Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 02-08-2020, 12:42 AM
crowmanyclouds's Avatar
crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,848
Trump will never round up and shoot his 'enemies' . . . because Trump's enemies are too busy forming circular firing squads.

FOR MORE YEARS!

CMC fnord!
__________________
It has come to my attention that people are stupid.
We, the smart ones, should be coming up with plans for how to remedy this, but we're all too busy watching Battlestar Galactica. wierdaaron
  #252  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:52 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,117
Jimmy Chitwood, good points. Sanders was indeed more popular than Hillary in places like Kansas and Wisconsin. Of course we’ll never know if he would have beaten Trump in her place, but it’s not as far-fetched as most seem to think.

Things are a bit different in 2020. There isn’t a single, obvious rival to Sanders this time, and the one who comes closest to this role, Biden, has (many have long assumed, perhaps wrongly) special appeal to swing voters in places like Wisconsin.

I guess I should talk to a few Trump-leaning-but-not-full-Trumpian neighbors about what they think of Sanders and his ideas.

I say “Sanders AND his ideas,” because it’s CRITICAL to maintain this distinction. If Sanders doesn’t get the nomination, the nominee must convincingly show that he/she is fully committed to pushing for at least a couple of Sanders’ best ideas — and Sanders has to show he’s fully on board with this. Not a tepid endorsement — a full collaboration, before and after (we hope) the election. It’s a good thing for everyone (even if the ideas are diminished by congressional compromise, or worse)....but it’s equally important that, STARTING NOW, Sanders’ supporters see how they can and must back away from the cult of personality — to stop lionizing Sanders the man, and get back to emphasizing his IDEAS.
  #253  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:43 AM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,608
I agree, especially considering that he's gonna be 80 and I think has said he wouldn't stand for reelection. Although I don't think Sanders himself is particularly dynamic or interesting so I don't know how much he's really being lionized qua Bernie Sanders; I think he's just the only proxy for hard leftist American labor politics that has gained any currency recently. I have supported his candidacy a bunch, but I don't know that I've ever felt moved by him, personally. I think that's another convenient myth -- that it can't be that Sanders voters don't flow neatly to a different Democratic candidate because that's genuinely their preference based on rational (or rational as any other voter) preference, and that there is no substitute for him on policy grounds, so it must be that it's just a personality cult. I think that's kinda absurd on its face. What even is Sanders' personality? Cranky Jewish grandpa?

From my perspective, it really is just as simple as Sanders having politics that cut across the axes that American politics are aligned on. There are a lot of positions that are neither Democratic nor Republican positions, or where the average Democrat and the average Republican are so closely aligned relative to a genuinely radical position that it is reasonable to consider it a distinction without a difference. It's just that an American liberal and an American conservative identify so closely to the positions along those axes that (at least it seems to me) some people forget there could even be another political axis. Or they identify so closely with, for example, the c. 2016 Democratic foreign policy as the good version of foreign policy (because there is a relatively much worse one) that they feel immune to the criticism that their own position on that spectrum is not a "far left" one, and that many people would like a far left one.

Long story short, I think if you talk to somebody about the rights of working people, about health care and landlords and corporations and tax havens, and then separately, maybe, about drone strikes and detention facilities and militarized policing, you can put very demographically different people into that conversation and it's the same conversation. A rural Pennsylvanian truck driver, an immigrant laborer in the southwest, and an anarchist teenager in New York feel super differently about a lot of things, I'm sure, and they'd all tune out about different ideas, but I bet you could have the same conversation with them about what they think about how they're treated by the people who own their employers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Septimus
Since my name was mentioned, I get 45 seconds to respond.

I've always said I admired Bernie Sanders. Upthread it was I not one of the "Bernie Bros" who pointed out that Bernie was a real activist as a student, chaining himself to Black women. (@ Margin do you really think that's a lie?)

I certainly consider Bernie an "Honorary Democrat" far more of a Democrat than Scum like Joe Lieberman ever was. (Or than Bloomberg really, though I also admire Bloomberg.) I do get angry at Bernie Bros with their holier-than-thou "My way or the Highway" attitude.
I thought your exchange with margin was really interesting and telling in a couple different ways. I understand the electability concern, even though my position, like I said, is that in the general election Sanders is the only one with even a ghost of a chance. What I don't understand is this notion that a moderate is better at enacting a progressive agenda than someone more progressive, when the progressive ideas in question have popular support. It is counter-intuitive on the face of it, and I can't think of any historical examples to bear it out. It just feels to me like a very comfortable and convenient thing to believe that is just demonstrably flawed.

But I really think margin's response is a great example of that bubble I was talking about. You provided evidence of the extremely well-documented and uncontroversial fact that Sanders has really, actually, swear to god, been a civil rights advocate for a long time (and in fact connects the civil rights movement to something much broader than just a decade a long time ago about a few specific issues, which includes all the issues he's still talking about today). margin said ehh, no thanks, doesn't seem important. It seems clear margin just knows Sanders is a fringe lunatic, so even if their specific dismissal of him wasn't technically accurate, we can just substitute a different one.

It is fair for Democrats to say that they stand for certain things, and if Sanders' politics don't align, then he doesn't get to claim the mantle of "The Democrat." It's fair to say that Sanders' lack of flexibility and the fact that (like Klobuchar says) other Democrats aren't following his lead could be signs of difficulty getting legislation accomplished. And it's for sure fair to say that Sanders' obnoxious supporters are obnoxious and off-putting. They are.

But, I think, it's a lot less fair to dismiss Sanders as a candidate because he's supported by people who aren't Democrats, make clear that his politics are unwelcome, and then decry the "Bernie Bro" who doesn't subscribe to voting blue, no matter who. It seems to me like a lot of Democrats want that person to understand that he or she is not welcome in the party, but want to retain the right to tell that person that they're morally wrong to have their own priorities when it comes to deciding how much better Biden would be than Trump, and how much they care about that. After all, if we were all purely rational actors, and we all knew that more Sanders supporters would defect than other Democrats, because all other Democrats are "Blue no matter who," then we would all support Sanders. That is essentially solved, from a game theory perspective. But many, many Democrats do not subscribe to this position, and find it utterly repugnant. So, it turns out, we've all got some other priorities rattling around up there.
  #254  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:59 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
So I've been mulling something over about some posters in this thread, the frothingly anti-Bernsters and similar folks on the twitters and such - the people who rant and rave that Sanders "isn't even a Democrat", "is trying to hijack the party", that his ideas don't represent the Dems or make them look bad and so on, that Bernie cost them the last election (which... they were owed, I guess ? Entitled to win ? WTF ?). Also been mulling how the DNC reflexively turns its own rules into a game of Mornington Crescent whenever it seems likely that he'll win and so on. And the obvious question that springs to mind is : if you hate the lad so much, and you simply can't countenance the very thought of him winning... why d'you let him play in the first place ? If, as you guys are so fond of reminding everyone, he's not even a registered Democrat, why let him run under y'alls banner ?

And the only answer I can come up with is : because you want, nay, need his voters, period. Not him, not their ideas, not their wants, just their votes, the energy he brings. You want those guys to vote for your guy(s), while you have no intention of addressing their problems or countenancing their ideas or even understanding where they even come from (hence the whole "it's a cult of personality" accusation, which... no, it's not ? And that's just you pre-emptively refusing to listen to anything they have to say, probably tinged with class spite as well ?) ; you just know that the Democratic party couldn't dream of beating the Republicans if leftists actually split off and ran independently. You want them in the tent, just not, you know, in the tent.
You want election without representation, as it were.

And in this light, not only does it make sense that leftist voters would resent y'alls fuckery because it's basically a con-job ; but it's a bit disgraceful to go around calling them a "cult of personality" or bratty children wot should shut up and do what they're told, or just generally be cunty at them just because they can see through such cynical chess calculations and refuse to play ball with a marked deck.
Drole. Except not a single non-Bernieber has declared that they would stay home, or vote for Trump, if Bernie got the nomination. Can the same be fairly said of the Bernie Bros?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #255  
Old 02-08-2020, 11:39 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
But, I think, it's a lot less fair to dismiss Sanders as a candidate because he's supported by people who aren't Democrats, make clear that his politics are unwelcome, and then decry the "Bernie Bro" who doesn't subscribe to voting blue, no matter who. It seems to me like a lot of Democrats want that person to understand that he or she is not welcome in the party, but want to retain the right to tell that person that they're morally wrong to have their own priorities when it comes to deciding how much better Biden would be than Trump, and how much they care about that. After all, if we were all purely rational actors, and we all knew that more Sanders supporters would defect than other Democrats, because all other Democrats are "Blue no matter who," then we would all support Sanders. That is essentially solved, from a game theory perspective. But many, many Democrats do not subscribe to this position, and find it utterly repugnant. So, it turns out, we've all got some other priorities rattling around up there.
This paragraph seems to suggest that democrats and liberals who are not explicit/avid Bernie supporters, should acquiesce to the Bernie or Bust campaign, but that Bernie Bros are justified in their reluctance to be "Blue no matter who". Seems to me like an extortion sitch.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.

Last edited by QuickSilver; 02-08-2020 at 11:40 AM.
  #256  
Old 02-08-2020, 11:42 AM
Mind's Eye, Watering is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Seems to me like a hostage, gun to your head situation.
The gun to the head is another term for The Orange Anus (R - Impeached).
That's the bottom line.
  #257  
Old 02-08-2020, 11:48 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mind's Eye, Watering View Post
The gun to the head is another term for The Orange Anus (R - Impeached).
That's the bottom line.
You would think that's all the motivation non-deplorables would ever need. Yet, here we are. Another liberal purity litmus test.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #258  
Old 02-08-2020, 12:16 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
This paragraph seems to suggest that democrats and liberals who are not explicit/avid Bernie supporters, should acquiesce to the Bernie or Bust campaign, but that Bernie Bros are justified in their reluctance to be "Blue no matter who". Seems to me like an extortion sitch.
Of course it does, because you chose to interpret it the way that fit with your expectations. It certainly isn't what I said.
  #259  
Old 02-08-2020, 12:19 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: 42,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
This paragraph seems to suggest that democrats and liberals who are not explicit/avid Bernie supporters, should acquiesce to the Bernie or Bust campaign, but that Bernie Bros are justified in their reluctance to be "Blue no matter who". Seems to me like an extortion sitch.
If I understand him, he's saying exactly the opposite. Establishment Dems (and I'm not crazy about that term, but I'm not sure of a less loaded one) DON'T adopt that position, because they're not approaching things from a pure game perspective. That's okay, but it means establishment Dems need to be careful about scolding Sanders supporters for not approaching things from a pure game perspective.

I'm not sure I agree with the point as I understand it. but only because I think that we should approach it from a game perspective to the extent that we can. There's a tremendous unanswered question of whether Sanders can defeat Trump, and there are pretty decent arguments on both sides of that question. I think we need to be working toward answering that question.

Obviously I'm biased; I hope the answer is that Sanders is the most electable. But I'm gonna try to be open to evidence otherwise. I hope folks who loathe Sanders with the fire of a million suns will approach the question likewise.
  #260  
Old 02-08-2020, 12:29 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
Of course it does, because you chose to interpret it the way that fit with your expectations. It certainly isn't what I said.
Okay. Apologies for misunderstanding. Is LHOD's post the correct interpretation?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #261  
Old 02-08-2020, 01:30 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,608
Yep, although I meant it slightly more narrowly than that interpretation -- I don't disagree with him that we all should include the game theory implications in our calculus. My point was simply that it's not a valid criticism of Sanders supporters that their calculus includes anything other than beating Trump, because as of February 8, 2020, all of our calculations include other factors. That's why there is still more than one candidate. "Blue no matter who" is not anyone's entire ideology, so why would it be Sanders' supporters'?

The tricky part when it comes to Democrats and a lot of Sanders supporters is what that other stuff is. For a lot of Sanders supporters, part of their calculus is that they just aren't Democrats. When I said "mainstream Democrat," I might as well have said real Democrats, except that would just be loaded in the opposite direction. People whose Democratness predates Sanders and Trump running for president, let's call them. For people who aren't that, who have no predisposition toward voting for a Democrat, and might even have a predisposition not to (there are, or were, Republicans who prefer Sanders to Trump, after all), the expectation that they would agree that it doesn't matter at the end of the day who gets the nomination doesn't make as much sense as expecting, say, Warren's supporters to grit their teeth and vote Biden. When they take that "holier-than-thou, my way or the highway" approach that septimus referred to, in my opinion, a lot of what's happening there is that people who really are not center-inclined liberals are just adhering to what their ideology really, rationally dictates. It really is true that there are lots of people for whom Sanders as president is a good outcome, but Biden as president isn't. And it leads to a lot of unnecessary friendly fire, I think, when those people are talked about like they are just very liberal people who are being petulant. It's only their way or the highway in the context of a nomination where nothing else that is remotely like their way is available, not in degree but actually qualitatively. The mythical swing vote can look just like that.

That's a different question from whether or not, as a question of moral necessity, they all ought to show up anywhere that will have them and press the button that makes Donald Trump not be president. Certainly my ideology says you gotta do that when you have the chance.

Last edited by Jimmy Chitwood; 02-08-2020 at 01:32 PM.
  #262  
Old 02-08-2020, 02:05 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,877
Let us consider three classes of American voter:
A - Those who will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who he is.
B - Those who will always vote for Trump.
C - Those who will vote for Sanders if he's the nominee but for Trump or a 3rd-party candidate if Biden is the nominee.

Obviously voters in {B} don't have the brains of a cockroach and it's a waste to even imagine their so-called "thinking.

But the {C} group is, in many ways, more disgusting than {B}! The voters in {C} have the sense and humanitarian values to prefer Sanders over Trump, yet somehow don't understand that any Democrat is a million times better than Trump. What's with these people? I can only imagine that they're good-spirited people (unlike most other Trump supporters) but have the IQ of an imbecile. Or have a totally twisted understanding of economics, society, and American politics picked up from Yahoo blogs or such, rather than texts actually written by scholarly thinkers.

I hope Dopers are not in the {C} group. If one of you is, I suggest you stop ranting at SDMB and start a thread asking for reading recommendations. Study some intelligent texts and opinions instead of whatever it is you're doing.

Some of the {C} group seem to be extorting Democratic voters: "We refuse to vote for Biden so Trump will be re-elected unless you give in and make Sanders the nominee." This extortion absolutely infuriates me. I received a Warning in Elections when I wrote "F*ck off" to such an opinion from a non-Doper quoted from another website. Here in the Pit, let me write "F**k off" to any Doper that presents that view.

I'm almost leaning toward embracing Sanders at this point, but if it's really true that the Bernie Brats are indulging in such despicable extortion, I'm almost ready to say "F**k the whole USA. Let Trumpism rule for a century. Let's hope the cockroaches do a better job when they rule the planet 50 million years from now."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
... What I don't understand is this notion that a moderate is better at enacting a progressive agenda than someone more progressive, when the progressive ideas in question have popular support. It is counter-intuitive on the face of it, and I can't think of any historical examples to bear it out....
I've explained this in two previous posts. The President must bring a majority of Congress along. "Majority" means moderates must go along.

I've presented historical examples. It was the staunch anti-communists Nixon and Reagan who achieved detentes. It was LBJ, sometimes considered racist, who achieved Civil Rights. It will be a President Biden or Klobuchar who moves us toward single-payer healthcare, not the revolutionary whom most intelligent adult Democrats consider too leftist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
But, I think, it's a lot less fair to ... decry the "Bernie Bro" who doesn't subscribe to voting blue, no matter who. [sgs7 emphasis] It seems to me like a lot of Democrats want that person to understand that he or she is not welcome in the party, but want to retain the right to tell that person that they're morally wrong to have their own priorities when it comes to deciding how much better Biden would be than Trump, and how much they care about that. After all, if we were all purely rational actors, and we all knew that more Sanders supporters would defect than other Democrats, because all other Democrats are "Blue no matter who," then we would all support Sanders. That is essentially solved, from a game theory perspective. But many, many Democrats do not subscribe to this position, and find it utterly repugnant. So, it turns out, we've all got some other priorities rattling around up there.
I DO decry the "Bernie Bro" who doesn't subscribe to voting blue, no matter who. I can't tell from the rest of the quote whether you support the sort of implicit "extortion" I denounced above.

Last edited by septimus; 02-08-2020 at 02:09 PM.
  #263  
Old 02-08-2020, 02:09 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
I posted this elsewhere and it seems relevant in this thread...



Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
I went from an unabashed Bernie Sanders supporter to someone who rolls his eyes at him now. I had followed Bernie for years before 2016 and was glad that someone was there to help move Hillary further left. I didn't think he had a real chance and the fact is that he never really did.



The exact moment Bernie was done was March 15th. He had a huge surprise win in Michigan the previous week and the idea was he could follow it up with a big week in other Midwestern states and show some staying power. Instead he got swept. This made it obvious that Michigan was a glorious fluke and that he would never be able to come back. I knew this because of math & demographics.



But then Bernie lost his mind.



I don't share the school of thought of some that it was calculated. I don't waste my time worrying if he is a Russian plant, where are his taxes, all that stuff. I don't need to - I just think he came closer than anyone thought possible (including him) and as a result he failed to lead when he really had to. I actually think Jeff Weaver was the main instigator of the worst things to come from the campaign, but at the end of the day Bernie hired him and he was in charge and he is responsible.



I didn't hold him responsible for some of his most ardent supporters for a long time. That all changed with Nevada state convention. The facts showed one thing and Bernie and Weaver helped promote an alternate reality to what actually happened. They fanned the flames by encouraging conspiracy theories instead of stifling them. They let me down. And it happened in mid-May, two full months after he was stick-a-fork-in-him done.



All that time Hillary could have turned her attention to Donald Trump. Instead she, despite having the nomination all but sewed up, had to spend money, time and energy against someone who was already lapped and be respectful so as to not alienate his supporters. Even in California which was never going to Bernie (math and demographics) which his supporters screamed about.



His supporters turned the logistical clusterfuck of having over four dozen elections with a myriad of rules exclusive to each of them into conspiracies against Bernie. Instead of realizing that these events are what happens in such cases, and that sure Brooklyn was a mess but Brooklyn went to Hillary overwhelmingly and even if those affected voted for Bernie 100% he still loses the state. (I use Brooklyn as one example, they screamed and still do about a lot of dumb things.)



They became insufferable. They were screaming about how things were rigged, screaming about superdelegates that would never decide the race, screaming about conspiracies, screaming #NeverHillary. When he should have been uniting us to beat Trump, he was wasting everyone's time. A basketball player fouling when his team is down by 35 points is not a warrior competitor, he's an asshole wasting everyone's time. The fact that even now many of his followers still cling to discredited conspiracy theories, blaming his loss on malfeasance when there is zero evidence of this, and whatever mistakes were made weren't disenfranchising four million Hillary voters.



Sorry, but election results are not illegitimate just because you do not like the outcome. Bernie ignored the south, never appealed to minorities - especially blacks - and generally didn't do well in big, diverse states while winning smaller, whiter states. Math and demographics.



I just had to block someone on Twitter just last week because they said I was brainwashed that Russians hacked DNC servers even though it's kind of indisputable. A non-zero number of Bros still fly that flag, the same flag that Trump desperately wants to see fly. When you have the same goals as Trump, maybe you need to check yourself.



Fortunately I can vote for Elizabeth Warren who has just as liberal bonafides and ideas and she has the distinction of not letting me down with inaction that directly helped Donald Trump get elected.



Should he win the Democratic nod against all of my wishes, he will get my vote in the general election because Bernie - with all of his flaws and blind spots - is still better than Donald Trump. And I am in a state that will almost assuredly have zero chance of deciding the nominee because we vote very late in the process. But I'n done with him and especially his fan club.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
  #264  
Old 02-08-2020, 02:14 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
... if it's really true that the Bernie Brats are indulging in such despicable extortion, I'm almost ready to say "F**k the whole USA. Let Trumpism rule for a century. Let's hope the cockroaches do a better job when they rule the planet 50 million years from now."
Yes, I do realize this is comparable to the very extortion I denounce! Color me childish and excitable.
  #265  
Old 02-08-2020, 02:42 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I've explained this in two previous posts. The President must bring a majority of Congress along. "Majority" means moderates must go along.

I've presented historical examples. It was the staunch anti-communists Nixon and Reagan who achieved detentes. It was LBJ, sometimes considered racist, who achieved Civil Rights. It will be a President Biden or Klobuchar who moves us toward single-payer healthcare, not the revolutionary whom most intelligent adult Democrats consider too leftist.
So, you're saying that Bernie Sanders is going to try to do too much too quickly, attempting too revolutionary a change in too short a time frame. And you're saying that the opposing party is going to be too much in opposition. So an incremental approach is wiser, slowly nudging us toward the end goal. You're saying Klobuchar and Biden would do it this way. Don't make too many waves, don't make a fight out of it.

And you're saying that the Civil Rights Act is an example of the Klobuchar/Biden way?
  #266  
Old 02-08-2020, 02:49 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: 42,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Yes, I do realize this is comparable to the very extortion I denounce! Color me childish and excitable.
Honestly, I color you as a particular kind of Boomer who's going increasingly peevish in his old age. I have inlaws like you who send email screeds that are very similar.

I roll my eyes and move on, and hope I don't do that when I'm eighty.
  #267  
Old 02-08-2020, 03:26 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
I thought Vermin ran as a Libertarian ?
It doesn't matter. The Libertarians aren't saying, "Get lost, you're not a libertarian anyway, you're vermin." Anybody can run, and if it were up to others to tell us what we are, I'd be a "liberal" because Fox says so.

Like it or not, Bernie is (arguably) leading at this point. Dems are supporting him en masse. If you don't like purity tests, it would be the most disastrous version of one to tell Bernie, "Go pound sand. You aren't a Dem, you're 'too left' and therefore off the ballot." He makes the tent bigger, and "diversity is our strength", no?
  #268  
Old 02-08-2020, 03:48 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
And you're saying that the Civil Rights Act is an example of the Klobuchar/Biden way?
The Civil Rights Act was a culmination of literally a hundred years of incremental change happening from the end of the Civil War.

More relevant to the specific legislation, in 1948 President Harry Truman issued Executive Order 9981 to end segregation in the Armed Services. Brown vs. BOE was literally a decade before the first CRA. There was also a 1968 CRA called the Fair Housing Act. And in case you haven't noticed the CRA was not a panacea to end discrimination and it's still a fight that is taking place (not that you'd know it if you asked Bernie; he's sneer about "identity politics.")

Unless you think that Abraham Lincoln could have ushered in all of the changes that happened a century later, then you concede that incremental change is what got us there.

We probably won't have to wait a century to change some of the things we need to change but things got a lot better under Obama than they would have under Romney or McCain and things got a lot worse under Trump than they would have under Clinton.

Climate change does require some drastic efforts but who is more likely to do that: The party that denies it exists whose senators bring snowballs onto the Senate floor to disprove climate change? Or the party that actually acknowledges it's a problem?

You may decry the deaths of people who wait around for incremental change, but save those tears for the people who did die when Trump pulled Obamacare out from under them or the kids in cages whose families were ripped apart.
  #269  
Old 02-08-2020, 03:50 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
Oh, and hey, can some of you fuckers please just click this link?
  #270  
Old 02-08-2020, 03:55 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
It doesn't matter. The Libertarians aren't saying, "Get lost, you're not a libertarian anyway, you're vermin." Anybody can run, and if it were up to others to tell us what we are, I'd be a "liberal" because Fox says so.
Instead they're treated like the joke they are.

Cite: https://mashable.com/2016/05/31/libe...vention-weird/
Cite: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...c-span-n582501
Cite: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet...ry?id=39483779

Fortunately Libertarianism is dumb and thanks to these antics, there's no danger of the Libertarian Party of changing that.
  #271  
Old 02-08-2020, 03:57 PM
Fugazi is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Let us consider three classes of American voter:
A - Those who will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who he is.
B - Those who will always vote for Trump.
C - Those who will vote for Sanders if he's the nominee but for Trump or a 3rd-party candidate if Biden is the nominee.
I don't think group C is really all that large in the scheme of things. Consider the SDMB. I think most here would agree that the board generally leans left. We have our Bernie supporters, including me. Yet I haven't seen a single person on this board say that if Bernie isn't the nominee, then they're voting 3rd party/Trump/not at all.

In every single case I've seen (if I've missed one I'm sure someone will point it out) the Bernie supporter said they'd vote for whoever is nominated. I've said repeatedly that a fresh steaming pile of dog turds gets my vote over Trump.

And don't forget category D. Folks who will not vote for Bernie if he wins the nomination. I have no figures or sites, but I know I've read more than once (not here) people who have said they will not vote for him no matter what.
  #272  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:37 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
I think the idea of Bernie supports as some sort of petulant assholes is wildly exaggerated or mostly made up, a way for people who have the unenviable task of defending the democratic establishment to mock and misclassify their opposition. Their opposition aren't well meaning people who genuinely want leftward change to improve the lives of the average person, they're just a bunch of dumb obnoxious kids who don't know how the real world work and want free everything! Maybe there are "Bernie Bros", but people who classify any Bernie supporter as a "Bernie Bro" (like I get thrown at me on this board if I ever say anything positive about Bernie) is bullshit.

In fact, in my experience, Sanders supporters are almost always the most inclusive, kind, and positive people of all candidates' fanbases. For example This and this are some of the biggest gatherings of Bernie supporters online, and while I'm sure there's some toxic stuff in there, it's generally very positive and supportive.

Really, I think the idea of Bernie Sanders supporters being given by the anti-Bernie people in this thread is somewhere between lying and ignorance. It's hard for them to defend "yay, more weak corporate-friendly democrats that'll let Republicans walk all over them! We need more of that!", so instead they go into personal attacks against a characature of what they want you to believe Bernie supporters are like.
  #273  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:44 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: 42,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Really, I think the idea of Bernie Sanders supporters being given by the anti-Bernie people in this thread is somewhere between lying and ignorance. It's hard for them to defend "yay, more weak corporate-friendly democrats that'll let Republicans walk all over them! We need more of that!", so instead they go into personal attacks against a characature of what they want you to believe Bernie supporters are like.
Q. How do you know if someone's a vegan?
A. Don't worry, they'll tell you.

That joke is bullshit, right? Plenty of vegans don't tell you. But just enough people are loud and obnoxious about their veganism, that meat-eaters can get a really skewed understanding of vegans as a whole.

I think something similar goes on with Sanders supporters. I know a lot of them, and most of them are really chill about it, and get along well with Warren supporters, and make wry jokes about how they're probably gonna end up voting for Biden or Bloomberg in November. They're quiet and cool, just like most vegans.

But the asshole ones are REALLY loud, and REALLY assholish. I haven't really encountered them much this year, having purged my FB feed in 2016, but I got called a paid Hillary Shill back then when I disagreed that Clinton had fixed the primaries and posted links to articles. It was....surprising.

I don't agree that folks complaining about obnoxious Sanders supporters are lying. But I agree that they're vastly overestimating the percentage over Sanders supporters who are jerks.

Which should be obvious, comparing Sanders's overall support in the primary with the number of people supporting him shitheadedly. If even a tenth of Sanders supporters were assholes, we'd be constantly overwhelmed.
  #274  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:55 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus
Let us consider three classes of American voter:
A - Those who will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who he is.
B - Those who will always vote for Trump.
C - Those who will vote for Sanders if he's the nominee but for Trump or a 3rd-party candidate if Biden is the nominee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugazi View Post
I don't think group C is really all that large in the scheme of things.
"Only 53 percent of Sanders voters say they will certainly support whoever is the Democratic nominee. This is no idle threat. In 2016, in Pennsylvania, 117,000 Sanders primary voters went for Trump in the general, and Trump won the state by 44,292 ballots. In Michigan, 48,000 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 10,704. In Wisconsin, 51,300 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 22,748. In short, Sanders voters helped elect Trump."

http://nytimes.com/2020/02/06/opinio...rats-2020.html
  #275  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:18 PM
Mind's Eye, Watering is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
"Only 53 percent of Sanders voters say they will certainly support whoever is the Democratic nominee. This is no idle threat. In 2016, in Pennsylvania, 117,000 Sanders primary voters went for Trump in the general, and Trump won the state by 44,292 ballots. In Michigan, 48,000 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 10,704. In Wisconsin, 51,300 Sanders voters went for Trump, and Trump won the state by 22,748. In short, Sanders voters helped elect Trump."

http://nytimes.com/2020/02/06/opinio...rats-2020.html
Pretty damning statistics there.
  #276  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:28 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,608
"Damning" is such a funny and telling choice of words. Of course there are people who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. That's sort of the appeal of Sanders in the general, isn't it? It's going to be difficult to get a different result in the general election without the support of some people with the "damning" track record of not already having supported the Democratic candidate in the general election. I was under the impression that it was good if those people switched sides.

John Stamos, if you are trying to argue that LBJ in 1964 was a good example of a moderate candidate getting an important victory quietly and cooperatively, then I don't see how you did that by talking about the alleged 100 years of incremental "progress" (which isn't what I would call it, but that's beside the point) that LBJ loudly and explicitly decried when he said that the US needed to get a bill done immediately and stop talking about it. If what you were trying to do was something else, then I think I need you to clarify if it's related to the point septimus was making.

Last edited by Jimmy Chitwood; 02-08-2020 at 05:29 PM.
  #277  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:03 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
"Damning" is such a funny and telling choice of words. Of course there are people who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. That's sort of the appeal of Sanders in the general, isn't it? It's going to be difficult to get a different result in the general election without the support of some people with the "damning" track record of not already having supported the Democratic candidate in the general election. I was under the impression that it was good if those people switched sides.

John Stamos, if you are trying to argue that LBJ in 1964 was a good example of a moderate candidate getting an important victory quietly and cooperatively, then I don't see how you did that by talking about the alleged 100 years of incremental "progress" (which isn't what I would call it, but that's beside the point) that LBJ loudly and explicitly decried when he said that the US needed to get a bill done immediately and stop talking about it. If what you were trying to do was something else, then I think I need you to clarify if it's related to the point septimus was making.
Jesus, even getting the CRA passed took several years and one dead president!

Anyway, yeah, it was a big step of incremental change. Your disagreement is noted and at odds with actual history.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
  #278  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:06 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Is any democratic candidate automatically entitled to my vote?

What if I truly hate the candidate and feel like they're bad for the country? So long as the democrats can run up against a worse opponent from the Republicans, am I permanently locked into voting for someone I don't actually want to be president?

If so, then, what interest does the democratic party actually have in representing me? If I have to dutifully vote for them no matter what, they can continue to move rightward and try to capture the moderate American right while completely neglecting to represent my views or my interests in any way?

Is it only for this election, because of Trump, or given that it's likely the Republican candidate will always be further right, and shittier, do I have to vote democrat in perpetuity even if they never actually ever do anything to help me or represent my interests?

You act as though the democratic party is entitled to the vote for those Sanders supporters no matter what. But that's missing the point. The reason that people are supporting Sanders is that they don't like that the democratic party is not actually a leftist party and does not actually strive to improve the economic lives of the common person. And in as far as they do, they're fucking awful at it and consistently get crushed by the Republican party.

If I truly, honestly, and sincerely believe that Joe Biden will be a terrible president and only do damage to this country, do I have a moral obligation to vote for him? And if I believe that the next 10 democratic candidates are the same, and they never actually nominate someone who moves this country in the direction I want it moved, do I have to spend the rest of my life voting for democrats? Are they entitled to that?

That said, I will very likely eat that shit sandwich this election. But acting as though you're entitled to a vote even though you're not doing anything for those voters is, at best, obnoxious. The ENTIRE FUCKING REASON there's a movement behind Sanders is that people don't want more of this third way democrat bullshit. They don't want corporate stooges that accelerate the power grab of the rich in this country a little slower than the Republicans do. When a massive movement tells you "hey, democrats, remember when you actually had progressive ideals long ago? Remember The New Deal and the Great Society? We want some of that again, because all you offer is now is neofeudalism, just with less blatant whipping than the other party"

You want those Sanders voters? Earn them by being someone they want to vote for. Their ranks mostly do not come from traditional democrats or Republicans that somehow bought into a Sanders cult of personality, they mostly came from indifferent and apathetic voters who think that voting doesn't matter and who don't bother to vote. And when you say "well, Bernie isn't really a democrat, we're not really going to listen to you guys and let him win the nomination", of course you're telling them, as they thought, that their vote doesn't matter. And they go back to being apathetic.

You want the passion and interest and support of people who you don't actually offer anything to, and then you're resentful that they might not feel some sense of obligation to support people they have no allegiance to, and who give them nothing.
  #279  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:08 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Granted, I do not know what the specific requirements are to run as a Democrat (that shit probably varies by State too, that's how y'all do ) but I would expect not just any random asshole off the street can ask for his name on a ballot, yes ?
No. Basically, any random asshole can get on the ballot provided they get the signatures. Witness Trump and how scandalized the GOP was at the time. What stops most random assholes is the time, expense and organization of actually getting the signatures on a district-by-district level which is why you hear of even traditional candidates failing to secure a full slate of delegates in this or that state. Sanders ran as a Democrat because the amount of signatures and organization you need is significantly lower when you're running under a major party banner. I'm sure the state parties can throw up some barriers but the answer is, essentially, any asshole can run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I think the idea of Bernie supports as some sort of petulant assholes is wildly exaggerated or mostly made up, a way for people who have the unenviable task of defending the democratic establishment to mock and misclassify their opposition.
You're allowed to think whatever you like but that won't change the experiences I regularly have with Sanders supporters. But if it makes you feel better to assume I'm just wildly exaggerating and lying, I guess that works, too.
Quote:
You want those Sanders voters? Earn them by being someone they want to vote for.
Sort of like how Sanders supporters try to win me over by calling me a liar?

Last edited by Jophiel; 02-08-2020 at 06:10 PM.
  #280  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:11 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Out of curiosity, where are you having these regular negative experiences with Sanders supporters?
  #281  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:16 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Out of curiosity, where are you having these regular negative experiences with Sanders supporters?
Various online groups and communities. Some just "People on my Facebook friends", some people in general Democratic-aligned groups, some people in just a video gaming or other unrelated group when the topic of politics rears its head. And often from people I legitimately know and not RussianBot2000
  #282  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:23 PM
Mind's Eye, Watering is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Is any democratic candidate automatically entitled to my vote?
Yes, unless you want Traitor Trump again.

Quote:
What if I truly hate the candidate and feel like they're bad for the country?
Would ANY of the Dem candidates be WORSE than the Orange Anus?
  #283  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:26 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,608
I'm aware of the history, John Stamos. You may not be aware that we're talking about LBJ's role, not the history of civil rights.

LBJ's Civil Rights Act was famously incredibly controversial, was filibustered at record length, and was passed over the vehement and violent recriminations of the opposition. There are so many famous quotes about not waiting anymore for civil rights, because the opponents of civil rights were always going to be anti-justice, that I'm a little taken aback at where to even start. Just read anything by MLK, I guess. Civil rights wasn't incremental change, and still isn't. It's punctuated equilibrium. LBJ said, about the thing we're currently arguing about for no reason:

Quote:
One hundred years ago, the slave was freed. One hundred years later, the Negro remains in bondage to the color of his skin. The Negro today asks justice. We do not answer him — we do not answer those who lie beneath this soil — when we reply to the Negro by asking, "Patience."
Quote:
To ask for patience from the Negro is to ask him to give more of what he has already given enough.
Quote:
Shortly after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Johnson told his aides that passing Kennedy's civil rights bill was at the top of his agenda. When his aides advised that pursuing this might jeopardize his chances of winning the presidency in his own right, he replied simply, "Well, what the Hell is the Presidency for?"
LBJ is not a compelling argument to cite as an example of how you do things quietly and patiently. LBJ is the antithesis of patience and generational progress. LBJ is extremely famous for bullying and hurrying things. If you asked 100 historians what the name of LBJ means, in the context of what a hypothetical president should do about a controversial issue he or she believed in, exactly zero of them would say "take it slow, take what you can get."

Last edited by Jimmy Chitwood; 02-08-2020 at 06:26 PM.
  #284  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:54 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: 42,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Is any democratic candidate automatically entitled to my vote?

What if I truly hate the candidate and feel like they're bad for the country? So long as the democrats can run up against a worse opponent from the Republicans, am I permanently locked into voting for someone I don't actually want to be president?
The question isn't about "entitled." The question is, what's the best thing YOU can do?

If you think, as I do, that Clinton (Hillary or Bill) is way too far to the right, and it sucks to have a choice between them and someone even further to the right, and that our political system is horribly twisted in favor of wealthy people, then you still have exactly the same choice: what's the best thing YOU can do with your vote?

Sometimes a patient has cancer, and you don't have a magic wand to wave to make them better. You have to choose between chemo and radiation, because the magic cure doesn't exist.

And sometimes it's just that, only your choice is between chemo and setting them on fire. As bad as chemo is, you should still choose it, because that's the best thing you can do.

***

As leftists, you and I face a different choice from the choice faced by the Sanders-Trump voter. They want something very different from what I want, and I can't appeal to them by saying that Clinton (or Biden) is at least better than Trump, because they don't believe that. If I want to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate, I need to offer a Democratic candidate that they think is better than Trump.
  #285  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:35 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
If given the choice between one extreme right wing candidate and one moderate right wing candidate and being told hey, you have no choice, you have to vote for the less right wing candidate - well, that's how we're in this mess at all. That's how the democratic party has stayed alive for 40 years without any sort of progressive agenda.

If they can take your vote for granted even if they don't do anything to represent you, then they have no reason to try to represent you.

Sitting out an election and saying "if you want my vote, do something for me" is a perfectly valid tactic to change the strategy of a party. Voting for them no matter what they do just incentivizes them to ignore you.

Now, I'm not advocating that at this time, but it's not a ridiculous idea. I'm certainly not committing to voting for right wing democrat candidates for the rest of my life just because the republicans can manage to wrangle up an even shittier choice.
  #286  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:56 PM
Fugazi is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,437
Here's what I think should happen. The Republican party should finish dying it's natural death and go away. The far right Magahat wearing racists should go back in the closet where they belong. Then the Democratic party should split in half to make a new left wing and a new right wing. Because AOC was right. Only in America are AOC and Joe Biden in the same party.

And SenorBeef. I agree with your OP and and subsequent posts in this thread 100%. I couldn't agree more if I had written them myself.
  #287  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:02 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Sitting out an election and saying "if you want my vote, do something for me" is a perfectly valid tactic to change the strategy of a party.
It's also perfectly valid to judge someone for disregarding the cost of their tactic. Or, I suppose, for carefully regarding the cost and still feeling like it's worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugazi View Post
Because AOC was right. Only in America are AOC and Joe Biden in the same party.
The only thing stopping Sanders and AOC from making their own party is that it would be inconvenient for them. Which, again, is why Sanders is running as a Democrat despite not being a Democrat.

Last edited by Jophiel; 02-08-2020 at 08:03 PM.
  #288  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:26 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: 42,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
If given the choice between one extreme right wing candidate and one moderate right wing candidate and being told hey, you have no choice, you have to vote for the less right wing candidate - well, that's how we're in this mess at all. That's how the democratic party has stayed alive for 40 years without any sort of progressive agenda.

If they can take your vote for granted even if they don't do anything to represent you, then they have no reason to try to represent you.

Sitting out an election and saying "if you want my vote, do something for me" is a perfectly valid tactic to change the strategy of a party. Voting for them no matter what they do just incentivizes them to ignore you.

Now, I'm not advocating that at this time, but it's not a ridiculous idea. I'm certainly not committing to voting for right wing democrat candidates for the rest of my life just because the republicans can manage to wrangle up an even shittier choice.
It's a ridiculous idea because it doesn't work. This is precisely the reasoning that I heard in 1996, and every year since then. Refusing to cast a vote in order to affect the parties is slightly less reasonable than using transcendental meditation to levitate the Pentagon, because at least the latter action posits a magical theory by which it may be productive.
  #289  
Old 02-08-2020, 09:02 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
What works, then? Voting democrats no matter what as they race Republicans to the right for 40 years? That, obviously, has been a failure. We wouldn't be in a position where the Overton window was so far right that Trump was even a possibility if not for the people consistently voting for a conservative democratic party all this time.

They are only slightly less blatant about being an oligarch serving party than the Republicans, and telling everyone they must continue to vote for them no matter how far right or how far out of touch that are with the average person they are is exactly what enables them to continue not to represent the American people.

Withholding votes, or a credible threat to withhold votes, is the only chance we have to influence their behavior.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 02-08-2020 at 09:03 PM.
  #290  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:07 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Withholding votes, or a credible threat to withhold votes, is the only chance we have to influence their behavior.
Start your own party away from the evil near-Republican fake-liberal Democrats instead of trying to extort them under threat of more Trump-appointed Justices, eroded gains for LGBTQ, further nationalist attacks on immigrants, etc. The Democratic party supposedly left you so go set out on your own if you guys are convinced that you're the future.

I mean, that's essentially what you're doing when you say you'll refuse to vote for any Democratic candidate except the Anointed One so you might as well be honest about it instead of acting like party parasites.

Last edited by Jophiel; 02-08-2020 at 10:08 PM.
  #291  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:37 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Okay. Sure. You're happy with fragmenting the democratic party into two parties in a winner take all election? What effect did you think that will have on those rights you listed?

Calling Bernie The Annointed One also shows you have no idea what fuels his support. He's not a cult of personality, he's simply the only leftist candidate with sincerity and credibility to make the national stage in decades. People flock to him because he represents progressive ideas, not because he himself is some Perfect Leader.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 02-08-2020 at 10:39 PM.
  #292  
Old 02-08-2020, 10:44 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: 42,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
What works, then?

...

Withholding votes, or a credible threat to withhold votes, is the only chance we have to influence their behavior.
No. No no no.

What works is, 364 days a year, pushing the Democratic party to the left. What works is doing the hard work of organizing: of talking with people, listening to people, persuading people. What works is organizing events, writing letters and postcards, speaking to the press, joining organizations doing good work, donating to folks doing good work. What works is going to meetings of your local Democratic party and doing the work there, getting into a position where you can run for office yourself or at the very least influence the selection of who runs.

364 days a year you do that. On the 365th day, you vote in a way that stanches the bleeding.

The voting booth is NOT an effective place to engage in party influence.
  #293  
Old 02-08-2020, 11:32 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Okay. Sure. You're happy with fragmenting the democratic party into two parties in a winner take all election? What effect did you think that will have on those rights you listed?
The same as if the Bernie people stay home and pout if they don't win the primary.

At least, in my scenario, you stop pretending to be part of the party.
  #294  
Old 02-08-2020, 11:39 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
On the contrary, there's a progressive wing of the democratic party. The only pretending bring done here is acting like forming a third party in the American political system is a viable option. The two party system is all but officially codified. You're dressing up your desire for leftists to shut up and go away while disingenuously acting like you're suggesting a viable option for them.

The left in America clearly has a significant number of supporters. They deserve a voice.
  #295  
Old 02-08-2020, 11:44 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
You're dressing up your desire for leftists to shut up and go away while disingenuously acting like you're suggesting a viable option for them.
Sort of true. We both know the only reason Sanders runs as a Democrat in the presidential races is because he doesn't want the humiliating 4% he'd bring in as an Independent/3rd party candidate. So I guess it's not viable for AOC or Sanders, etc to make their own "Really Progressive!" party despite all the rhetoric about being the True Voice Of The Left and having all the enthusiasm and blah blah blah. Funny, that.
  #296  
Old 02-09-2020, 12:08 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Is any democratic candidate automatically entitled to my vote?
Donald Trump appreciates your continued enthusiastic support.
  #297  
Old 02-09-2020, 12:09 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Out of curiosity, where are you having these regular negative experiences with Sanders supporters?
Have you met the internet?
  #298  
Old 02-09-2020, 12:11 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
I see nobody has Googled Duverger's Law yet.
  #299  
Old 02-09-2020, 12:32 AM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Sort of true. We both know the only reason Sanders runs as a Democrat in the presidential races is because he doesn't want the humiliating 4% he'd bring in as an Independent/3rd party candidate. So I guess it's not viable for AOC or Sanders, etc to make their own "Really Progressive!" party despite all the rhetoric about being the True Voice Of The Left and having all the enthusiasm and blah blah blah. Funny, that.
That's not why Bernie doesn't run. Bernie very much wants to defeat Donald Trump. Did you know that Bernie had 16 rallies for Clinton after she became the nominee? The narrative about how he didn't really enthusiastically support Clinton in 2016 are bullshit. He had twice as many rallies for her as she had for Obama in 2008. Bernie does not want to run third party and split the democratic vote and guarantee the Republicans a win, and I don't think you made that accusation in good faith.

And yes, it's not viable for them to make a really progressive party because it's not viable for anyone to make any other party for any reason. Do I really need to explain the realities of the winner take all first past the post voting system in the US?

There's nothing insightful about what you're saying. If we ran a proportionatal represenative government, the party of Bernie and AOC would be a significant minority. But with the system we have, two parties are all but completely structurally codified and official. So it makes sense to try to steer one in the right direction rather than to try to create a new one split from one of the existing ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Donald Trump appreciates your continued enthusiastic support.
Eat my ass, you toxic piece of shit. I already said that I will almost certainly be voting against Trump and I already did 4 years ago. But even if I didn't, not voting does not equal "enthusiastic support for Trump", and this is exactly the sort of fucking entitlement I'm talking about.

Not voting is not a vote for Trump. Voting third party is not a vote for Trump. A fucking vote for Trump is a vote for Trump, and speaking of which, you know who is more directly supporting Trump than people who don't vote? People who fucking vote for Trump. I shouldn't have to explain such a fucking rudimentary concept, but even if I do, I'm not sure you can grasp it.

Plus, exactly as in line with my statement in the OP, when you tell people stupid shit like "not being super enthusiastic about whatever fucking corporate shill the democrats line up is totally the same as being Trump's number 1 fan!!!" all I want to say is go fuck yourself and not be on the same side as you. Why are you trying SO FUCKING HARD to make sure that no one wants to be on the same side as you? By your own logic, you, yourself, by doing your best to alienate people from voting democrat, are enthusiastically supporting Trump. It's so fucking stupid. Stop being how you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Have you met the internet?
Yes. In fact, I linked to two of the most prominent gatherings of Bernie supporter on the internet, his supporters' subreddits. I actually can't remember having a bad interaction with a Bernie supporter. They're generally very positive and try to spread a good message. Reddit mocks them by saying "match me!", meaning that Bernie supporters are always saying stuff like "I just donated $20 to Bernie upon hearing this news, match me!", but what I've consistently seen out of them is positive support.

I can't say for sure that you haven't had these negative encounters, but I can say compared to my experience, all of your claims of shitty toxic Bernie supporters strike me as being more figments of your imagination and confirmation bias than a realistic assessment of how the average Bernie supporter acts.

His supporter are easily the least toxic I've encountered on the internet. Trump's supporters obviously are irredeemable shitbags. Biden supporters are almost nowhere on the internet - I suspect they're all 70+ years old, maybe pasting awful facebook comments I don't see. I have seen almost no organic Buttigieg support on the internet anywhere. Elizabeth Warren has inherited a lot of Hillary's toxic "if you don't support our candidate you're a sexist!" supporters, and the experiences I've had with Sanders supporters have been overwhelmingly positive.
  #300  
Old 02-09-2020, 12:54 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
No. No no no.

What works is, 364 days a year, pushing the Democratic party to the left. What works is doing the hard work of organizing: of talking with people, listening to people, persuading people. What works is organizing events, writing letters and postcards, speaking to the press, joining organizations doing good work, donating to folks doing good work. What works is going to meetings of your local Democratic party and doing the work there, getting into a position where you can run for office yourself or at the very least influence the selection of who runs.

364 days a year you do that. On the 365th day, you vote in a way that stanches the bleeding.

The voting booth is NOT an effective place to engage in party influence.
We need a like button up in this bitch.
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 03:26 AM.

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