I see nobody has Googled Duverger’s Law yet.
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.
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.
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.
We need a like button up in this bitch.
Donald Trump appreciates your unwavering support.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
The comment by me that triggered this exchange was NOT about “taking things slow.” LBJ’s Civil Rights Acts were a BIG change. And it wasn’t about getting the opposition party involved: Moscow Mitch and his fellow traitors will oppose almost ALL Democratic attempts to help Americans.
The anti-communist Nixon’s sudden shift to Red China was not “taking things slow” either. The point was that these changes weren’t pushed by radicals. Biden IIRC wants a public change added to Obamacare. That would be a step in the right direction — a big step considering the stranglehold that lobbyists have on Congress. And Biden might get it passed: Moderate Democratic Congressmen are likely to respond to a moderate Democratic President, when they wouldn’t to a radical.
A different, but related, question is whether a radical M4A program would work. I agree with many other moderates who think that such radical programs would be extremely disruptive, would cause chaos, and hence electoral backlash. But I’m not worried about such chaos if Sanders is elected because those measures will not pass Congress anyway. I like Bernie and hope he continues to energize the D Party’s left wing. I’m afraid a Sanders Presidency would be unsuccessful, and therefore a huge let-down for the radicals I respect.
The above summarizes views that I’ve repeated over and over in these threads. I’m getting tired of repeating myself: others should pay more attention to me, especially since my views are the correct ones! 
Some Sanders supporters take the view that Biden's policies aren't too different from Republicans. This is hugely wrong for two reasons:
(a) Imagine a choice between Biden and Romney. Both of these are respectable centrists, men we could imagine as POTUS without worrying they're selling us out to Russia. Men who sincerely seek what's best for the country. ***Yet, within the gamut of American centrism Biden is hugely to the left of Romney.*** If the election were 16 years ago, say, between Biden and Romney, I would strongly support Biden but I would view Romney supporters with respect. But to equate Biden and Romney is absurd. The one is left-of-center, the other right-of-center. Once upon a time those were the two choices faced by American voters. American prosperity is the envy of the world; part of the reason is that we don't cripple corporations. But the best of us do regulate, work on employee protections, etc. As Biden has done.
(b) While Romney is a respectable Republican, *he isn't running*. ***And even if he were, I'd denounce him!*** Any Republican not willing to quit the Party of Hatred has lost my respect. I give Romney a partial pass — he's trying to push-back from inside the cesspool of evil — but his election would leave Moscow Mitch and the other evil-doers enabled.
Thus to elect Any.Republican is to enable Despicable Scum. (Gary Johnson may be slightly less despicable, but is as stupid as a banana slug.)
THEREFORE when I hear about someone who will vote Sanders but isn't sure they will turn out to vote a different Democrat, I know we're speaking of someone of contemptible stupidity. I can insult them as much as I like with no fear it will affect their decision: they won't even be able to understand what I'm saying if I throw in a few 3-syllable words.Duverger’s Law is so 20th-century. Here’s one view of the politics of our Brave New World.
I guess we’re going to ignore the part about, "That’s fifty years ago, what has he done since except sneer at “identity politics” ?
But I’m still curious. You implied that the story I cited wasn’t true. Is that still your view?
One major, major problem with a lot - not all but many - of Bernie Sanders’ voters (the Bernie or Bust in particular) is that I just don’t trust them. They’re great at attending rallies and wearing tee shirts, but I question their commitment and follow-through. I’ll explain:
Let’s start with a basic political reality. President Bernie Sanders is in absolutely no position whatsoever to strong-arm Mitch McConnell - none whatsoever. And I’ll tell you something else: Mitch McConnell has had a lot of time to practice and perfect the fine art of taking Democratic legislation out to water and holding its head under water until it stops moving. McConnell will have had a lot more time to master his job than any president, including Sanders, will have during the first year of his job. President Sanders would face that same problem that President Obama faced - the same problem that Bloomberg would face, that Biden would face, Warren, Yang - whoever. So the question isn’t if he would face obstructionist politics.
The question is how would Sanders manage these challenges. It’s not as easy as it looks. But does Bernie stand in front of a podium and whine about it, or does he take what he can in the moment? Keep in mind that legislation moves slowly, and he’d have probably one opportunity during his first term to address each of his pet issues (M4A, minimum wages etc). If he all he does is stand in front of a podium and whines, insisting that McConnell and Republicans support legislation they don’t care to support, he’ll lose support of people who want him to get things done. He’ll look weak and incompetent. OTOH, if he passes legislation that seems watered down, then what? If whatever Sanders passes doesn’t immediately take effect, if people don’t notice the results right away, then what? Remember that it took more than 2 years for Obamacare to roll out and probably another 2 years for people to start liking it. So then what? In Obama’s case, despite actually delivering on his pledge, many of the voters who voted Obama into power simply didn’t show up in 2010. And their inaction gave us Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
My bottom I don’t trust Bernie Sanders supporters to follow the bouncing ball of politics long enough to figure out why Bernie Sanders can’t get their agenda passed. They’ll grow frustrated. They’ll check out. And to boot, there’s a danger that we’ll be left with absolutely nothing passed.
You’re not wrong that refusing to vote if Sanders isn’t the nominee is stupid. I’ve explained it many times.
But this is just as, if not more stupid. If someone is willing to vote for Sanders, and might vote for the Democrats even if Sanders loses, then that is a potential Democratic vote. It is thus in our best interest to try and persuade them to vote with us, whether Sanders wins or not. They are someone we can pull in.
The last fucking thing we want to do is alienate them, pushing them to decide that there is no place for them in the Democratic Party if Sanders loses. We need to convince people to vote with us, not create our own ideological purity test.
They are themselves also swing voters–voters who could go either way. And it’s always in our best interest to try and get the swing voters to vote with us. And we have every opportunity to do so–if we can convince them that we also support most of what they support.
These are the easiest to get to vote with us, because, unlike what SenorBeef says, the Democrats do have progressive items on their agenda. Sure, they don’t have all of them, but they have some, and some is better than none.
These people are the exact opposite of a lost cause. The lost cause are the people who are against everything we stand for, not those who agree with us more than the other side. We just have to convince them that it’s more rational to vote for some of what they want instead of none of it.
Ah, I see. So your point, as it turned out, was that the key to making radical changes to a broken system is not to propose them at all. Biden would do a better job enacting Sanders’ agenda, because Biden would enact Biden’s agenda. A radical proposal will only have any chance to succeed if it’s part of a moderate’s agenda. LBJ was a moderate, in this light, in that his legislation passed, thereby making it a moderate big change.
It’s good that you acknowledge that you think Sanders’ voters are all intellectually bankrupt, but that’s coming through clearly enough anyway.
Sanders voters aren’t Sanders voters because they don’t know how politics work. They’re Sanders voters because they want his policies, and nobody else is going to even try for them. You’re acknowledging that this is a completely accurate accounting, but you’re also trying to wield that as a cudgel against them. asahi doesn’t “trust” Sanders voters, which amounts to the same thing in the end. Well, they don’t trust you. And you’ve all just explained why they shouldn’t. Telling a Sanders supporter that Joe Biden is just the adult version of Bernie Sanders, in that Biden will enact Sanders’ policies, only in the real world, because that’s the only thing that’s possible, is just saying to a Sanders voter “I do not agree with you about the most fundamental premise of your policies.”
In your defense, you all don’t seem to understand that. But, to your discredit, you all don’t seem to understand that.
We’re talking past one another. As usual.
Non-Berniebers understand and appreciate what Sanders stands for. They may not think he has a realistic chance of achieving it, but I do not hear them saying that they will stay home in a Sanders vs. Trump election.
You’ve tried to make the case that some Bernie Bros. are not holding Democratic party/liberal voters hostage if they do not vote to nominate Sanders, but time and again that is exactly what I’m hearing and seeing. Notably on this message board. They are the minority of Sanders supporters, I’m sure. But also notably, their fickleness against HRC made a Trump’s election possible, ss cited in previous posts. (Yes, HRC shares a large part of the blame. No need to remind us.) So you can’t say there is no reason for concern to those who want to get rid of Trump at almost any cost. And you certainly can’t say that people don’t understand the Bernie Sanders supporters. But there are bigger stakes at play here than just making sure that Sanders gets his shot at the title of POTUS. Insisting that he does smacks of the same kind of entitlement that HRC was fairly accused of. So let us not make that mistake again. Right?
Apparently Mr. Chitwood disagrees with the above.
You have managed to completely misunderstand my essential point — indeed managing to completely reverse what I’m saying — despite that I’ve discussed it in 2 or 3 other threads, and then twice in this thread. You couldn’t have concocted as thorough a misrepresentation if you used Roget’s Thesaurus to replace my verbs with their antonyms.
Congratulations, I guess.
Do you know what moves the Overton window even further to the right? The right wing extremist actually winning. Whoever wins becomes the new normal, and then you have to run either to stay the course, move further right, or move further left. You’re always competing against the status quo.
The claim that the Democrats have had no progressive items on their agenda is utterly ridiculous. Yes, there was a move to the right economically in the 1990s, but the movement has been more to the left since then. Maybe not as far as we’d like, but still to the left. Furthermore, socially, the Democrats have only ever pushed further left. We are the party of social justice, a progressive concept. The Democrats remain the only party that has anything the progressives want. That is why I, a progressive, vote for them.
This shit is still the same purity test and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. No, we don’t have a purely progressive Democratic party. But, guess what? We progressives are not the average Americans! We are the left extreme in our country. The average is to the right of us. And the Democrats have to appeal to them, too. That’s how a two-party system has to work–you appeal both to your base and to those in the middle.
Not voting is not your only methodology of influencing the Democratic Party. The party has primaries. You can vote in them. This isn’t just about maybe getting your preferred candidate to win, but to push the other candidates to have to appeal for your vote. That was supposed to be why Sanders ran in 2016, when his chance of winning was so remote.
Last time, Clinton had to incorporate some of Clinton’s agenda. This time, all of the candidates are having to put forth more progressive positions. If we can get more young people involved in the primaries to try and get what they want, that’s a good thing.
What wasn’t was when Sanders pushed the idea they were corrupt, despite the results matching the demographics. But he convinced people that the primaries were a sham, making them think the only way to influence anything was to threaten not to vote.
It’s not. And, well, such a threat is either reckless or idle. Either you have to go through with it if things don’t go your way, which means not voting against Trump and thus he gets four more years to terrorize and destroy what we hold dear, or you blink and vote against him anyways, which means voting for the only other candidate with any chance of winning–whoever wins the Democratic nomination.
In short, there is no reason for this extremely high risk play at this time. The time to get all upset about the Democrats not reflecting your views was BEFORE the despot ran on the other side and won. Now we first have to join together to stop the evil man first.
We need unity now. We can iron out our own squabbles later. Let’s put our enmity aside and work together to stop our common adversary.
And, yes, that last line goes to the anti-Sanders people, too. But it’s only believable if you fucking stop attacking the Bernie supporters! We can disagree, but still work together.
First, you linked to it by completely misusing LMGTFY, as though you don’t even know why that website was invented. Second, it’s only tangentially related to the discussion. Third, you may not have read the arguments against its even tangential relationship; I’d LMGTFY, but I figure you can google that shit yourself. Fourth, your petulant follow-up makes me even happier I didn’t respond in the first place.
One important point: Biden and Buttigieg are WAY to the left of where Gore and Kerry ever were when they ran. Biden is pretty far to the left of where Obama was in 2008.
Sanders supporters? We did that.
Just by virtue of pushing progressive views so heavily–just by virtue of having Sanders give Clinton a run for her money in 2016, and Warren and Sanders both giving Biden (and presumably Bloomberg) such a challenge in 2020, we’re forcing them to adopt more progressive positions than they probably would do otherwise.
I won’t be happy if any of the B-men win. But I’ll take solace in knowing that their positions are more progressive than they otherwise would have been.
I’m not misunderstanding. I do not disagree that it was a big change. I understand well enough that your point is that LBJ wasn’t considered an extreme leftist, and he was the one who shepherded the Civil Rights Act through Congress, having the support of his party. What I am pointing out is that it is a bad point. If you are experiencing a weird sense of backwardness, then it would seem you are understanding my point.
The analogy is between the Civil Rights Act and single-payer health care. Your analogy of Biden to LBJ is incoherent because Biden opposes the radical change we’re talking about. Biden cannot be LBJ, in this analogy, because not only won’t he stake his reputation on the Civil Rights Act, and fight for it, he won’t even attempt to pass it. He opposes it. He has an entirely different agenda. Biden is Robert Byrd. Biden is not going to, in LBJ fashion, steer this controversial ship safely to shore, because, unlike LBJ, not only does he not think it is super important that it happen, he has been very clear about the fact that he thinks it is important that it not happen. It is not persuasive to a Sanders supporter that Biden is a better vehicle for their agenda, because Biden is an opponent of their agenda. The only reason you see this differently is that your politics do not embrace this distinction, because you think Biden is more-or-less progressive enough, and you assume that Sanders supporters are just further left on the same axis, asking for too much more of the same essential thing. Which is a mistaken assumption.
So no, I don’t think this is a group of people who understand or have tried very hard to understand where Sanders supporters are coming from. I’m happy to agree to disagree about that; the fact that “Bernieber” and “Brat” and so on don’t get a rise out of me doesn’t mean I have time for a conversation like that.
This. That’s the bottom line. Everything is secondary to getting rid of the Orange Anus.
We can squabble and bitch when American Democracy and our Constitution is no longer threatened by a tinpot despot.
Before continuing, let’s take a glance at Biden’s plan for healthcare.
Does Biden’s plan have the holy name of “Bernie Sanders” stamped on it? No. Would it address the very same problems, be much less disruptive and be hugely more likely to pass Congress? You betcha.
Homer Simpson: *Just because we don’t care, doesn’t mean we don’t understand. *
Seriously, how much more mileage do you think you’re going to get out of the self-pitied “misunderstood” bit? How many more times do people have to say that Sanders deserves much of the credit for moving the Dem party leftward? Will you please take “Yes” for an answer when we repeatedly say that if Sanders is the nominee, he will receive full support of everyone who has agreed to vote “Blue or Bust”?