Now, to be fair, Bernie may have fared a bit better there, as people that voted for Clinton in the primary would not have snubbed their noses at him, had he won the primary, the way his supporters did to Clinton.
But, when your only advantage is that your opponent’s supporters are more responsible and mature than your own, that doesn’t actually reflect well upon yourself.
I was referring to the three million votes more that Clinton got against Bernie, not Trump.
(In fairness, it’s more like 3.7 million votes.)
I wasn’t disagreeing, I was just saying that clinton supporters would have voted for bernie in the general, had he won the primary, which would have given him a bit of a boost there, compared to clinton who did not get the votes of the people that were so upset that bernie didn’t win that they were willing to throw the party under the bus in order to spite her.
Meanwhile, that Bernie story (well, a couple of stories since he changed it up) about an aide going to Clinton’s campaign?
It wasn’t an aide - it was a campaign volunteer.
And he didn’t go to the Clinton campaign (which may be why they don’t remember it) he went to a Clinton-friendly Super PAC.
(And as we all know Super PACs are not supposed to coordinate with campaigns.)
That and the volunteer “didn’t come to suspect Russia was involved until weeks after the Clinton campaign publicly raised concerns about Russian hacking.”
Oh. Well then. Bernie throws Clinton under the bus with manufactured bullshit that was manufactured by him.
The “Bernie Bros” were heavily influenced by / invented by Russian trolls. That’s pretty established. The current attempt to discredit and smear Bernie is the work of Neoliberals struggling to maintain status quo in a party whose constituency clearly and dearly wants to swing further left.
Could Sanders have done more to unify the party in 2016? Sure, but I don’t think that’s entirely his job, especially considering how he was treated during the primary. And especially given how thoroughly Clinton was STILL expected to win.
I won’t disagree that the russian influence helps push things apart, but that doesn’t mean that there is no agency on the part of the people who supported bernie.
I think it is the job, the only job, of the loser in the primary to get their supporters to support the winner. Even the republicans did that with trump. He was not treated poorly in the primary, he just didn’t get as many votes. And, just because you expect the candidate to win you should still support them, as a bigger win means that they have more maneuvering room to get you the things you want as well, and you could be wrong about them being as favored as you think they are.
No True Scotsman argument noted.
Allusion to conspiracy theories noted.
On the bright side, Donald Trump appreciated your vote last November and your continued support, comrade!
It’s pretty obvious that typoink is just rationalizing his or her vote that helped Trump win.
Well, I was sternly informed, on a progressive blog I frequent, during the primaries that Clinton got all those votes in Southern states because black women were voting the way their pastors (corrupted and/or bought off by the Clinton Machine) told them to vote. More than one True Progressive made that argument. Also, that their votes didn’t matter anyway because they were in Southern states. I will admit, no one came right out and said their votes were only worth 3/5 as much as that of a white guy in a caucus state.
Yeah, one thing that really bummed me out, especially when I was still supporting Bernie, was the emergence of the racism on the left.
Whether it was people whitesplaining to black Hillary voters why they were so wrong and stupid, or creating conspiracy theories all of which essentially said the votes of black Americans were fraudulent or didn’t matter, it was very disturbing.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Hold up there, hoss. Suppose you make the case that black people ought not vote for Hillary, you marshall your forces of argument, and make your case. Would it matter whether or not your audience is a person of color or blank like me?
One might, for example, give reasons for black people not to vote for Hillary to a white liberal, why black people will not vote for her. Like they already know why they won’t, and you are offering the reasons. Presumably, to someone ignorant of those reasons. Otherwise, they would already agree with you, wouldn’t they?
“Mansplaining” is a real thing, a frequently unconscious insult. Definitely a real thing, though, something to be avoided out of respect for others. “Whitesplaining” is borrowed wit. Rings like a lead bell.
And finally, tell me who has the gift for explaining the bleeding obvious to someone without implying that they are a bit thick? That deft diplomacy, would that be you?
Got it. Thanks for double clarifying.
So, it’s not his policies or cause or anything much else in his track record that you hate him for; only that he cost Hilary the election, thereby putting Trump in the presidency.
And that you perceive him to somehow still be helping Trump? By creating division in the Left?
I might have missed something, but did typoink vote for Trump?
Definitely missed this:
Wait, so . . . you’re mad as hell at Sanders for turning voters away from Clinton and landing you with Trump, but you don’t care if you piss off his supporters because if that costs the Dems in the upcoming elections then you’ll be getting what you deserve?
OK. Now you’re just tugging on our tits.
To Aspenglow and K9befriender:
Thank you both for your very thoughtful and persuasive arguments (#94 & #95). I thought you offered very good perspectives on the issues of party unity and appeal.
Much appreciated.
Yes, it does matter. It matters a lot. It’s about privilege.
Bernie didn’t get the black vote because he is of the belief that racial justice can be lumped in with economic justice - as if racism will go away if income equality was addressed - and that’s not only not based in any historical precedence but it ignores problems specific to the black community and - please sit down as thi smay shock you - but black people don’t like being told they don’t understand what is best for their own interests (NY Times columnis Charles M. Blow calls it Bernie-Splaining but it’s about what white people are telling black people that they are ignorant. Would you believe that some people find that condescending?
My favorite article on why black people didn’t feel the Bern. I especially love the comments - there’s your whitesplaining on full display. Fortunately the author poinjts this out to a lot of the commenters.
Honestly, if you have to ask why black voters - especially black women - being told that Bernie was a better choice for them by mostly white males - your complete lack of understanding is way beyond what I can post here.
Not by creating division. By embracing division. By encouraging division. I only pointed out a dozen things he has done which does this.
If he or she didn’t vote for Clinton, of course. And anyone who uses the term “neoliberal” in a pejorative sense definitely lives a life of privilege where they can afford that “principled stance.”
You seem to have a browser problem where you cannot read things I have already typed. You should check into that.
"Only an idiot would be concerned about me calling out someone who is helping Trump on an exponentially larger scale then little old me ever could. "
“And if calling them “bros” will somehow cause them to stomp their feet and say “that does it, Jill Stein forever,” I would submit that “someone called me a name” is shitty justification for a vote akin to a child holding their breath if they cannot have pudding.”
It’s cute that Bernie can literally have a laundry list of things which are terrible in every way for anyone not named Donald Trump both during the campaign, before the election and even a year-plus later but I’m the problem because I am sick of making and hearing excuses for it. It’s funny that you think me saying “wake up, he’s terrible” is somehow going to swing more voters than Bernie being terrible. Pretty sure you haven’t thought that criticism through.
Rightie-ho then.
So, you don’t actually know how typoink voted.
How charmingly condescending.
Which is to say, no one should criticize your hypocrisy because you’re just too inconsequential?
Duly noted.
Look, Sanders may well be a Kremlin-loving, self-serving, lying, race-baiting, muck-raking, misogynist, commie bastard with anywhere from “a dozen” to “a laundry list” of reasons to be despised. He may be tearing the Left to shreds and ensuring an 8-year term for the monster clown currently in office.
Heck, he may even be the least naive person on the planet (as someone in this thread advised me).
But I’m really not seeing it from the evidence presented in this thread.
What I am seeing is that you seem to feel the need to behave like a bit of a dick right now.
Fine and dandy. Knock yourself out.
But I think I’m done here.
My reasoning is that Clinton should have won the election. Bernie and the Bros should have been 100 percent behind her, if ONLY to keep Trump out. It didn’t work out that way. They sat at home - or at least just enough of them did.
Was she too moderate? Not “left” enough? Too corporate? Too establishment? Was it anger at losing the Primaries?
And then Bernie pulls this shit about “Clinton and the Russians”. OMG. WTF.
Look at what we have NOW.
That is my beef. Is it rational? Who knows.
Is it completely fact based? I think it is but who knows.
At this point their reasons don’t matter, because look at what we have NOW.
Pretty sure I do.
I don’t suffer fools gladly. Some consider this a character flaw but I’d rather be an asshole than a fool. My suggestion if this hurts your feelings is to not be a fool.
Which is you say that the reason we have President Trump is false equivalence. It would be silly to put your stupidity on par with the stupidity that helped elect Trump. But make no mistake: Your equivalence is no less false and still stupid.
What’s Bernie’s excuse?
It might stop you from saying more stupid things so knock yourself out.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Well, maybe. The thing was so narrowly done, so precarious, any of a number of things may be more responsible. We have no real numbers, do we? Maybe ninety nine percent of those frothing about Bernie or Bust sobered up and bit the bullet point. They could hardly be blamed.
As for the rest, meditation and repentance might be the wisest path forward.
Oh, I’ll definitely say a lot of things were more responsible in terms of numbers. Trump voters. Russian influence. Decades of Republican smears usually overblown or completely fabricated yet still a topic of discussion. The mainstream media making it out like Trump’s deficiencies as a candidate were equal to Clinton. Sexism was a huge part of it. Hillary made mistakes too.
But here’s the thing: Bernie Sanders was supposed to be an ally against Trump. He was supposed to be one of the good guys. So while his influence was definitely less, it came from someone who was not an enemy.
There are dozens, maybe hundreds of people during Vietnam who inflicted far more damage to America and Americans than Jane Fonda. But she still garners hatred from many because she is viewed a traitor.
So yeah, there were bigger influences. But in a close election, the 7th or 8th largest influence in the outcome could have been enough to tip the election. When you factor in that influence was supposed to have been a positive influence from someone who was ostensibly on our team, it’s easy to be more upset with Bernie.
quack, quack, quack :rolleyes:
people try have a debate with the OP when he is just here to smear Bernie.
if anyone wants to know what Bernie is about you can read his own words. no need to guess or listen to others, Bernie tells us - and has always told us - exactly what he is about and it is** the issues**.
as an actual progressive - you know, someone who should never have had those huge crowds because “socialist”! his campaign had to scare some people.
good for him.