-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
This has been going on for 4 years, so it's not reasonable to say that the Bernie bros are gonna change. Best thing is to be pragmatic and vote for Sanders
damn. glad my literal life is in the hands of people famously resistant to deciding "fascism is okay if my first choice doesn't make it" is actually an extremely immoral position to hold
Unfortunately, there are other voters to be won closer to the center. Bernie's base being so unreliable means democrats can't afford to count on them, and thus the party will need to move to the center to attract those more moderate voters. Essentially, those Bernie or Bust voters are just forcing the democrats further to the right!
I don't think he expects that at all, and internet discussion isn't reflective of reality.
Well, it's reflective of the reality of the characters of some people on the internet.
I've heard similar from Biden stans (lol) like "Pete should drop out and all of his supporters need to get behind Biden!" and I'm just like "the Iowa caucus hasn't even happened yet, it's way too early for this". It's pretty annoying, you're supposed to earn votes, not bully people into voting for your candidate.
Yeah, that's fair. But I don't like the idea of trying to discredit a candidate directly because of an internet narrative they themselves aren't perpetuating.
If a candidate surrounds himself with people who do that today or did that in the past, in both paid and unpaid positions, including those that voice that people should sit out past elections or vote third party, I dunno but it seems to say something of the candidate to me and the internet narrative around them.
Sanders himself has appealed to his base to tone it down during this primary, and to avoid harassing his opponents online. There is no point in refusing to acknowledge a problem the man himself saw fit to address head on. There are issues unique to his diehards not present anywhere else except across the aisle and it is not an attack on Bernie Sanders to own this. Severe over-protectiveness of Sanders and stubborn attempts to downplay legitimate issues about his past, his campaign or his base only hurts him. You absolutely cannot fix a problem you're pretending doesn't exist.
To be fair, it's that same aggressive and nearly fanatical energy he engenders from so many people that has become a primary reason I've swung my support to him from Warren. If it's going to take a little apotheosis to win, so be it. But it would be nice if that energy was not conspiracy laden and rage directed at any perceived slight from any perceived enemy at the slightest provocation, like a hyper sensitive bee hive on constant alert. It would be nicer if more people across this entire primary listened to Bernie Sanders and tried harder to avoid fights over "personalities and past grievances", even when individuals like Clinton et al fail to follow his example.
To be fair, it's that same aggressive and nearly fanatical energy he engenders from so many people that has become a primary reason I've swung my support to him from Warren. If it's going to take a little apotheosis to win, so be it. But it would be nice if that energy was not conspiracy laden and rage directed at any perceived slight from any perceived enemy at the slightest provocation, like a hyper sensitive bee hive on constant alert. It would be nicer if more people across this entire primary listened to Bernie Sanders and tried harder to avoid fights over "personalities and past grievances", even when individuals like Clinton et al fail to follow his example.
I mean, Sanders himself has been vocal about how defeating Trump is the most important thing and that he'd support any candidate who gets the nomination and campaign for them. I think the Bernie or Bust crowd is much smaller then people fear it is, and largely made up of people following a reddit hype train who were not reliably democratic voters to begin with that may very well have either broken for Trump or more likely not voted at all otherwise.
i guess a lot of folks just think it's a little odd that he hired folks who were quite vocal about voting green party in 2016 to be members of his senior campaign staff who go out and give speeches on his behalf. are they going to act differently this time around if sanders doesn't win the primary, or are they gonna use all that rapport they developed with voters to urge them to stay home or vote third party again instead of voting for The Klob?
Not really sure this is true in a primary where a genuine contender for Bernie's progressive niche appeared in the form of Elizabeth Warren and has consistently been a top 3 candidate alongside Bernie. It's obvious Americans are hungry for a real progressive politician. The center won't hold.
Pretty much every study ever shows how much safer people when there is gun control.
There was recently a poll that showed that only 53% of Bernie supporters would unconditionally vote for the Democratic nominee.
No poll means anyone can spin it however they want.
And it looks like higher caucus turnout means that there's going to be location changes... in less than 48 hours.
I hope everyone can get everyone to their proper locations.
And it looks like higher caucus turnout means that there's going to be location changes... in less than 48 hours.
I hope everyone can get everyone to their proper locations.
From an unreliable pollster which uses Mechanical Turk. They've actually also had a recent poll (december) showing the exact opposite. I don't believe there's been that huge of a swing. And if it is true, then there's plenty of time to swing it back the other direction.
When his national press secretary proclaimed that she voted for Jill Stein, when highly visible surrogates said they supported Jill Stein and that "they're both the same, so don't vote", when his senior advisor and speech writer at every opportunity in 2016 took a dump on the Dem candidate, when his pick to help craft the DNC platform in 2016 says "vote Jill Stein" and so on... I dunno, I think a lot of people are going to say "we learned it from watching you". Sanders can say "don't do that" but when he surrounds himself with people that say "go ahead and do that', well, it's conflicting, to say the least.
Or, to quote everyone's favorite polling firm Emerson (which everyone loves to quote/post when their favorite candidate is winning it): Only 53% of Sanders supporters will vote Dem no matter what. 47% is split with a hard no (16%) of "it depends" (31%). To put that in perspective, if you add up the No and "it depends" numbers of Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg (i.e., the three other frontrunners) COMBINED it is 38%, still 9% behind the Sanders people. Even for Emerson, it'd be a hell of an error to have those numbers be that far off.
You do realize that you called Emerson unreliable and then post a poll of theirs to support your post?
User warned: trolling
lmao really living up to the avatar
Yes I deliberately did it to show how unreliable they are.
How is that unreliable? You have to recognize is that one asking about deliberately voting for Trump. That's a different prop than just not voting for the Democratic nominee.
Well, if we're going to quote that Emerson poll:
I agree Emerson sucks, though.
Then why are you quoting a poll that sucks? Can you not find a reliable poll to support your argument?
Or we could just use the data from last election evidencing the vast majority of Sanders voters went Hilary and he stumped for her 40 times.
That was the point they were intentionally making. If its unreliable and not worth considering then both polls should be deemed as such, not the one that suits a particular argument.
Because it's the same pollster quoted above, which I was responding to?
Yes? That's the poll I was responding from Emerson with another poll from Emerson.
The fact that they use mTurk/online for half their sampling makes it unreliable.
I apologize if I'm not making sense. I'm neurodivergent and I don't always communicate in a straightforward way.
It's a premature question anyway. Acting in a tribal fashion while the primaries are still going on isn't reflective of what they'll do in the GE, or even what they'll answer in the GE if polled then.
nah you're making sense, we're mostly just having a hard time parsing Emerson itself
I see no reason why we would expect radically different results from last time around. A far more interesting question is whether Hilary voters would show up to support Bernie in a general given they made up a
Last edited:
weren't both approximately the same in terms of retention (75% for nominee, 25% literally any other choice)?
The Bernie voters who defected to Trump, explained by a political scientist
A new study found that about 12 percent of Sanders voters from the primary supported Trump in the general election.
www.vox.com
If were going to argue that a contigent of bernie voters are going to be a problem with not supporting the eventual Dem nom thats more than reasonable. To make it out like they will be a huge problem or one of the major problems is blatantly ridiculous, at least unless were going to start seriously discussing that Hilary voters have been a bigger problem in this regard than his supporters have been. Bernie and his voters largely showed up to support Hilary.
If Bernie wins, by November we're going to be up to our eyeballs in the Jane Sanders Burlington College corruption scandal, with Trump calling it the worst thing that's ever happened. "Can you imagine if I tried something like that? The Fake News would be going crazy. Crazy Bernie and Calamity Jane make Crooked Hillary and Sleepy Joe look like saints."
I've got no problem voting for Bernie in the GE, but this is how it's going to be for whoever the Dem nominee is.
Significant? You are talking about Bernie > Hillary and Hillary > Obama primary to general voters, right?
i mean, i'm mostly arguing in favor of accuracy in numbers: ANES showed 79.5-15.7-4.8 (or 79.5-20.5) in 2008 and 77.0-10.8-12.2 (or 77.0-23.0) in 2016The Bernie voters who defected to Trump, explained by a political scientist
A new study found that about 12 percent of Sanders voters from the primary supported Trump in the general election.
If were going to argue that a contigent of bernie voters are going to be a problem with not supporting the eventual Dem nom thats more than reasonable. To make it out like they will be a huge problem or one of the major problems is blatantly ridiculous, at least unless were going to start seriously discussing that Hilary voters have been a bigger problem in this regard than his supporters have been. Bernie and his voters largely showed up to support Hilary.
Difference in scale. Every potential candidate will be attacked for sure, but I think Sanders is less vulnerable to Trump's brand of smear tactics than Biden would be.
Sure I'll rephrase and remove significantly.
So then we should be talking about both groups since they both ostensibly have a problem supporting the eventual nom (or agree its not the biggest problem worth worrying about).
in complete agreement on this point! (...and ironically my original back-and-forth with Cash in here ended with me saying exactly this)
Ehhh that scandal was pretty weak to me, besides out of all the candidates Biden would be the easiest to bring out dirt. Though I'm pretty sure out of the my 2 (Sanders is my first and Warren is my second choice) Warren has the least dirt. Though to be fair Sanders just has the longer consistent voting record though that's just because he's served the house and Senate longer
all good
lord knows there hasn't been a reason to think I've been coming at things in good faith lately 😬
hey king, i know you probably didn't mean it this way, but you're tacitly suggesting that republicans only use truthful attacks, which i assure you is not the case. understanding that now is going to be really important later when bernie's the nominee.
A scandal about an email server was pretty weak, too. The Fox News machine is *very good* at ratfucking. It wasn't that long ago that Hillary Clinton was "the most popular politician in the country."
I believe Bernie can win, but it's going to be way way nastier than anyone expects, and he's not going to have the same reputation he does now at the end of it.
That's what I would assume, although it is certainly disconcerting to see so many Bernie supporters on the board assert that Bernie supporters are untrustworthy and would allow Trump to get re-elected. A few of them have even said explicitly that they themselves would refuse to vote and thus allow Trump to get re-elected. It's distressing coming from people who claim to be on the left, given that an opposition to racism and sexism is fundamental to the leftist movement. Do they see something within their movement that we don't?
Not to mention that the Rogan endorsement probably wouldn't be that big of a deal in a state like Iowa, regardless of person feelings on the matter.
A number of them are probably privileged enough to not care about a second Trump admin, or are dumb enough to believe in left accelerationism.
- Status