Election 2020

[liebzz]

Warren is a committed progressive. I have no doubts on that. This idea that she doesn’t pass the purity test because she doesn’t take the exact stance as Sanders is a familiar refrain. No one could possibly pass that purity test. Probably not Bernie “I used to support gun rights” Sanders himself.

[LoathedVermin72]

Warren is a committed progressive. I have no doubts on that. This idea that she doesn’t pass the purity test because she doesn’t take the exact stance as Sanders is a familiar refrain. No one could possibly pass that purity test. Probably not Bernie “I used to support gun rights” Sanders himself.

I said leftism, not progressivism. They’re completely different ideologies. I’m not interested in a progressive candidate. (I am also not anti-gun.)

[Green Habit]

LV, how do you plan to advance leftist policy without the backing of a broad coalition like the Democratic Party?

[LoathedVermin72]

LV, how do you plan to advance leftist policy without the backing of a broad coalition like the Democratic Party?

Isn't that exactly what Sanders is attempting to do?

[Jorge]

Warren is a committed progressive. I have no doubts on that. This idea that she doesn’t pass the purity test because she doesn’t take the exact stance as Sanders is a familiar refrain. No one could possibly pass that purity test. Probably not Bernie “I used to support gun rights” Sanders himself.

I said leftism, not progressivism. They’re completely different ideologies. I’m not interested in a progressive candidate. (I am also not anti-gun.)

Are you thinking of the difference between leftism and liberalism? This is the first I've seen someone not on the right make a distinction between leftism and progressivism

[Green Habit]

LV, how do you plan to advance leftist policy without the backing of a broad coalition like the Democratic Party?

Isn't that exactly what Sanders is attempting to do?

OK, so let's say he becomes president via nomination by the Democrats. How's he going to work with a Congress that's presumably well to his right to pass the sort of agenda that you believe he is the best in advocating for?

[LoathedVermin72]

Warren is a committed progressive. I have no doubts on that. This idea that she doesn’t pass the purity test because she doesn’t take the exact stance as Sanders is a familiar refrain. No one could possibly pass that purity test. Probably not Bernie “I used to support gun rights” Sanders himself.

I said leftism, not progressivism. They’re completely different ideologies. I’m not interested in a progressive candidate. (I am also not anti-gun.)

Are you thinking of the difference between leftism and liberalism? This is the first I've seen someone not on the right make a distinction between leftism and progressivism

Leftism isn't new or "progressive." These ideas have been around for a long time. Progressivism is just boilerplate liberalism (which, in the US, is essentially a center-right ideology) with an identity politics paint job, as far as I can tell.

[LoathedVermin72]

LV, how do you plan to advance leftist policy without the backing of a broad coalition like the Democratic Party?

Isn't that exactly what Sanders is attempting to do?

OK, so let's say he becomes president via nomination by the Democrats. How's he going to work with a Congress that's presumably well to his right to pass the sort of agenda that you believe he is the best in advocating for?

I assume by decapitating them

[verb_to_trust]

LV, how do you plan to advance leftist policy without the backing of a broad coalition like the Democratic Party?

Isn't that exactly what Sanders is attempting to do?

OK, so let's say he becomes president via nomination by the Democrats. How's he going to work with a Congress that's presumably well to his right to pass the sort of agenda that you believe he is the best in advocating for?

I assume by decapitating them

Lol

[Bi_3]

It seems like the Democrats would prefer that to Bernie.

I think the last few pages have shown that’s backwards, Bernie cultists would help elect Trump again (like they did 2016) before supporting anyone else.

It’s amazing that shortly after the election, basically everyone conceded that Hillary was a very flawed candidate, one of the most disliked ever, yet these arguments persist. Bernie played to win in 2016, like she did in 2008. He worked harder than she did for the eventual nominee. But because she couldn’t bring it home... it’s Bernie’s fault. So yea, there is a cult like element on the left that loves Bernie, and will annoy you on Twitter. And then there’s an anti-Bernie force with actual influence. JuanHamm was right.

Edit : JuanHamm’s statement is a bit broad, so I’d say “some” democrats.

I understand that some people found the idea of proffering a vote to elect not only the first woman president, but likely the most qualified candidate in history as uninspiring, but you may want to look a bit further at the data:

[Rob]

It seems like the Democrats would prefer that to Bernie.

I think the last few pages have shown that’s backwards, Bernie cultists would help elect Trump again (like they did 2016) before supporting anyone else.

So many erroneous assumptions in this post, mainly that:

1. Supporting Bernie means you’re a democrat, and therefore that you would/should support other democratic candidates if Bernie isn’t nominated

2. Support for Bernie is somehow about him as a political personality, and not about him being the only genuine leftist in the race

Your point #1 is accurate. Some Bernie fans are just not democrats. Same with those famed Obama/Trump supporters. There is always a small portion of a base that is in it for the candidate, not the party. This is why it’s ridiculous to blame Hillary’s loss on Bernie, or anyone’s loss on their prior challengers.

I think your point #2 is half true? It’s not all about political personality, but I think it’s wrong to say that a self avowed socialist might overcome that label without developing a persona that rises above it. Lots of people clearly love him, the man. It’s part of it.

And he is appealing to many democrats. There are plenty of people on the left who support the party and want it to move in his direction. You need those people along with the lefties who won’t officially sign on for Bernie to win. You can’t get everyone but the anti-establishment, Indy left voter is not enough. Not enough to win and not enough to govern. I’m all for the strategy of saying “fuck off” to the people who say he’s terrible/dangerous and won’t vote for him anyway. But he’s doing well in part because he’s appealing broadly to many bases.

[Rob]

It seems like the Democrats would prefer that to Bernie.

I think the last few pages have shown that’s backwards, Bernie cultists would help elect Trump again (like they did 2016) before supporting anyone else.

It’s amazing that shortly after the election, basically everyone conceded that Hillary was a very flawed candidate, one of the most disliked ever, yet these arguments persist. Bernie played to win in 2016, like she did in 2008. He worked harder than she did for the eventual nominee. But because she couldn’t bring it home... it’s Bernie’s fault. So yea, there is a cult like element on the left that loves Bernie, and will annoy you on Twitter. And then there’s an anti-Bernie force with actual influence. JuanHamm was right.

Edit : JuanHamm’s statement is a bit broad, so I’d say “some” democrats.

I understand that some people found the idea of proffering a vote to elect not only the first woman president, but likely the most qualified candidate in history as uninspiring, but you may want to look a bit further at the data:

PA #’s are a bit high but the numbers in MI & WI do not suggest that Bernie Bros or his base are responsible for those losses. 8-9% voting elsewhere is normal. The Bernie base record in 2016 doesn’t seem any worse than Hillary’s in 2008.

Edit : what I mean is that those results are pretty normal.

[LoathedVermin72]

It seems like the Democrats would prefer that to Bernie.

I think the last few pages have shown that’s backwards, Bernie cultists would help elect Trump again (like they did 2016) before supporting anyone else.

So many erroneous assumptions in this post, mainly that:

1. Supporting Bernie means you’re a democrat, and therefore that you would/should support other democratic candidates if Bernie isn’t nominated

2. Support for Bernie is somehow about him as a political personality, and not about him being the only genuine leftist in the race

Your point #1 is accurate. Some Bernie fans are just not democrats. Same with those famed Obama/Trump supporters. There is always a small portion of a base that is in it for the candidate, not the party. This is why it’s ridiculous to blame Hillary’s loss on Bernie, or anyone’s loss on their prior challengers.

I think your point #2 is half true? It’s not all about political personality, but I think it’s wrong to say that a self avowed socialist might overcome that label without developing a persona that rises above it. Lots of people clearly love him, the man. It’s part of it.

And he is appealing to many democrats. There are plenty of people on the left who support the party and want it to move in his direction. You need those people along with the lefties who won’t officially sign on for Bernie to win. You can’t get everyone but the anti-establishment, Indy left voter is not enough. Not enough to win and not enough to govern. I’m all for the strategy of saying “fuck off” to the people who say he’s terrible/dangerous and won’t vote for him anyway. But he’s doing well in part because he’s appealing broadly to many bases.

That's fair. I guess I'm really mostly speaking for myself in point #2.

[Bi_3]

It seems like the Democrats would prefer that to Bernie.

I think the last few pages have shown that’s backwards, Bernie cultists would help elect Trump again (like they did 2016) before supporting anyone else.

It’s amazing that shortly after the election, basically everyone conceded that Hillary was a very flawed candidate, one of the most disliked ever, yet these arguments persist. Bernie played to win in 2016, like she did in 2008. He worked harder than she did for the eventual nominee. But because she couldn’t bring it home... it’s Bernie’s fault. So yea, there is a cult like element on the left that loves Bernie, and will annoy you on Twitter. And then there’s an anti-Bernie force with actual influence. JuanHamm was right.

Edit : JuanHamm’s statement is a bit broad, so I’d say “some” democrats.

I understand that some people found the idea of proffering a vote to elect not only the first woman president, but likely the most qualified candidate in history as uninspiring, but you may want to look a bit further at the data:

PA #’s are a bit high but the numbers in MI & WI do not suggest that Bernie Bros or his base are responsible for those losses. 8-9% voting elsewhere is normal. The Bernie base record in 2016 doesn’t seem any worse than Hillary’s in 2008.

Edit : what I mean is that those results are pretty normal.

Read the thread to understand the source of the data and effect of those voters. That does not include the Bernie or bust shitwits who stayed home because she was so less inspiring that they literally just couldn’t

[LoathedVermin72]

It seems like the Democrats would prefer that to Bernie.

I think the last few pages have shown that’s backwards, Bernie cultists would help elect Trump again (like they did 2016) before supporting anyone else.

It’s amazing that shortly after the election, basically everyone conceded that Hillary was a very flawed candidate, one of the most disliked ever, yet these arguments persist. Bernie played to win in 2016, like she did in 2008. He worked harder than she did for the eventual nominee. But because she couldn’t bring it home... it’s Bernie’s fault. So yea, there is a cult like element on the left that loves Bernie, and will annoy you on Twitter. And then there’s an anti-Bernie force with actual influence. JuanHamm was right.

Edit : JuanHamm’s statement is a bit broad, so I’d say “some” democrats.

I understand that some people found the idea of proffering a vote to elect not only the first woman president, but likely the most qualified candidate in history as uninspiring, but you may want to look a bit further at the data:

PA #’s are a bit high but the numbers in MI & WI do not suggest that Bernie Bros or his base are responsible for those losses. 8-9% voting elsewhere is normal. The Bernie base record in 2016 doesn’t seem any worse than Hillary’s in 2008.

Edit : what I mean is that those results are pretty normal.

Read the thread to understand the source of the data and effect of those voters. That does not include the Bernie or bust shitwits who stayed home because she was so less inspiring that they literally just couldn’t

at this point you're just being deliberately dense

[Rob]

I did read it. 88% of Bernie supporters voted for Clinton, according to that thread.

I would expect Bernie loses a few % points among the Dem base for not affiliating with the party. Should also be assumed a Dem loses a couple % points of his voters. It is the candidates responsibility to win enough votes. Obama won because he offset the portion of Hillary voters who would not vote for him. Hillary could not do the same.

Edit: a couple EXTRA % points is what I mean

[liebzz]

I think we would have to know the number of 200& Clinton primary voters that turned around and voted for McCain over Obama. I don’t think it would be that high of a percentage.

[Bi_3]

I think we would have to know the number of 200& Clinton primary voters that turned around and voted for McCain over Obama. I don’t think it would be that high of a percentage.

The WaPo article linked in that twitter thread has that data as well as the percentage or red team primary voters who voted for Clinton

[BurtReynolds]

LV, how do you plan to advance leftist policy without the backing of a broad coalition like the Democratic Party?

Isn't that exactly what Sanders is attempting to do?

OK, so let's say he becomes president via nomination by the Democrats. How's he going to work with a Congress that's presumably well to his right to pass the sort of agenda that you believe he is the best in advocating for?

I assume by decapitating them

[Rob]

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/ ... ton-242819

”How does this compare to other elections?
It’s a perennial question whether supporters of losing primary candidates will vote for their party’s nominee in the general election. So let’s compare the Democratic primary with the Republican primary. In the VOTER Survey, only 3 percent of those supporting Texas Sen. Ted Cruz reported voting for Hillary Clinton, as did 10 percent of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s supporters and 32 percent of Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s supporters. So Sanders supporters were about as likely to vote for Trump as Rubio’s supporters were to vote for Clinton, and far less likely than Kasich supporters were to vote for Clinton.
Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.


An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)
Thus, the 6 percent or 12 percent of Sanders supporters who may have supported Trump does not look especially large in comparison with these other examples.“