They’re already starting to call him a communist. That’s a smear. That’s not using his own words against him.
I’m sure they’ll try to use his own words against him, but that’s different than smearing him. “Bernie praised aspects of Castro’s government!” is an accurate criticism, and not a smear. But so far, what I see is the “communist!” smear, not the “Bernie praised certain aspects of repressive regimes” criticism.
And, of course, while Bernie praised some aspects of repressive regimes in the 80s, Trump has praised repressive regimes and authoritarian leaders within the last 3 years, multiple times. So for every tape of Bernie praising communist Castro, there’s a tape of Trump praising Kim Jong Un, Putin, and others, much more recently, and without the reasonable explanation that Bernie has offered.
That’s why I don’t think this will be a terribly effective tactic – if people care about this stuff a whole lot, then they wouldn’t have supported (or continue to support) Trump.
Criticizing someone’s own words is not a smear. Calling a socialist a communist is a smear. Is that clear?
…its **everyone’s **job to fight propaganda. Especially if you are privileged enough to be able to recognise it for what it is.
Its not that you are not “anti-propaganda.” Its that you acted as an agent of propaganda.
Sorry that isn’t how it works any more. Propaganda and disinformation is being disseminated everywhere, from youtube videos to youtube comments section, to twitter, to messageboards. We can have a discussion about “which way the election will go” without resorting to making ridiculous assertions like “He might as well be a communist.” You know its ridiculous. I quoted the entire context of what you said. There is no basis for what you said in reality and you know it. What you said **later **in the thread was entirely fair and reasonable. But what you said earlier simply wasn’t.
Hey, Miller Lite advertises itself as a party beer that tastes great and is less filling. So the exact same ad strategy will work for Stella Artois. Science!!!
1). One of the reasons why Bernie didn’t win the nomination in 2016 is because of the attitudes of people like you. People like you think you know what an “electable” candidate looks like. You have a loose idea of the kind of candidate that the rest of the country will find acceptable, and you push back against candidates who don’t fit that template. Not because you wouldn’t vote for them, of course. Because you think other people won’t vote for them.
Often, the assumptions underpinning this perspective are very dismissive and condescending. We’ve seen it before. In 2008 we saw liberals objecting to Obama because he wasn’t as “electable” as Hillary. And these objections always took the same form; “Of course, I’d vote for a black man. But what about them? The hicks. The shoeless rubes out in tornado alley. They’re just not ready. Best play it safe and nominate Hillary”.
We’re seeing it again right now with Buttigieg; “Of course I’d vote for a gay man. But if you think a gay POTUS and his First Gentleman will play in Peoria you’ve got another think coming. Best play it safe and nominate Joe Biden.”
You’d think that, after the catastrophic electoral failures of “safe” candidates like Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, liberals would be a little more circumspect about declaring candidates “unelectable”. But no. What we’re seeing with Sanders is just more of the same. Liberals who, if it were up to them, would happily make Bernie President tomorrow, are dragging him down because he doesn’t match their idea of what the rest of the country is prepared to vote for.
The bottom line is that liberals have proven over and over again that they haven’t got the first clue about what appeals to conservatives, swing voters, and independents. So maybe they should stop trying to nominate a candidate based on who they think the rest of the country will vote for. Maybe, instead, they should nominate who they want and then work hard to make the case for that person.
2). It’s true there are some areas of America in which being a socialist is a vote loser. But there are growing areas of America where being a triangulating, third way neoliberal technocrat like Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren is a vote loser, too. Again, since liberals are terrible at predicting what the rest of the country will find palatable, why don’t we try taking a chance on the candidate we actually want, rather than take a chance on the establishment candidate like we did all those times we got our asses kicked?
3). Instead of just assuming people are too stupid to evaluate Sanders’ arguments on their merits, why not try convincing them that their ideas about Bernie and Socialism are misguided? It’s not impossible. Just watch Bernie’s recent Joe Rogan interview. Read the comments. Thousands of testimonials from Rogan fans - many of whom are libertarians - praising Bernie for his clarity, sincerity, and common sense approach. That one 55 minute podcast probably did more for Bernie’s campaign than every wonkish think piece in the last two years. Just let Bernie show people what he’s about.
Nope I have a job. It keeps a roof over my head and feed my family. This message board as a hobby I do for amusement. I don’t even get paid for moderating I’m certainly not going to start treating posting like it’s a job.
Everything I was saying was about how I felt voters will feel or at least a significant portion. That is the basis of reality. Feel free to disagree with me. I believe that to a significant portion of those that he needs to get elected He might as well be a communist and wave around a little red book. The gallop poll seems to agree with me too
…it would take zero effort on your part to fight propaganda. All you have to do is not repeat it.
I quoted what you said in context. What you said wasn’t about how “voters feel.” A plain text reading of what you said was all about what you felt, what you think.
But he isn’t a communist. You know this. You know that there is a widespread disinformation campaign to propagate the conflation. It is entirely fair and reasonable to talk about how people will conflate the two. It isn’t fair and reasonable to simply repeat the disingenuous talking points without putting them in context.
Congrats. That is indeed a more annoying way to say “I don’t see what this has to do with my post”. The problem is, almost every time you say it, it’s rather obvious what it had to do with your post.
I think you’re trying to say you disagree with my argument, without actually going into any detail. If so, thanks for sharing! We’ll see what happens in the election over the next several months.
Being a socialist is as bad as being a communist for a large percentage of voters. I’ll keep saying it because I believe it to be true. I’m not going to take on the job of educating random people on political theory. I’ll leave that to you. I’m going to bet you will be as effective as me and I’m not even trying.
There are a lot of people whose commitment to a tribal party is greater than any issue or position. They won’t determine the outcome because their vote is baked in.
The election will instead be determined by people who might not vote. And a whole lot of them live in swing states where registered voters are disproportionately old. Like my Pennsylvania.
Personally, I like regulated capitalism.
And my dinosaur brain tells me that being a former Trotskyite doesn’t help you convince old people that your socialism is the bright and pretty kind.
Eh, it’s just one of his silly rhetorical devices he uses in an attempt to make a post seem absurd. It’s easier than conceding other folks have legitimate points.
Always easier to assume one’s ideological opponents are dishonest or stupid than to consider the possibility that they might honestly come to different conclusions and different understandings based on different assumptions and experiences. Any time you want to actually get into how we reach these different conclusions, I’d be happy to take part. But I understand that this kind of drive-by post takes a lot less effort, so that may be your preference.
But, how did the right become so warm about russia? They are changing.
i have to admit: They may hate fellow americans more than russians. But still why do you think socialism can’t be spun like everything else.
Also: the electorate you are talking about is getting older and dying. So in terms of “renewable” electoral politics you might be surprised at what younger voters (in Texas) are thinking now.
…I never disputed this. I told you that this point is a fair and reasonable one.
I’m going to return and give full context to what you said.
iiandyiiii asked you:
You replied:
iiandyiiii asked you to clarify your position: were you saying they were a communist or are you saying they will try and smear Bernie as a communist?
You did clarify your position. ‘He expressed solidarity with them. He may as well have been one of them.’ None of that is accurate. Those are talking points. Talking points that were designed and written (not by you) and propagated for a very specific purpose. Repeating them with no caveat doesn’t fight the battle against ignorance.
If DJT comes out for socialism, his base will follow. Unless you are predicting Trump will go there, I’m not following how that makes Carville wrong, or Sanders a strong candidate, or socialism a swing state winning issue.
Texas does have an unusually young electorate, and may well switch back to being a Democratic state before this decade ends. But the evidence does not yet support it.
Also, the evidence from the 2018 congressional elections is that the historic weak performance, in purplish areas, of leftist candidates is still the case:
I advice reading my whole link, and, even better, the “here, here, and here” poly sci links you’ll find within it.
That’s the key. Democrats have been able to win by vehemently denying that what they propose is socialism. Whether it is or not is largely up to one’s political POV. Bernie embraces the term, not only hurting him, but exposing all other Democratic candidates to the charge that the GOP was right all along that what they propose is socialism.
It would be like Republican nominee stating, “Yeah, you guys are right. I’m only here to enrich myself and my rich buddies by concentrating more wealth in the hands of a few.” After that, the common Democratic attack that Republicans support the rich at the expense of the poor is no longer an attack: it’s a verifiable fact.
The article is also right that the use of the term “socialist” does not require the acquisition of the fainting couch for many younger voters as it would have when my father was my age, but that doesn’t mean it is a winner. The debate will open up the Cold War arguments about why socialism is bad and we have thought it bad for years. America was based on rugged individualism and freedom, which if it means anything, means keeping what you earn. Charity to the poor, yes, but not a guaranteed government imposed right to pick my pocket. USA! USA! USA!
In addition, Sanders has tremendous baggage. Posters are arguing whether this or that term is accurate, but none of that matters. What matters is the perception. First, Sanders looks crazy. Full stop. The guy looks like Doc Brown from Back to the Future. Second, he’s old. Old and crazy. Further, he has the baggage of taking a honeymoon to the USSR.
You can say, no, no that wasn’t a honeymoon, it was a trip to Burlington’s sister city which happened to occur right after he got married. As the article continues:
Emphasis added. There’s a bunch more. His rape fantasy essay, the fact that he never held a regular job until he was 40, collecting government benefits prior to that, and since then has held only government jobs (also playing into the narrative that he wants people to suckle at the government teat), his running as a elector for a Socialist Workers Party candidate for POTUS who supported Iran when they took our people hostage, etc. etc.
As iiandyiiii constantly points out, nobody can predict the future. But I have been around long enough, and certainly Carville has, to see pretty easily what a disaster of monumental proportions it would be for the Dems to run Sanders against Trump.
