get done with Bernie.

Last edited by Aspenglow; 02-22-2020 at 09:26 PM.
  #65  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:31 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,450
No doubt Bernie will face all kinds of attacks during the general election. Many of them will likely be fabricated, or partially fabricated, based on old videos or audio.

I see no reason to believe that these are somehow guaranteed, or even more likely than not, to be more effective or more significant than the attacks other candidates would face. This won't be an easy election, and I think the best chance we have to win is with excitement and enthusiasm. That's the biggest reason I support Bernie right now, and the biggest reason I think he has the best chance to win against Trump.
  #66  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:32 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I see. Which part am I rationalizing? That Biden remains in second place, despite relentless attacks on him throughout the Democratic nomination process? Or that that there was a phony investigation done into him and his son, intended solely to damage his reputation?

I'll just leave this here. (The Guardian) It's an opinion piece, but I think it is fair. You really should know what's coming in the months ahead for your candidate, once he's in a general election, and not a primary nomination process.

ETA: You might want to keep in mind that I am not your problem. I will vote Blue no matter who is the nominee. It's going to be a whole different kettle of fish in the general. Those voters won't be so easy to persuade -- especially when the Republicans/Russians get done with Bernie.
I have provided numerous citations throughout this thread to support my points.

Provide some citations of your own, beyond an opinion article, and we can have a proper debate.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #67  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:37 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socsback View Post
The very poll that you linked here talks about name recognition. Did you look at that part? I think that plays a significant role here. He's the second choice for some folks because voters don't know the other candidates. I saw a YouGov poll the other day that showed only 35% of people saying that they would vote for a Democratic Socialist, only 23% saying that they favor eliminating private health insurance, but Bernie gets 44%-54% of the votes in the head-to-head matchups (in the same poll). People honestly have no idea what they're supporting right now. It's why we may very well end up with a contested convention for the first time since what....... the 1950's? It's a fool's errand trying to conclude anything from the polls that you're looking at and referencing. Post a poll on this forum. See what you come up with.
I'm not sure what your overall point is. Nobody outside his base likes him, but his base is huge because he's so well-known, and he has significantly lower "unfavorable" ratings than Biden, Bloomberg, and Warren? I guess I'll take that (although I'm pretty pissed at those negatives for Warren; I think a lot of them are because she's a woman who gets angry, and that's some bullshit right there).
Quote:
"Second choice" isn't the kind of support that I was talking about. I'm talking about independent voters (who the party is going to need to beat Trump). I'm talking about suburban women who voted for Trump, and aren't thrilled with what they've seen. You think ANY of them are going to vote to have their private insurance taken from them? I don't. It sounds like Nevada didn't. Democrats are going to need some fringe voters to win. Bernie, God bless him, isn't exactly a "fringe" guy.
You say that, but in 2016, we see that he pulled in a fair number of folks who otherwise voted Republican.

Again, I can tell you have strong feelings about Sanders. But these feeling don't seem well-grounded in facts.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 02-22-2020 at 09:38 PM.
  #68  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:42 PM
Socsback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I'm not sure what your overall point is. Nobody outside his base likes him, but his base is huge because he's so well-known, and he has significantly lower "unfavorable" ratings than Biden, Bloomberg, and Warren? I guess I'll take that (although I'm pretty pissed at those negatives for Warren; I think a lot of them are because she's a woman who gets angry, and that's some bullshit right there).

You say that, but in 2016, we see that he pulled in a fair number of folks who otherwise voted Republican.

Again, I can tell you have strong feelings about Sanders. But these feeling don't seem well-grounded in facts.
What do you mean he pulled in a fair amount of Republicans in 2016? He wasn't even the nominee in 2016.

My point is pretty simple. The farther left you go, the farther away you are from everybody that's not "left".


Granted, much of my concern is grounded in speculation. Much of yours is grounded in polls. No polls in recent history have been remotely indicative of reality.

Last edited by Socsback; 02-22-2020 at 09:45 PM.
  #69  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:44 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socsback View Post
My point is pretty simple. The farther left you go, the farther away you are from everybody that's not "left".
That's the conventional wisdom. I don't think we can rely on the conventional wisdom any more, but we'll see. Right now, Bernie is more likely than not to be the nominee.
  #70  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:53 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
...(although I'm pretty pissed at those negatives for Warren; I think a lot of them are because she's a woman who gets angry, and that's some bullshit right there)...
I really liked Warren. I liked her a lot. But then her campaign went in on that weird attack on Sanders that he told her a woman cannot win...never-mind that he asked her to run in 2016, campaigned diligently for Clinton and has spent his whole career advocating for women. And, Warren never simply told us that is what he said...just left a big question mark out there. Then, after she told us she would not take SuperPac money, she has started to take SuperPac money.

Tl;Dr Criticizing Warren is not necessarily misogyny. She has legit issues any candidate should be called to account for. I like Warren. I would vote for her, but she is starting to worry me.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #71  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:58 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socsback View Post
What do you mean he pulled in a fair amount of Republicans in 2016? He wasn't even the nominee in 2016.
As I cited before, a significant number of the folks who voted for him in the primary in 2016 ended up voting for the Republican in the general. AFAICT, this is because they were less interested in party labels than they were in hearing someone who spoke passionately about economic fairness issues. In the general, the only person who centered economic fairness (and populism) in their campaign was a massive fraud, unfortunately; but he got a lot of these votes that could've gone to Sanders.
Quote:
Granted, much of my concern is grounded in speculation. Much of yours is grounded in polls. No polls in recent history have been remotely indicative of reality.
In your defense, some speculation is indicative of reality, in much the same way that if a thousand people guess what's in your pockets, one of them is likely to be right. I'm not sure that recommends speculation.

However, you're wrong about polls.
  #72  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:00 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I really liked Warren. I liked her a lot. But then her campaign went in on that weird attack on Sanders that he told her a woman cannot win...never-mind that he asked her to run in 2016, campaigned diligently for Clinton and has spent his whole career advocating for women. And, Warren never simply told us that is what he said...just left a big question mark out there. Then, after she told us she would not take SuperPac money, she has started to take SuperPac money.
The first thing is one of my biggest criticisms of Warren. That came across as a low blow. But while I don't like that kind of campaigning from anyone, I don't find it disqualifying.

The second one? That one doesn't bother me at all. She was crippling herself compared to other candidates with her refusal to take support that everyone else was taking. She can think that nobody should take it, but still take it as long as it's the rules.
  #73  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:02 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
The second one? That one doesn't bother me at all. She was crippling herself compared to other candidates with her refusal to take support that everyone else was taking. She can think that nobody should take it, but still take it as long as it's the rules.
Sanders doesn't take it.

And as for her low blow...I could get past it...maybe...but she keeps compromising (see SuperPac) which has me worried. She is letting herself be bought and I don't want a candidate beholden to these moneyed interests. I am shocked she did it.

And that weird attack on Sanders that she never resolved...just sorta floated an accusation out...low low low. I expected better from her.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-22-2020 at 10:06 PM.
  #74  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:03 PM
nelliebly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,836
I thought I was fine with Sanders, but when the Iowa results came in, I found myself whispering, "Please not Bernie. Please not Bernie." Today I saw the results and thought, "Crap, it's Bernie." It's not that I don't like all his ideas; it's that I still think he's unelectable. If voters in Iowa and Nevada both think he's the best guy, what does that say about the rest of the field? It's a tepid slate, at best.

If moderates and those strange, inscrutable Undecided voters have either Trump or Bernie to choose from, which will they choose? It seems to me people who can't make up their frickin' minds are more likely to (foolishly) vote for the devil they know.
  #75  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:04 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Why else would the Russians help Bernie?
Because Sanders as president would be pretty good for them.

Any of the more centrist Dem candidates remaining can reasonably be expected to generally support the dominant foreign policy aims of the US post WWII. Russia explicitly calls for the end of that rules based international order. Both Sanders and Trump are trade protectionists. Both are generally opposed to some of the requirements of maintaining that order put on the US as the largest economy and as a global superpower. Both use divisive rhetoric internally that drives international events out of the public consciousness. Setting up a Trump vs Sanders general election would be a no lose situation for Russia.

A lot of people read too much into who benefited domestically from Russia to assume that means something bigger. Putin supported Putin in 2016. When helping Sanders in the primary or Trump throughout it was all aimed to benefit Russia. When they then helped organize a protest against Trump days after the election it was not a big shift in policy. They were still supporting the only interests they truly care about, Russia's.

Putin supports Putin. He is not taking any other side but his own. Trump and Sanders are just tools.
  #76  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:08 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Biden and Warren have huge name recognition. Bloomberg is no slouch there either.

And there is no "vetted" for Sanders. He has been in politics for 40 years (give or take). There is no secret stash of Sanders dirt that will appear. In 40 years of politics the dirt has all been dug up and thrown at him. Unless you think his opponents till now were just too nice to make it public.
The "dirt" has been known for years but it hasn't been weaponized, so to speak. Once a general campaign starts with Bernie as the nominee, his alleged "honeymoon" in the Soviet Union, support of Ortega, support of Castro, "taking away your private health insurance", and probably a dozen other things I haven't thought of will become such huge deals that they will make Kerry's swiftboating seem like small potatoes. Republicans will weaponize Bernie's background to scare the living beejesus out of mainstream America.
  #77  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:12 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,978
Hey, Socsback! Long time no see, huh?
  #78  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:15 PM
Socsback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
As I cited before, a significant number of the folks who voted for him in the primary in 2016 ended up voting for the Republican in the general. AFAICT, this is because they were less interested in party labels than they were in hearing someone who spoke passionately about economic fairness issues. In the general, the only person who centered economic fairness (and populism) in their campaign was a massive fraud, unfortunately; but he got a lot of these votes that could've gone to Sanders.

In your defense, some speculation is indicative of reality, in much the same way that if a thousand people guess what's in your pockets, one of them is likely to be right. I'm not sure that recommends speculation.

However, you're wrong about polls.

It's quite possible that many of those "Republicans" voted for Bernie in the primaries because they thought he'd be easy pickings for the Republican candidate in the General Election, maybe? Or maybe you have evidence to the contrary?

As far as I can tell (without reading it in detail), that link seems to imply that polls are reliable withing 15% or so? If that's the case, should we re-examine some of the data that you've posted in this thread?

Quote:
This means that you shouldn’t be surprised when a candidate who had been trailing in the polls by only a few points wins a race. And in some cases, even a poll showing a 10- or 12- or 14- point lead isn’t enough to make a candidate’s lead “safe.”

Last edited by Socsback; 02-22-2020 at 10:15 PM.
  #79  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:16 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The "dirt" has been known for years but it hasn't been weaponized, so to speak. Once a general campaign starts with Bernie as the nominee, his alleged "honeymoon" in the Soviet Union, support of Ortega, support of Castro, "taking away your private health insurance", and probably a dozen other things I haven't thought of will become such huge deals that they will make Kerry's swiftboating seem like small potatoes. Republicans will weaponize Bernie's background to scare the living beejesus out of mainstream America.
Wow...you just figured that out. No one in 40 years has thought to go there but now that you have Sanders is surely done.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #80  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:26 PM
Dallas Jones is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Orygun forest
Posts: 5,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
Bernie is the anti trump. They want a vicious campaign of polarity, and then have dt win and go on to oligarchy. From over there all they know is that bernie is their man for this project.
Bernie and Trump are essentially campaigning against the same thing, the entrenched Washington establishment, and the message resonates with the voters.

If you tend right then Trump is your guy, left it is Bernie. And the established government, some times called the Deep State, is just shitting their pants.

Because it is going to be one or the other who is the next president, and neither will follow the expectations of the bureaucrats .

This is very amusing to watch.
  #81  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:29 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Hey, Socsback! Long time no see, huh?
Oh shit. I just read that username out loud. Goddammit.
  #82  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:30 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/entrance-polls-2020-nevada-caucuses/?itid=hp_hp-top-table-main_entrancepolls-330pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans]Here's some interesting data about Nevada caucus demographics. What surprises me most is how broad Sanders's support is.
  #83  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:56 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Jones View Post
Bernie and Trump are essentially campaigning against the same thing, the entrenched Washington establishment, and the message resonates with the voters.
I agree.

I tried to make the case here before but the Clintonistas, which are rampant on this board, would have none of it.

Trump was a message that the populace hates Washington so they threw a grenade in there in the guise of Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders is the left's version of that grenade.

What the political parties should take-away from this is that the populace fucking hates all of them with a passion. They are less popular than hemorrhoids, Nickleback and herpes. But their jobs depend on not fixing that so we are left with this mess.

So, get the person in there who will try to change things (Sanders) and not the person who will, at best, keep doing the same shit that has not worked for 50 years.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-22-2020 at 10:56 PM.
  #84  
Old 02-22-2020, 11:22 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Jones View Post
Bernie and Trump are essentially campaigning against the same thing, the entrenched Washington establishment, and the message resonates with the voters.

If you tend right then Trump is your guy, left it is Bernie. And the established government, some times called the Deep State, is just shitting their pants.

Because it is going to be one or the other who is the next president, and neither will follow the expectations of the bureaucrats .

This is very amusing to watch.
To be fair Bernie is a serious candidate with a history of conscientious public service, who has an agenda that includes all americans, along a recognized shared reality and hope for justice.

I think it needs to be stated explicitly whenever he is placed alongside of trunp in a sentence.
  #85  
Old 02-22-2020, 11:34 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,972
What's likely to happen from this point on, IMHO, isn't that any of the non-Bernie rivals will gain ground on Bernie, but rather that the DNC/MSM/everyone who isn't a Trump voter will just make their peace more and more with the idea of a Bernie presidency.
  #86  
Old 02-22-2020, 11:35 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Looking at he results as they are now (9:30p in Las Vegas):

- Sanders: 46.8%
- Biden: 20.7%
- Buttigieg: 15.1%
- Warren: 9.5%
- Klobuchar: 4%
- Steyer: 3.7%

The rest are not worth mentioning (well below 1%).

To me the news here is Buttigieg doing as well as he did. If they cleared the field of Biden and the rest (not including Sanders) I think Buttigieg might have a shot.

Of course, the complaint here will be Biden is doing better than Buttigieg but I doubt he is the better candidate. He is riding on Obama's coattails. Won't get him all the way.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #87  
Old 02-23-2020, 12:03 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Wow...you just figured that out. No one in 40 years has thought to go there
for 40 years nobody "went there" against Sanders because he was irrelevant, was unknown, and didn't draw any attention.
Now they are paying attention, and here's some of what they will learn:
From the link in post 64 to the editorial in the Guardian (a leftish newspaper in Britain):
Quote:
the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to Texas where it would be dumped in a poor Hispanic community, that he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, and that he appeared at a 1985 rally in Nicaragua at which Sandinista supporters chanted “Here, there / the Yankee will die.” And then there’s Sanders’ fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men…
After the Trump campaign and Fox News got through weaponizing this, the usual conservative charges against Sanders would seem almost benign
These are the kind of stories that hit people in the gut.

Biden may be boring, but that's better than being punched in the gut.

Last edited by chappachula; 02-23-2020 at 12:04 AM.
  #88  
Old 02-23-2020, 12:09 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
for 40 years nobody "went there" against Sanders because he was irrelevant, was unknown, and didn't draw any attention.
I didn't realize he was "irrelevant" and "unknown" in 2016.
  #89  
Old 02-23-2020, 12:17 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
for 40 years nobody "went there" against Sanders because he was irrelevant, was unknown, and didn't draw any attention.
Do you really think when you run for the senate you are an "unknown" and your opponents are all, "Meh...it's just Vermont, who gives a fuck?"

Not to mention he ran for the nomination for president in 2016. I am sure Hillary Clinton was nice about oppo research on him.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-23-2020 at 12:19 AM.
  #90  
Old 02-23-2020, 12:31 AM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,978
Bernie Bros may be real. But you know who's definitely real? The working class Latina moms who put Bernie over the top in Nevada.

Last edited by Larry Borgia; 02-23-2020 at 12:32 AM.
  #91  
Old 02-23-2020, 12:36 AM
wevets is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: hobgoblin of geographers
Posts: 4,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
But then her campaign went in on that weird attack on Sanders that he told her a woman cannot win...never-mind that he asked her to run in 2016,

Was this an attack by the campaign or was it some journalists trying to drum up drama before the debate? There's some reporting indicating that the comment was related to journalists in off-the-record meetings in 2018:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Grim, writing for The Intercept
NOT LONG AFTER meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run, Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists, according to sources with knowledge of it. At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didnít believe a woman could beat Donald Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said ó with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldnít beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said that Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work.
(All-caps in original) https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/...ury-secretary/
  #92  
Old 02-23-2020, 12:43 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by wevets View Post
Was this an attack by the campaign or was it some journalists trying to drum up drama before the debate? There's some reporting indicating that the comment was related to journalists in off-the-record meetings in 2018:
I do not know.

I do know the question was asked of Sanders in a nationally televised debate, Sanders denied it and then Warren was asked the question as if Sanders had not just denied it 10 seconds before.

Warren went with it but she never said if it was true or not.

To me this is straight forward. Did Sanders say "X" or not? If he did...fine, go from there. If not put an end to it. But Warren chose this weird middle road.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #93  
Old 02-23-2020, 06:03 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,450
I imagine that Warren and Sanders remember that conversation slightly differently, because they're both humans. I support Sanders, but I like Warren, and their differing memories about that conversation doesn't bother me one bit.
  #94  
Old 02-23-2020, 06:16 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I didn't realize he was "irrelevant" and "unknown" in 2016.
I'd bet that going into that cycle (IOW, on 1/1/2015), 3/4 of the American people had no idea who the hell he was.
  #95  
Old 02-23-2020, 06:34 AM
chappachula is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
going into that cycle , 3/4 of the American people had no idea who the hell he was.
That was my point, and the reason that I posted the quote from the Guardian newspaper above. We are going to see many more articles and videos on the topics in that editorial.

Before 2016, Sanders was totally unknown on the national scene.
Then during the 2016 campaign,he became know for his ideas, not his personal record.

That was because everybody knew that Hilary was the anointed queen of the party, and Sanders had no chance of becoming the leader. So people listened to and debated his policies, not his leadership skills. That was okay for 2016.
But now he's running to become the leader, the commander in chief and the face of the country. For that role, it is now legitimate to discuss things which were conveniently ignored in 2016---his personal background, his history and all his dirty laundry.

And he has a lot of dirty laundry.
The republicans and Fox news will show it all.

Last edited by chappachula; 02-23-2020 at 06:37 AM.
  #96  
Old 02-23-2020, 06:38 AM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by chappachula View Post
But now he's running to become the leader, the commander in chief and the face of the country. For that role, it is now legitimate to discuss things which were conveniently ignored in 2016---his personal background, his history and all his dirty laundry.

And he has a lot of dirty laundry.
The republicans and Fox news will show it all.
Interesting idea.

BTW, did you know that Donald Trump was sued by the federal government in 1973 for illegally discriminating against black tenants in the apartments he managed?
  #97  
Old 02-23-2020, 07:09 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Wow...you just figured that out. No one in 40 years has thought to go there but now that you have Sanders is surely done.
I'm responding to many of the implied or explicit statements that Bernie is no more vulnerable to Republican attacks than any other Democratic nominee. I believe he absolutely is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Trump was a message that the populace hates Washington so they threw a grenade in there in the guise of Donald Trump. Bernie Sanders is the left's version of that grenade.
This is true. But Bernie is the left's version of a disruptive grenade in a country that is predominantly right-wing by global standards and by Bernie's standards, in a country in which the performance of the stock market and the robustness of the job market are valued above all things, both of which are currently doing well under Republican policies. And in America, uniquely in the industrialized world, the job market is inextricably interlinked with access to health care, which Bernie has promised to totally reform but that's going to be a long, tough lift.

If I sound like I'm channeling Saint Reagan, I'm only reflecting what I see and hear and not what I hope for. No one would celebrate more than me if Bernie won the presidency and had a Democratic Congress to support him.
  #98  
Old 02-23-2020, 07:13 AM
orcenio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NCR
Posts: 2,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
There is no doubt Bernie kicked ass today. It is so very Bernie Bro to be a sore winner when he wins and cry rigged when he loses.
Should they not celebrate? Perhaps a solemn wake is more appropriate?
  #99  
Old 02-23-2020, 08:10 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,295
I would suggest people who have money and enough free time get up to speed read this book, The Populist's Guide to 2020: A New Right and New Left are Rising
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #100  
Old 02-23-2020, 10:47 AM
Monocracy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 605
So, before the Nevada caucus, I heard that over 70,000 Democrats had voted early. Looking at the popular vote totals now, there are about 55,000 votes with 60% of precincts reporting. Doing the math, that would mean the total popular vote will be about 92,000. Does that mean only 20,000 people voted during the actual caucuses?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017