The way the Democratic establishment is treating Bernie supporters is a blunder.

[Procrustus]

@CarnalK

Cain is a not a valid example, he didn’t run in a campaign that gave black voters a chance to switch parties. Do you have polling data showing Keyes’ share of the black vote in Maryland? I assume you know who he ran against for the Illinois senate seat.

Keyes got 38% and 28% in two Senate general elections in Maryland. I can’t find a breakdown by race, but he couldn’t have received many black votes and done so poorly.

ETA: Dang, Ninja’d

[Sam_Lowry]

@iiandyiiii

I love Bernie and I think he’s run a great campaign in most respects. I think he failed in a few things – most critically, in relating to black voters – my impression was that he tried to tell black people what would work better for them, while Hillary tried to listen to black voters to find out what would work better for them. You can write that off as campaign optics, but that’s politics and part of connecting with voters. I think you’re (SenorBeef) very, very wrong (as well as demonstrating a very poor understanding of politics in black communities) if you think preferring a candidate who listened to you (or those like you) over the one who tried to tell you what would work is somehow less intelligent of a choice then some other method of picking a candidate.

I agree, I like that Clinton meets with people and listens to them. Here’s one example of mothers who have lost their sons to violence that she met with. Maybe Sanders meets with ordinary people too and listens to them and I just haven’t read about it, but I much more often hear about his rallies than with him meeting with people.

I think that the caricature of Clinton that has been made has overshadowed the real Clinton to many people. I thought this article written by a former Obama speechwriter who was initially against Clinton was interesting:

The most famous woman in the world would walk through the White House with no entourage, casually chatting up junior staffers along the way. She was by far the most prepared, impressive person at every Cabinet meeting. She worked harder and logged more miles than anyone in the administration, including the president. And she’d spend large amounts of time and energy on things that offered no discernible benefit to her political future—saving elephants from ivory poachers, listening to the plight of female coffee farmers in Timor-Leste, defending LGBT rights in places like Uganda.

Most of all—and you hear this all the time from people who’ve worked for her—Hillary Clinton is uncommonly warm and thoughtful. She surprises with birthday cakes. She calls when a grandparent passes away. She once rearranged her entire campaign schedule so a staffer could attend her daughter’s preschool graduation. Her husband charms by talking to you; Hillary does it by listening to you—not in a head-nodding, politician way; in a real person way.

If someone thinks she is fake or a liar or that when she meets with people it’s just stunts, I don’t think I could convince them otherwise. But I think she is sincere.

[Jophiel]

@CarnalK

Cain is a not a valid example, he didn’t run in a campaign that gave black voters a chance to switch parties. Do you have polling data showing Keyes’ share of the black vote in Maryland? I assume you know who he ran against for the Illinois senate seat.

Keyes was crushed by Obama among black voters in the election. If race was the primary factor, it should have been more even.

Ben Carson ran in enough open primary states to let black voters cast for him regardless of any party affiliation. Didn’t happen.

[TriPolar]

@iiandyiiii

So how can you declare that “the people” supported Bernie? Sounds like a data-free assertion, especially considering that she had more people vote for her.

I didn’t make any such declaration except for the people who came to see the candidates in RI last weekend. You are responding to my counter to the idea that support of the people can be determined by the number of votes when all the people are not allowed to vote.

[iiandyiiii]

@Jophiel

Keyes was crushed by Obama among black voters in the election. If race was the primary factor, it should have been more even.

Ben Carson ran in enough open primary states to let black voters cast for him regardless of any party affiliation. Didn’t happen.

As I noted in post #58, Keyes was crushed 88% to 12% among black voters by a white Democrat, Barbara Mikulski, in the '92 Maryland Senate election. Clearly, black voters voted for more than the race of the candidates.

[Procrustus]

@Sam_Lowry

If someone thinks she is fake or a liar or that when she meets with people it’s just stunts, I don’t think I could convince them otherwise. But I think she is sincere.

I will add, as someone who really couldn’t stand her in 2008, she has impressed me this election. I still prefer Bernie, but I can vote for Hillary without holding my nose.

[BobLibDem]

Realistically, what are Bernie supporters going to do, vote for Trump? About the only Bernie supporters that I can see having a logical reason for balking at Hillary is the guns issue, Bernie’s track record is certainly less friendly to gun control fans than Hillary’s. I view that as a bonus, not a defect, but obviously others may disagree.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@jsgoddess

If Sanders were to win, do you feel that Clinton supporters would have the same complaint? That they would have been mocked for their views and expected to take it? Because I think both sides have been mocked for their views. I know I have, and I’m not someone who has ever said I wouldn’t vote for Sanders.

Of course I feel that they’d have the same complaint and they’d be right to. I’m not saying that Sanders supporters are taking the high ground by any mean. Of course, the democrats are already not going to vote for Bernie in November so it wouldn’t make sense for a democrat to abstain from voting because of what Bernie said but if you did I’d support it.

.

If we look at all primaries for all parties, are supporters of the losing candidates always mocked? I think that tends to be true. I think many people get into a mode of trash talking that they can find it hard to break back out of, and they overemphasize differences between candidates because to do otherwise makes the loyalty to the one they’ve chosen feel too shallow. If it’s six of one and a half dozen of the other, then the choice is basically a coin flip. We don’t want to think of our political decisions that way, so we say it’s zero of one and a dozen of the other instead.

That it’s true does not mean that one has to participate in the game. We have that choice. By not voting I am actually supporting something that I believe in ( no matter the validity of that belief which I understand that others don’t get ) rather than voting against something and that is a better use of my voting right. I’m not just abstaining because my vote doesn’t matter; I’m abstaining because I feel that my non vote actually does matter.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@NVME702-redux

Hang on- this is in response to the “why are they treated like idiot children”
I don’t believe anyone should be treated like idiot children- but we need to consolidate. When you join the democratic party to promote your platform, you need to concede that there is an expectation of returning the favor, and some of the Bernie supporters are vehemently saying they wont. I’m not mocking you or your wishes to change- but I hope you understand that those kind of changes do not occur in one cycle.

So now you’re going to stay home and not vote. Ok. I see how that works

So you don’t believe that anyone should be treated as idiot children but calling them such is the most effective way to consolodate with them?

As for the point about changes not occurring in one cycle, while that undoubtably is true I can’t help smiling at the irony is that this is exactly the cause of the Republican party imploding against itself. They’ve heard that tune too many times. I’m sure though that by treating your supporters as idiot children will consolodate them and that the party will avoid a similar fate.

[Peanut_Gallery]

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
That’s the only way you actually CAN influence the parties to give you a seat at the table. If Trump wins 48-45-7, and the 7% is Jill Stein, then the democrats are going to change their platform to try to be inclusive towards the things that 7% wants, so they can win again.
[/QUOTE]

(quoted from the other thread that inspired this one)

This is self destructive playing with fire.

I am sympathetic to your ideas. I understand that voting D above “principle” makes the party stagnant and complacent. I wish Bernie could be the next president.

But do you think we could perhaps have this principled stand NEXT time instead? This particular election looks likely to set the direction of the Supreme Court for decades to come, and if we are going to throw (another) one for the sake of making the party better … this isn’t the one to do it with. The last one (2000) turned out to not be a great one either, but it wasn’t so clear ahead of time as it is now. Let’s just play it safe this time, let Hillary appoint the next 2-4 Justices, then we can be all pure and righteous in 2024, or hell maybe even 2020 if the Court is sane by then.

Having said that … when Nader voters threw 2000 so the party would become all pure and righteous, how did that work out for the party? Let’s not even mention how it worked out for the US in general and the Middle East…

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@Sam_Lowry

I don’t think all Sanders supporters are being called “Bernie Bros” by most people. Someone who supports Sanders, and argues why he would be a good choice, and has issues with Clinton and expresses them reasonably is just a reasonable Sanders supporter. Someone who hijacks other conversations to talk about Bernie, or uses sexist rhetoric to insult Clinton, or harasses and insults superdelegates about voting for Sanders instead of Clinton, I think those people are who are being called Bernie Bros.

I believe it started that way but the problem is that it’s a derogatory term that taints any Sanders supports with the same brush especially with the low information types. You then say that you support Sanders and you are immediately put into this tidy little box and dismissed. Ask muslims of the larger group gets tainted with the brush of it’s minority.

[Airbeck]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

I believe it started that way but the problem is that it’s a derogatory term that taints any Sanders supports with the same brush especially with the low information types. You then say that you support Sanders and you are immediately put into this tidy little box and dismissed. Ask muslims of the larger group gets tainted with the brush of it’s minority.

If you think that Sanders supporters are looked at more derisively than Clinton supporters then you aren’t being objective. On my facebook feed I’m bombarded daily with post after post and meme after meme about how great Bernie is and how evil Hillary is. No one that I know of is afraid to post about their support for Bernie, but even though I’ll gladly crawl over broken glass to vote for Hillary in November if she’s the Democratic nominee, I’ll never make a post about it on facebook because I’ll get flamed to death by all the Bernie people. I’ve seen it happen a bunch of times where someone tries to defend Hillary or express concern about Trump winning if people stay home and they get absolutely roasted by all the Bernie people. At least people don’t accuse you of being evil.

You have this whole thing kind of backwards if you ask me.

[DigitalC]

@Airbeck

You have this whole thing kind of backwards if you ask me.

It’s mostly only here that you get the pro Hillary bias, almost everywhere else i hang out the Berniebots are out in force.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@Skammer

I’ll admit, I laughed at the typo. “Very beast” indeed.

Like Penguin, I’m no Millennial. I was born in the 60s. And I wish to God there had been another Democrat or three that had been willing to join the race this year. But since O’Malley fizzled, and Bernie’s an actual liberal, that’s who I gave my support to.

I’m sure I’ll end up voting for Clinton, gritting my teeth that we don’t have a better candidate. The Dems have managed to nominate their worst, most unlikeable candidate in the field because any reasonable Democrats were afraid to run against her. But luckily for us, the GOP is about to nominate their even worse, even more unlikeable candidate, so she should have a pretty good shot.

But I resent like hell the sense of superiority and entitlement from many Clinton supports, and even more so the derision of Bernie supporters as ‘Bernie Bros’ or immature voters. I’ve been voting for president since 1988, goddammit, and I have a good enough grasp on presidential politics to know what a president can or can’t do. I know Bernie couldn’t deliver on his major goals. But we could have used someone who would try, not someone who represents a step backward in progressivism from Obama and will get even less cooperation than he did.

Democrats should be sweeping up this election, but we’re doing our damnest to make sure people throw up their hands and stay home.

I support this post. I don’t agree that Clinton is unlikable but she is the most polarizing person that the democrats could nominate and the least likely to get any cooperation from the other side.

Also, 1988 was my first election too so we’re likely of a similar age not just not millenials. It just sounds like I’m a little bit more fed up than you are.

[Procrustus]

@DigitalC

It’s mostly only here that you get the pro Hillary bias, almost everywhere else i hang out the Berniebots are out in force.

I guess I don’t get out much. The people I know like both candidates and are excited about November.

[DrDeth]

@SenorBeef

And by establishment, in this case, I’m also talking about people who demand loyalty to the party and support for Clinton.

I’m kind of amazed that you guys don’t see that you’re losing a young generation that wants to be politically active.

So you have this growing, passionate group who’s dedicated to having anything other than the same old same old, and you’re saying “ok you silly kids, you had your fun, but now it’s time for you to fall in lockstep and the exact opposite of the thing that has made you so interested in politics and so passionate. It’s time to put away your silly notions about changing the way things are done in Washington. Clinton is going to happen. It’s time to bend over and take it”, and then you say THEY’RE the bad guys because they don’t feel an undying loyalty to a party that doesn’t represent them.

All the while, you’ve been sneering at them and questioning their motives, calling them “Bernie Bros”, treating them like idiot children. And then you demand their loyalty. And the best argument you’ve got is “you know how shitty we’ve been to you, and how much you dislike our candidate? Well the other one is probably worse. So haha, you’re stuck. Bend over and take it.”.

Well, I believe “Bernie Bros” is what they call themselves.

But what would you have us do? We* need *a Democrat in the White House, we can’t have Trump or Cruz.

Hilary is winning the nomination by popular vote, she is the People’s choice. Should we reject her and the 12,135,069 people who voted for her? (That’s 3,167,713 more than Bernie, btw).

Look, us oldtime Dems love the energy from the younger generation, that’s great. But, Sanders has all but lost. The People have made their decision.

Now, if you want respect and cred, turn that energy* against Trump*. Sure, I can see why you can’t support Hillary 100% (even tho her platform is very close to Bernies), fine. But stop making Karl Rove happy, and stop pushing votes to Trump- stop attacking Clinton, start attacking Trump.

Try it. You’ll like it.

[Sam_Lowry]

@Peanut_Gallery

(quoted from the other thread that inspired this one)

This is self destructive playing with fire.

I am sympathetic to your ideas. I understand that voting D above “principle” makes the party stagnant and complacent. I wish Bernie could be the next president.

But do you think we could perhaps have this principled stand NEXT time instead? This particular election looks likely to set the direction of the Supreme Court for decades to come, and if we are going to throw (another) one for the sake of making the party better … this isn’t the one to do it with. The last one (2000) turned out to not be a great one either, but it wasn’t so clear ahead of time as it is now. Let’s just play it safe this time, let Hillary appoint the next 2-4 Justices, then we can be all pure and righteous in 2024, or hell maybe even 2020 if the Court is sane by then.

Having said that … when Nader voters threw 2000 so the party would become all pure and righteous, how did that work out for the party? Let’s not even mention how it worked out for the US in general and the Middle East…

Right, it’s possible that in 2020 there could be a Democratic candidate elected who is twice as progressive as Clinton. But if they’re having to go in after a Trump presidency, they’ll be starting from a much worse starting point than Clinton would be next year. They’ll have to work a lot to roll back what the Republicans have done, instead of building off progress that Obama has made. I’d rather have 8 years of Clinton steadily moving forward, even if it’s not as fast as I’d like, rather than 4 years of Trump in charge, and then 4 years of a progressive having to fix his mistakes. I do concede that it is possible that after Trump and then a true progressive that then in 2024 with the progressive candidate’s second term we could then have a true progressive utopia, but a lot of people would be hurt in the meantime, and I’m not willing to have that happen.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@Airbeck

If you think that Sanders supporters are looked at more derisively than Clinton supporters then you aren’t being objective. On my facebook feed I’m bombarded daily with post after post and meme after meme about how great Bernie is and how evil Hillary is. No one that I know of is afraid to post about their support for Bernie, but even though I’ll gladly crawl over broken glass to vote for Hillary in November if she’s the Democratic nominee, I’ll never make a post about it on facebook because I’ll get flamed to death by all the Bernie people. I’ve seen it happen a bunch of times where someone tries to defend Hillary or express concern about Trump winning if people stay home and they get absolutely roasted by all the Bernie people. At least people don’t accuse you of being evil.

You have this whole thing kind of backwards if you ask me.

I don’t really don’t use facebook often but I’ve lived mostly in red states so I get a decidedly republican facebook feed which doesn’t really incentivize my reading it.

In any case, I’ve already stated that I don’t support bad behavior on either faction but I’ve only got one vote not to cast. You are way more dedicated to your candidate than I am to mine though. I would not crawl over glass to vote for Bernie even if I could.

That’s part of my thinking. I’m deescalating my concern for the game of politics. I think I’ll live better. I’ll still follow it, I am a junkie but I realize that the world survives if I check out of the process for a while. Bearing the weight of the future of humanity itself on your shoulders is quite tiring. I’ll let others take that burdon, crawl over the glass and save us all for the next four years when it will all start over again.

[DrDeth]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

I’m not going to vote.

Karl Rove and Donald Trump thank you for you support.

[wonky]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

Of course I feel that they’d have the same complaint and they’d be right to. I’m not saying that Sanders supporters are taking the high ground by any mean. Of course, the democrats are already not going to vote for Bernie in November so it wouldn’t make sense for a democrat to abstain from voting because of what Bernie said but if you did I’d support it.

That it’s true does not mean that one has to participate in the game. We have that choice. By not voting I am actually supporting something that I believe in ( no matter the validity of that belief which I understand that others don’t get ) rather than voting against something and that is a better use of my voting right. I’m not just abstaining because my vote doesn’t matter; I’m abstaining because I feel that my non vote actually does matter.

But it sounds like you’re saying (and correct me if I’m just not getting it) that in all primaries people are mean to people who are on their side of the aisle, and that Sanders supporters are being mean to Clinton supporters, but that you’re refusing to vote for Clinton because Clinton supporters are also mean to Sanders supporters.

If supporters being mean disqualifies a candidate, then Sanders would also be disqualified, wouldn’t he?