IMO, if you'd back Trump over Warren you're not a Democrat. If you'd vote elitism and corruption over the rights and lives of human beings, you're not really liberal at all, you just like to tell...
IMO, if you'd back Trump over Warren you're not a Democrat. If you'd vote elitism and corruption over the rights and lives of human beings, you're not really liberal at all, you just like to tell yourself you are.
Oh no! We'll miss out on the votes of like, 100 dudes in the middle of New York City! SUCH A CRITICAL CONSTITUENCY!!!! This is basically a pro-Warren campaign ad. To quote FDR:
Oh no! We'll miss out on the votes of like, 100 dudes in the middle of New York City! SUCH A CRITICAL CONSTITUENCY!!!!
This is basically a pro-Warren campaign ad. To quote FDR:
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.
The practical issue is super-PAC money, which the current system relies on. Advertising clearly works, so that could be a problem if Wall Street goes all-in on the GOP. Now don't get me wrong,...
The practical issue is super-PAC money, which the current system relies on. Advertising clearly works, so that could be a problem if Wall Street goes all-in on the GOP.
Now don't get me wrong, IMHO when properly motivated, individual donors will crush even the 1% in contributions. My fantasy is that Sanders drops out prior to the convention and puts all of his ground game to work for Warren. But even if that doesn't happen, I think Warren has a good chance to win the final election. I sent her money, and I never send politicians money.
I wouldn't hold my breath. I get the sneaking suspicion Sanders caught the Presidential bug when he realized he could actually win this thing and I don't get the sense that he's in it for the...
My fantasy is that Sanders drops out prior to the convention and puts all of his ground game to work for Warren.
I wouldn't hold my breath. I get the sneaking suspicion Sanders caught the Presidential bug when he realized he could actually win this thing and I don't get the sense that he's in it for the right reasons anymore. I have a hard time believing the negative tone of his campaign towards her (and anyone else) doesn't come straight from the top, if not from the man himself then from his inner circle. The nearly verbatim repetition of the exact same talking points directed at the same targets by every drone on Twitter and Reddit is just too consistent to be an accident.
Isn't trying to "actually win this thing" the whole point? If several primaries had already happened and Sanders hadn't performed well, I think that would be a valid criticism, but we're not even...
Isn't trying to "actually win this thing" the whole point? If several primaries had already happened and Sanders hadn't performed well, I think that would be a valid criticism, but we're not even past Iowa yet.
I think the negative tone you see can be better explained by significant ideological differences. Sanders is a socialist and so are most of his supporters, right? Why wouldn't they criticize Warren given that she has said she is a capitalist to her bones?
I'm a socialist and I prefer Warren over Bernie for a lot of reasons. I think Warren has significantly better policy stances and on a larger range of issues than Bernie does. Additionally, I know...
I'm a socialist and I prefer Warren over Bernie for a lot of reasons. I think Warren has significantly better policy stances and on a larger range of issues than Bernie does. Additionally, I know nothing Bernie proposes is ever going to get made into laws because he loves burning bridges with the Democratic Party, who he need the support of if he doesn't want to be a lame-duck president. For my money, Warren is the better anti-corruption, hold Wall Street accountable candidate.
Which ones? It's unusual to see a socialist who believes they can get any socialist policy through the corporatist Democrats...
I think Warren has significantly better policy stances and on a larger range of issues than Bernie does.
Which ones?
Additionally, I know nothing Bernie proposes is ever going to get made into laws because he loves burning bridges with the Democratic Party, who he need the support of if he doesn't want to be a lame-duck president.
It's unusual to see a socialist who believes they can get any socialist policy through the corporatist Democrats...
(1) Do you want me to go through all of them? For starters... https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/green-manufacturing https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/clean-energy...
Take your pick on pretty much any of her proposals on her policy page.
(2) Yeah. That's the whole point. I have yet to see Bernie Sanders explain to me in any sort of way where he gets any socialist policy through congress. Unless he plans on becoming supreme dictator, he's going to need the House and Senate to be involved and on board with the process. I don't think socialism is coming to America in the near future, and while my disdain of capitalism is high, I care more about trying to help people in need more and stopping the earth from becoming a barren hellscape. I think Warren's plans are (1) better thought out and (2) more likely to actually get enacted.
Again, I'm not really seeing much of a difference here. Mind detailing where you believe her policies stack up when compared to Bernie's? Because right now this reads a bit like a Gish Galllop....
Take your pick on pretty much any of her proposals on her policy page.
Again, I'm not really seeing much of a difference here. Mind detailing where you believe her policies stack up when compared to Bernie's? Because right now this reads a bit like a Gish Galllop.
Unless he plans on becoming supreme dictator, he's going to need the House and Senate to be involved and on board with the process
But you're assuming more progressive candidates don't get elected in 2020 or 2022. Once Democrats understand that they either support progressive policies or they're out of office, you'll see many of them change their tune.
And you're doing the opposite in assuming progressive candidates will get elected in 2020 or 2022. Meanwhile the moderate candidate is polling +11 over the second place candidate in National...
And you're doing the opposite in assuming progressive candidates will get elected in 2020 or 2022. Meanwhile the moderate candidate is polling +11 over the second place candidate in National polling (and doing so primarily off the support of black voters, who tend to be more moderate), M4A is barely favorably polling, and in 2018 progressive candidates won about as often as centrists did. I'm not saying you're wrong and that no progressives are going to get elected, but I don't agree that we are guaranteed to see a massive overwhelming shift to the left amongst the voting population and the house/senate representatives.
And to your point about policy: I don't think they are super different. I said I prefer them. There are only slight differences in them, and I lean towards Warren in those differences. Similarly, I don't like Bernie. I voted for him in the 2016 primaries because I far valued his policies over Hillary, but I thought he was a dick that often chose to minimize issues involving race and identity in order to focus on the economy, a trend noted by lots of people in marginalized groups as well and why they didn't turn out for him in large numbers. I also think the difference between someone who is 77 and 70 is big. I think the fact that Warren was instrumental in defining the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (and honestly would have been its head if not for republicans) is a great reason to vote for her if you care about holding wall street accountable.
I feel like that's a bit of an intellectually dishonest reading of a single poll amidst a sea of polls showing Biden and Warren almost neck and neck....
Meanwhile the moderate candidate is polling +11 over the second place candidate in National polling
I feel like that's a bit of an intellectually dishonest reading of a single poll amidst a sea of polls showing Biden and Warren almost neck and neck.
And to your point about policy: I don't think they are super different. I said I prefer them. There are only slight differences in them, and I lean towards Warren in those differences.
Right, so you keep saying. I'm asking you to articulate the differences in policy so that we can discuss them.
The Democratic Party Is Actually Three Parties https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/opinion/2020-progressive-candidates.html You've got "very liberal" (read progressive) and "liberal" tracking...
Those aren’t ideological differences, that’s just tribalist signaling. Policy wise there is barely any daylight between them and the Sanders contingent spends most of its time making bad faith...
Those aren’t ideological differences, that’s just tribalist signaling. Policy wise there is barely any daylight between them and the Sanders contingent spends most of its time making bad faith statements about how everyone who isn’t Bernie is a sell out and how Bernie has some kind of green lantern ring that will allow him to accomplish amazing things through sheer willpower.
And most of this stuff isn’t even anything Bernie himself says because he’s a veteran politician who actually understands how Congress works. But even otherwise intelligent columnists seem to take complete leave of their senses when anything electoral comes around.
The “Warren isn’t really pro M4A” line is especially ridiculous. To say Bernie can get M4A passed if even Warren doesn’t support it is such fantastical magical thinking. If Warren isn’t on board then Sanders would be walking in with zero ex-ante supporters in the Senate but we are to believe he will somehow Magic his policies into place anyway? What’s the realistic mechanism here? The narrative that everyone’s a sellout out to undermine Bernie doesn’t mesh with the narrative that Bernie is actually going to accomplish anything once in office.
I mean by that logic how is Warren going to get anything she says she wants done? At least with Bernie you have an ideology-based populist backing nearly 50 years in the making, and as Trump has...
If Warren isn’t on board then Sanders would be walking in with zero ex-ante supporters in the Senate but we are to believe he will somehow Magic his policies into place anyway?
I mean by that logic how is Warren going to get anything she says she wants done? At least with Bernie you have an ideology-based populist backing nearly 50 years in the making, and as Trump has shown us, that's worth quite a lot.
I don’t think you understood what I said. I said if the claim were true that Warren is insincere about M4A and literally every other Democrat is a corporatist sellout, then the claim that Bernie...
I don’t think you understood what I said. I said if the claim were true that Warren is insincere about M4A and literally every other Democrat is a corporatist sellout, then the claim that Bernie is going to accomplish anything he’s talking about is farcical. These two statements don’t follow.
Trump has shown us, that's worth quite a lot.
What has it been worth exactly? Trump has accomplished almost zero programmatic policy during his tenure and the only change he’s managed to bring has been to tear down constitutional protections and tear apart government services. It’s easy to tear shit down, a toddler can do it. Building things that are worth a damn is harder.
You're also assuming that the people of the United States won't vote in progressive candidates in both the House and the Senate in 2020 and 2022. If the Democrats understand that their jobs are on...
I said if the claim were true that Warren is insincere about M4A and literally every other Democrat is a corporatist sellout, then the claim that Bernie is going to accomplish anything he’s talking about is farcical.
You're also assuming that the people of the United States won't vote in progressive candidates in both the House and the Senate in 2020 and 2022. If the Democrats understand that their jobs are on the chopping block, they'll shift their support.
Trump has accomplished almost zero programmatic policy during his tenure
Tax breaks for the wealthy? Family separation? Appropriating money for his ridiculous wall?
I mean that last one was a stretch since not much has been done, but nobody has been able to stop him yet, and Republicans basically get to pass any bills they want.
None of that is programmatic policy. Programmatic policy means developing and executing on a program. Cutting rich people's taxes and willfully finding opportunities to abuse your power to be a...
Tax breaks for the wealthy? Family separation? Appropriating money for his ridiculous wall?
None of that is programmatic policy. Programmatic policy means developing and executing on a program. Cutting rich people's taxes and willfully finding opportunities to abuse your power to be a dick to people isn't a programmatic policy, it's just passing a single piece of legislation. There are not projects being created, there are no offices being staffed. There are no procedures and processes being promulgated. Even the family separation was thoroughly botched and if he was any good at it they would have managed the optics better.
You cut off the part of the sentence where I explain why that's not a programmatic policy and then proceed to ignore it. Why would you do this? Once again:
You cut off the part of the sentence where I explain why that's not a programmatic policy and then proceed to ignore it. Why would you do this?
Once again:
Cutting rich people's taxes and willfully finding opportunities to abuse your power to be a dick to people isn't a programmatic policy, it's just passing a single piece of legislation. There are not projects being created, there are no offices being staffed. There are no procedures and processes being promulgated.
The tax break example I misread the context. I thought it was a part of the argument "Trump has gotten things done without Congress" and not "Trump hasn't gotten anything done".
The tax break example I misread the context. I thought it was a part of the argument "Trump has gotten things done without Congress" and not "Trump hasn't gotten anything done".
I would say that there is in fact a large ideological difference between someone who says they are a socialist and someone who says they are a capitalist. In the context of American politics,...
I would say that there is in fact a large ideological difference between someone who says they are a socialist and someone who says they are a capitalist. In the context of American politics, which has drifted incredibly far to the right, maybe it appears that a socialist and a progressive capitalist are the same, but socialism and capitalism are fundamentally opposed.
Sanders' plan, as I understand it, is to organize labor & leftist movements around the country to put pressure on politicians to make change happen. I don't think anyone really thinks he will be able to do it on his own, and if they do I'd say they're pretty naive.
There really isn’t, because both of these terms have abused so thoroughly by ideologues that they’ve lost all meaning. When you can get six marxists in a room together without an argument breaking...
There really isn’t, because both of these terms have abused so thoroughly by ideologues that they’ve lost all meaning. When you can get six marxists in a room together without an argument breaking out as to what socialism means I’ll revisit.
At this point it really is just tribalist signifiers. The fact that the label is people care about instead of any actual statement of what they intend to do makes that pretty clear.
Sanders' plan, as I understand it, is to organize labor & leftist movements around the country to put pressure on politicians to make change happen.
What part of this requires being President of the United States? The magical thinking comes in again when we start arguing that a guy with the bully pulpit is magically going to organize labor and create class consciousness. If he really wanted to do this, he should have pulled a Grover Norquist and played kingmaker instead of trying to be king.
I completely agree. Bernie even flip-flopped on UBI this cycle. He'd come out supporting it numerous times, but the instant Yang dropped it as the solution to the automation issue, Bernie suddenly...
I completely agree. Bernie even flip-flopped on UBI this cycle. He'd come out supporting it numerous times, but the instant Yang dropped it as the solution to the automation issue, Bernie suddenly decided that a federal jobs guarantee and a minimum wage is a better solution, and that automation isn't really a serious problem. He's clearly playing the game now.
That immediately soured me on Bernie. I prefer Yang but I'll back Warren over Bernie in a heartbeat unless he does something dramatic to change my mind. He's become a cranky old socialist who thinks he can lecture his way into the white house. That's not the guy I remember from last cycle.
Sorry, I'm failing to see where he ever supported UBI full-throatedly. He's always said that it's one of the ways we might correct inequality, and that the goal should be providing Americans with...
Bernie even flip-flopped on UBI this cycle. He'd come out supporting it numerous times, but the instant Yang dropped it as the solution to the automation issue, Bernie suddenly decided that a federal jobs guarantee and a minimum wage is a better solution, and that automation isn't really a serious problem.
Sorry, I'm failing to see where he ever supported UBI full-throatedly. He's always said that it's one of the ways we might correct inequality, and that the goal should be providing Americans with a minimum standard of living, but never specifically said "yep, this is the best way".
You can see him say he supports it on two separate occasions. In both of those interviews he does go on about minimum wage and a jobs guarantee as well, but it's only recently he's started saying...
If you're finding more explicit endorsement of UBI from him, I'd love to see it.
You can see him say he supports it on two separate occasions. In both of those interviews he does go on about minimum wage and a jobs guarantee as well, but it's only recently he's started saying he does not support UBI. He's also started downplaying the effects of automation recently. He did specifically say that 'he has a better idea' than UBI, and then goes right into his minimum wage/jobs guarantee pitch.
Did you just link an almost exclusively Yang-centric YouTube channel as of it was unbiased? Because in the context of Yang, it only serves to prop up the existing capitalist structure, rather than...
Did you just link an almost exclusively Yang-centric YouTube channel as of it was unbiased?
but it's only recently he's started saying he does not support UBI.
Because in the context of Yang, it only serves to prop up the existing capitalist structure, rather than advancing a socialist structure where UBI or a living wage wouldn't just go back into the pockets of the owners.
I mean to some extent, unless those talking points are false, isn't that just good messaging? If I repeat "the world is round" to flat-earthers, isn't that just stating a fact?
I mean to some extent, unless those talking points are false, isn't that just good messaging?
If I repeat "the world is round" to flat-earthers, isn't that just stating a fact?
It's funny that this is the example you went with, because Nietzsche had a parable about exactly this. He posits a man who escapes from a sanitarium and is terrified of being discovered as being...
If I repeat "the world is round" to flat-earthers, isn't that just stating a fact?
It's funny that this is the example you went with, because Nietzsche had a parable about exactly this. He posits a man who escapes from a sanitarium and is terrified of being discovered as being insane. So racks him brain to determine what's a basic fact about the world that nobody could possibly disagree with and settles on the roundness of the Earth. He proceeds to talk at anyone he can find about the roundness of the world and haranguing people to acknowledge and admit that the world is round.
He is promptly rounded up and thrown back in the asylum.
"Just stating a fact" repeatedly and assholishly isn't actually a helpful way to behave.
Yeah, that's because back in Nietzsche's day, there wasn't an entire faction dedicated to denying the fact that the world is round. That's why I specifically said "to flat Earthers", not anyone...
Yeah, that's because back in Nietzsche's day, there wasn't an entire faction dedicated to denying the fact that the world is round.
That's why I specifically said "to flat Earthers", not anyone and everyone.
When you're doing political speech, your comments aren't directed to any one audience. Everyone can hear them. And what they hear is you ranting on twitter constantly about the world being round...
Yeah, that's because back in Nietzsche's day, there wasn't an entire faction dedicated to denying the fact that the world is round.
That's why I specifically said "to flat Earthers", not anyone and everyone.
When you're doing political speech, your comments aren't directed to any one audience. Everyone can hear them. And what they hear is you ranting on twitter constantly about the world being round and there being a giant conspiracy to suppress your round-earth truth.
And that's setting aside the dubious equivalence you're trying to draw between people who think Sanders might not be the most capable political operator on offer and people who think the Earth is flat.
They'll see it in direct response (via retweets with comments) to people who literally think the earth is flat. It's an analogy, not an equivalence. And when people make shit up about Bernie,...
When you're doing political speech, your comments aren't directed to any one audience. >Everyone can hear them. And what they hear is you ranting on twitter constantly about the world being round and there being a giant conspiracy to suppress your round-earth truth.
They'll see it in direct response (via retweets with comments) to people who literally think the earth is flat.
And that's setting aside the dubious equivalence you're trying to draw between people who think Sanders might not be the most capable political operator on offer and people who think the Earth is flat.
It's an analogy, not an equivalence. And when people make shit up about Bernie, expect people to plop down some facts in response.
Insofar as your flat earth equivalence has no bearing on comparing the merits of various political figures, this analogy isn't really worth engaging with anymore. It's definitely an equivalence or...
They'll see it in direct response (via retweets with comments) to people who literally think the earth is flat.
Insofar as your flat earth equivalence has no bearing on comparing the merits of various political figures, this analogy isn't really worth engaging with anymore.
It's an analogy, not an equivalence.
It's definitely an equivalence or the analogy means nothing. You're implying that disagreements with Sanders are factual inaccuracies rather than differences of values or opinion.
And when people make shit up about Bernie, expect people to plop down some facts in response.
I see way more bad faith nonsense coming from the Bernie gang than just about any other major candidate on the slate. You need to start scraping the bottom of the barrel and deal with Gabbard and Williamson before you get to worse.
Of course not, once you got your zinger out of it, you were done with it. The point is that political speech, especially on platforms like Twitter, can be done in direct response to other...
Insofar as your flat earth equivalence has no bearing on comparing the merits of various political figures, this analogy isn't really worth engaging with anymore.
Of course not, once you got your zinger out of it, you were done with it.
The point is that political speech, especially on platforms like Twitter, can be done in direct response to other political speech. I'm not simply running around like a madman screaming facts at anyone who will listen, I'm saying them in direct response to those who don't care about facts or those who spread untruthful statements.
It's definitely an equivalence or the analogy means nothing. You're implying that disagreements with Sanders are factual inaccuracies
In these instances, they absolutely are.
I see way more bad faith nonsense coming from the Bernie gang than just about any other major candidate on the slate.
Really? Nothing about the disingenuous arguments by the Yang Gang about how Before "flip-flopped" on UBI, nor how they swarm in order to completely overwhelm the opposition?
The point of a debate is not to change the other person's mind. It's to change the third party who is watching's mind. And I'm not just going to let someone compare me to a crazy person in an...
The point of a debate is not to change the other person's mind. It's to change the third party who is watching's mind.
And I'm not just going to let someone compare me to a crazy person in an apocryphal story while completely misrepresenting my point.
And yet it was only once I started defending myself that you replied specifically to me to say that I should probably stop arguing. Yes, you mentioned others in this discussion, but it was me you...
And yet it was only once I started defending myself that you replied specifically to me to say that I should probably stop arguing. Yes, you mentioned others in this discussion, but it was me you replied to...
I'm sure this is what you think you're doing, but Sanders' unfavorables speak for themselves. The guy himself is perfectly likable, but as soon as he started running for president his disapproval...
The point is that political speech, especially on platforms like Twitter, can be done in direct response to other political speech. I'm not simply running around like a madman screaming facts at anyone who will listen, I'm saying them in direct response to those who don't care about facts or those who spread untruthful statements.
I'm sure this is what you think you're doing, but Sanders' unfavorables speak for themselves. The guy himself is perfectly likable, but as soon as he started running for president his disapproval and unfavorable ratings have been steadily creeping up and it's largely because of his obnoxious fanboys online.
In these instances, they absolutely are.
You're gonna need to state these instances then because you're long on accusations and short on specifics.
Really? Nothing about the disingenuous arguments by the Yang Gang about how Before "flip-flopped" on UBI, nor how they swarm in order to completely overwhelm the opposition?
I said major candidate. Yang is polling at like, 5% on his best day. Being a front-runner involves catching a much broader net to attract more people than being a niche candidate for extremely online NEETs.
Interesting. So you believe that the reason why, despite being routinely in third place throughout this election cycle, major outlets have failed to mention much of anything about him, instead...
but Sanders' unfavorables speak for themselves...largely because of his obnoxious fanboys online.
Interesting. So you believe that the reason why, despite being routinely in third place throughout this election cycle, major outlets have failed to mention much of anything about him, instead focusing on Biden, Warren, and Yang?
You're gonna need to state these instances then because you're long on accusations and short on specifics.
Sure! For example, where's your evidence showing that Bernie's likeability ratings have been dropping because of his "obnoxious fanboys online"?
I said major candidate.
Interesting how somehow the online fanboys get a pass, not because of their online presence or their virulence in promoting Yang, but because Yang isn't polling high enough.
Why would a lack of attention make someone's unfavorables go up over time? By what mechanism do you reckon this would happen? And just as a point of optics, cherry picking stuff out of Common...
So you believe that the reason why, despite being routinely in third place throughout this election cycle, major outlets have failed to mention much of anything about him, instead focusing on Biden, Warren, and Yang?
Why would a lack of attention make someone's unfavorables go up over time? By what mechanism do you reckon this would happen?
And just as a point of optics, cherry picking stuff out of Common Dreams to validate a victim narrative isn't exactly going to reinforce your point as persuasively as you might want.
Sure! For example, where's your evidence showing that Bernie's likeability ratings have been dropping because of his "obnoxious fanboys online"?
Honestly dude. Stuff like this is not at all hard to google and it would be much easier to have a productive conversation with you if it didn't feel like you were trying to tire me out with a Gish gallop of bad faith statements that I then have to do the work to debunk. Sanders' tanking favorability ratings have been a story for a while now. This is a precipitious drop from where he was as recently as June and July of this year.
Look at that RCP link. Even just constraining to a single pollster, the Economist, you see in June he was routinely at +20 and he is now pulling in the high single digit negatives. And this is all despite having good debate showings and policies that are broadly quite popular. What else do you reckon it is besides the stank of pervasive negativity and bellicosity that surrounds his campaigns' web presence?
Interesting how somehow the online fanboys get a pass, not because of their online presence or their virulence in promoting Yang, but because Yang isn't polling high enough.
Yeah dude. Candidates who actually hope to win get held to more scrutiny than candidates who don't stand a ghost of a chance. This isn't exactly rocket surgery here. In case you haven't noticed, this is an election for the Presidency, not a beauty contest. There are actual practical considerations and outcomes involved.
Sorry, I must have missed the part where the polls you linked specifically mentioned Sanders' "obnoxious fanboys online". See, this is what I'm talking about. It could literally be any number of...
Stuff like this is not at all hard to google
Sorry, I must have missed the part where the polls you linked specifically mentioned Sanders' "obnoxious fanboys online".
What else do you reckon it is besides the stank of pervasive negativity and bellicosity that surrounds his campaigns' web presence?
See, this is what I'm talking about. It could literally be any number of things, including Sanders' inability to modulate his voice beyond a yell, MSNBC's consistent "that man ain't right" narrative, or the pervasive lies told about him on social media among Republicans, but here you jump directly to "it must be the fanboys!" without a shred of evidence.
Sorry, but this is exactly my point I made above: people have it out for Sanders, specific media outlets love to forget he even exists, and yet it's the people who plop down actual facts that get told they're acting like crazy people.
Aside from 2 cherry picked articles, one from a partisan source that's in the tank for him, and another a no context Snopes link, I haven't seen you bring much useful evidence to bear here either...
See, this is what I'm talking about. It could literally be any number of things, including Sanders' inability to modulate his voice beyond a yell, MSNBC's consistent "that man ain't right" narrative, or the pervasive lies told about him on social media among Republicans, but here you jump directly to "it must be the fanboys!" without a shred of evidence.
Aside from 2 cherry picked articles, one from a partisan source that's in the tank for him, and another a no context Snopes link, I haven't seen you bring much useful evidence to bear here either dude. You can feel free to disagree that Sanders' fanboys are obnoxious, but if your default mode to any criticism of him is to immediately start Sea Lioning, you're kind of demonstrating the point.
yet it's the people who plop down actual facts
Unfortunately, the thing you haven't pictured anywhere here are these "actual facts" you're talking about. Your comments have had a lot of accusations, a little bit of special pleading, and a pervasive victim narrative with absolutely nothing specific. Is it any wonder people have started to sour on him when he's geared the top staff of his campaign to specifically be stocked with people who stoke these sorts of grievances with little in the way of positivity to offer?
I'm not the one conclusively claiming with 100% certainty that there could be no other possible explanation for Sanders' drop in favorability ratings. Then, when faced with other explanations for...
Aside from 2 cherry picked articles, one from a partisan source that's in the tank for him, and another a no context Snopes link, I haven't seen you bring much useful evidence to bear here either dude.
I'm not the one conclusively claiming with 100% certainty that there could be no other possible explanation for Sanders' drop in favorability ratings.
Then, when faced with other explanations for why this could be, you retort with personal attacks like claiming I'm Sea Lioning.
Unfortunately, the thing not pictured anywhere here is these "actual facts" you're talking about.
Attacking sources doesn't mean they don't contain relevant facts.
Your comments have had a lot of accusations, a little bit of special pleading, and a pervasive victim narrative with absolutely nothing positive, useful, or uplifting to bring to the table. Is it any wonder people have started to sour on him when he's geared the top staff of his campaign to be specifically these sorts of people (e..g Sirota).
Oh, you're right! I should have instantly acknowledged that there was no other option on the table than his "obnoxious online supporters" as to why Sanders' favorability ratings have dropped. Clearly that's the kind of positive uplifting comment we're looking for here. /s
Can you point me to where I said anything with "100% certainty?" I'm open to a convincing argument for a better root cause. You're not bringing one, just casting FUD. Ironically, pearl clutching...
I'm not the one conclusively claiming with 100% certainty that there could be no other possible explanation for Sanders' drop in favorability ratings.
Can you point me to where I said anything with "100% certainty?" I'm open to a convincing argument for a better root cause. You're not bringing one, just casting FUD.
Then, when faced with other explanations for why this could be, you retort with personal attacks like claiming I'm Sea Lioning.
Attacking sources doesn't mean they don't contain relevant facts.
Man I was trying to give you advice on being better at persuading a "third party," which you said is what you were trying to do.
This isn't how evidence works. You start with a supposition and then you impartially seek out evidence to invalidate the supposition. If it continues to stand without being convincingly invalidated it is more likely to be accurate. If it loses support it becomes less likely and you'd raw your conclusions based on the balance of evidence.
You're not doing this. You're starting with a conclusion and then finding sources to validate it and looking for excuses to invalidate anything that weakens it. If you're trying to actually be persuasive you need to find sources that will be persuasive to a listener. If the sources you're picking suggest you're in a media echo-chamber, it just makes you less credible.
Oh, you're right! I should have instantly acknowledged that there was no other option on the table than his "obnoxious online supporters" as to why Sanders' favorability ratings have dropped. Clearly that's the kind of positive uplifting comment we're looking for here
Yup. Or if you have reasonable and credible doubts, you can raise them. But explicitly trying to kick up FUD without actually saying anything yourself is, like I said, not helpful and not a good look for you or your guy.
And just look how far we've veered off here. You've gone from making a weird claim analogizing Sanders critics to Flat Earthers and now pivoted to "Well you can't prove beyond all doubt that the causative factors are what you say they are." This is because you have no thesis. You're not actively saying anything, just nitpicking what I'm saying. And the minute you're asked for specifics you find something else to attack, at times even modifying sentences to willfully miss the point just so you can have something to strike at.
This is unconvincing to the third parties you're trying to convince. At best, you're going to get support from the choir who is already in the tank with you, but this is utterly off-putting to anyone who isn't.
It's not just their 100 votes. It's the money that they can give to other candidates which will fund ads that can make a massive difference in a campaign.
It's not just their 100 votes. It's the money that they can give to other candidates which will fund ads that can make a massive difference in a campaign.
I think "massive difference" is overstating it. There's lots of strong evidence that presidential campaigns hit saturation points on media type stuff. Money plays a much bigger role downticket for...
I think "massive difference" is overstating it. There's lots of strong evidence that presidential campaigns hit saturation points on media type stuff. Money plays a much bigger role downticket for local and state races. So f they're pouring their cash into "feel-good" spending to attack Warren it's unlikely it'll do much.
Trump got outspent by a lot. He only won because everyone who would have funded a Republican candidate put their money into grassroots GOP organizing instead, which basically translated into Trump votes without actually have to write "To: Donald J. Trump" on the check but it kept the donors from having to feel icky.
I'm hoping both Sanders and Warren can still see the sure-fire way to win: Regardless who wins the nomination, they need to pick the other for VP. Sanders/Warren, Warren/Sanders doesn't matter....
I'm hoping both Sanders and Warren can still see the sure-fire way to win: Regardless who wins the nomination, they need to pick the other for VP.
Sanders/Warren, Warren/Sanders doesn't matter. It's a slam dunk ticket.
I am a Bernie supporter, but I like Warren too. I imagine one will drop out after Super Tuesday. I'd like to see Bernie as president with Warren as secretary of the treasury. I could handle Warren...
I am a Bernie supporter, but I like Warren too. I imagine one will drop out after Super Tuesday. I'd like to see Bernie as president with Warren as secretary of the treasury. I could handle Warren as president with Bernie as secretary of labor too. I think the animus between supporters of the two is counterproductive. Yeah, she's Bernie Lite but at least she's not Biden in a pantsuit.
Not endorsing, but running on the same ticket. President Warren, and VP Sanders; or President Sanders, and VP Warren, doesn't matter. A big thing that happened last time were the "Bernie or bust"...
Not endorsing, but running on the same ticket. President Warren, and VP Sanders; or President Sanders, and VP Warren, doesn't matter.
A big thing that happened last time were the "Bernie or bust" folk, who were so pissed, they voted for Trump. They wanted a populist.
Now, we have two. If one wins, and kicks the other to the curb, we're looking at a split vote again, and a possible Trump 2020.
Ok I agree with some aspects of that but I don't see how that is a sure-fire way to win the ticket? Warren is doing really well on her own and is the candidate being considered the most by people...
Ok I agree with some aspects of that but I don't see how that is a sure-fire way to win the ticket? Warren is doing really well on her own and is the candidate being considered the most by people who currently support another primary candidates. I just don't see how Warren's issues (mostly appealing to white voters, especially college educated) is greatly improved by Bernie, a candidate polling worse than Warren (see figure 51) in those categories. I guess I can see the argument that putting Bernie as VP for Warren might help Warren the most because Bernie/Warren overlap is her weakest potential to gain voters (see table under section: Which candidates appeal to the same voters?) but I'm still not completely sold that it guarantees anything. Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary and a large portion of his supporters either didn't vote or went to Trump. So I guess the only way to guarantee Bernie supporters vote D is to make the candidate who is polling better and has more momentum and generally more liked by voters considering other candidates become his VP? Which is, in my opinion, not a great plan.
If he isn't polling well enough in actual primaries to win, in order to prevent the "Bernie or Bust" from just going Trump or staying home is to have Warren make him VP. If he wins the primary,...
Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary and a large portion of his supporters either didn't vote or went to Trump. So I guess the only way to guarantee Bernie supporters vote D is to make the candidate who is polling better and has more momentum and generally more liked by voters considering other candidates become his VP?
If he isn't polling well enough in actual primaries to win, in order to prevent the "Bernie or Bust" from just going Trump or staying home is to have Warren make him VP.
If he wins the primary, GOP solidification would happen, and we need to get Dems to not stay home. Bernie isn't energizing enough to get voters to the polls anymore, especially for those gunning for a female president.
Basically, a combined ticket, either way, is about the only sure-fire way to ensure Trump doesn't win in 2020.
But no, I'm not saying put him as VP regardless... The other should make the other their VP pick.
If you're willing to make a bunch of oversimplifications and assumptions and ignore the way delegates work, maybe? Edit: Sorry, re-reading this comment it comes off as very dismissive and...
If you're willing to make a bunch of oversimplifications and assumptions and ignore the way delegates work, maybe?
Edit: Sorry, re-reading this comment it comes off as very dismissive and condescending which isn't my intent. I'm at the office right now so I wrote a short reply. I will get data and write a more in-depth writeup of why this isn't really true when I am out of this meeting.
So in order to do this you need to assume (1) Every supporter of the VP becomes a voter for the person who stays in. After the first debate there were polls of voter overlap that showed that...
So in order to do this you need to assume
(1) Every supporter of the VP becomes a voter for the person who stays in. After the first debate there were polls of voter overlap that showed that actually more overlap between Warren/Harris and Biden/Sanders. That is to say Warren supporters were most likely to have harris as their second choice and vice versa, and same with Bernie Biden. Though that info was from around the second debate when harris was polling we’ll so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. It also assumes no supporters are going to be mad their candidate dropped out. See: Bernie or Bust from 2016 happening for either candidate.
(2) Assumes national polling victory => most delegates. Bernie + Warren numbers might be greater nationally, But that’s not necessarily true when you go state by state like a primary does
(3) Treats delegates like a winner-take-all system as opposed to what it really is: proportional.
(4) Ignores the impact of other candidates outside the Biden, Warren, Bernie and where their supporters go if their candidate drops out and also what happens to any delegates that they accrued.
Maybe it works out and Bernie + Warren on a ticket wins the primary. But there’s enough assumptions that need to be made that I wouldnt say it’s a sure-fire thing.
This kinda reminded me of a blog post I read that posited, until a week ago, that the Senior Democrats were letting a lot of Trump's nonsense fly because it was the most unchecked government...
This kinda reminded me of a blog post I read that posited, until a week ago, that the Senior Democrats were letting a lot of Trump's nonsense fly because it was the most unchecked government spending they would see in their lifetimes and will allow them to keep their asses in power and be the good guys fighting the good fight waving their fists at the bad man.
The blog thinks that Peloci is in on that action, actively siding with the money as opposed to trying to moderate the party into lighting only a little bit of the furniture on fire, which is not a take I entirely agree with, but I guess she is behaving like she knows which side of her bread is buttered, so 🤷.
Because representing "the left" and constantly losing is in the interest of their major donors.
If the Dems were conspiring why would they allow the Republican's to continuously stack the deck against them? They would simply enforce their advantage and take permanent power,allowing their bread to be buttered on all sides.
Because representing "the left" and constantly losing is in the interest of their major donors.
IMO, if you'd back Trump over Warren you're not a Democrat. If you'd vote elitism and corruption over the rights and lives of human beings, you're not really liberal at all, you just like to tell yourself you are.
Republican or Democrat, if you'd pick money over people, that makes you a shitty human being.
Fair point :P
Oh no! We'll miss out on the votes of like, 100 dudes in the middle of New York City! SUCH A CRITICAL CONSTITUENCY!!!!
This is basically a pro-Warren campaign ad. To quote FDR:
The practical issue is super-PAC money, which the current system relies on. Advertising clearly works, so that could be a problem if Wall Street goes all-in on the GOP.
Now don't get me wrong, IMHO when properly motivated, individual donors will crush even the 1% in contributions. My fantasy is that Sanders drops out prior to the convention and puts all of his ground game to work for Warren. But even if that doesn't happen, I think Warren has a good chance to win the final election. I sent her money, and I never send politicians money.
I wouldn't hold my breath. I get the sneaking suspicion Sanders caught the Presidential bug when he realized he could actually win this thing and I don't get the sense that he's in it for the right reasons anymore. I have a hard time believing the negative tone of his campaign towards her (and anyone else) doesn't come straight from the top, if not from the man himself then from his inner circle. The nearly verbatim repetition of the exact same talking points directed at the same targets by every drone on Twitter and Reddit is just too consistent to be an accident.
Isn't trying to "actually win this thing" the whole point? If several primaries had already happened and Sanders hadn't performed well, I think that would be a valid criticism, but we're not even past Iowa yet.
I think the negative tone you see can be better explained by significant ideological differences. Sanders is a socialist and so are most of his supporters, right? Why wouldn't they criticize Warren given that she has said she is a capitalist to her bones?
I'm a socialist and I prefer Warren over Bernie for a lot of reasons. I think Warren has significantly better policy stances and on a larger range of issues than Bernie does. Additionally, I know nothing Bernie proposes is ever going to get made into laws because he loves burning bridges with the Democratic Party, who he need the support of if he doesn't want to be a lame-duck president. For my money, Warren is the better anti-corruption, hold Wall Street accountable candidate.
Which ones?
It's unusual to see a socialist who believes they can get any socialist policy through the corporatist Democrats...
(1) Do you want me to go through all of them? For starters...
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/green-manufacturing
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/clean-energy
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/100-clean-energy
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/criminal-justice-reform
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/end-private-prisons
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/immigration
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/safe-affordable-housing
Take your pick on pretty much any of her proposals on her policy page.
(2) Yeah. That's the whole point. I have yet to see Bernie Sanders explain to me in any sort of way where he gets any socialist policy through congress. Unless he plans on becoming supreme dictator, he's going to need the House and Senate to be involved and on board with the process. I don't think socialism is coming to America in the near future, and while my disdain of capitalism is high, I care more about trying to help people in need more and stopping the earth from becoming a barren hellscape. I think Warren's plans are (1) better thought out and (2) more likely to actually get enacted.
Again, I'm not really seeing much of a difference here. Mind detailing where you believe her policies stack up when compared to Bernie's? Because right now this reads a bit like a Gish Galllop.
But you're assuming more progressive candidates don't get elected in 2020 or 2022. Once Democrats understand that they either support progressive policies or they're out of office, you'll see many of them change their tune.
And you're doing the opposite in assuming progressive candidates will get elected in 2020 or 2022. Meanwhile the moderate candidate is polling +11 over the second place candidate in National polling (and doing so primarily off the support of black voters, who tend to be more moderate), M4A is barely favorably polling, and in 2018 progressive candidates won about as often as centrists did. I'm not saying you're wrong and that no progressives are going to get elected, but I don't agree that we are guaranteed to see a massive overwhelming shift to the left amongst the voting population and the house/senate representatives.
And to your point about policy: I don't think they are super different. I said I prefer them. There are only slight differences in them, and I lean towards Warren in those differences. Similarly, I don't like Bernie. I voted for him in the 2016 primaries because I far valued his policies over Hillary, but I thought he was a dick that often chose to minimize issues involving race and identity in order to focus on the economy, a trend noted by lots of people in marginalized groups as well and why they didn't turn out for him in large numbers. I also think the difference between someone who is 77 and 70 is big. I think the fact that Warren was instrumental in defining the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (and honestly would have been its head if not for republicans) is a great reason to vote for her if you care about holding wall street accountable.
I feel like that's a bit of an intellectually dishonest reading of a single poll amidst a sea of polls showing Biden and Warren almost neck and neck.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/
Right, so you keep saying. I'm asking you to articulate the differences in policy so that we can discuss them.
I will arbitrarily take the top 10 national polls from 538:
Biden 31 Warren 20
Biden 28 Warren 15
Biden 22 Warren 17
Biden 20 Warren 14
Biden 28 Warren 17
Biden 25 Warren 25
Biden 25 Warren 23
Biden 25 Warren 27
Biden 32 Warren 20
Biden 31 Warren 14
THAT seems neck and neck to you? And I say that as someone who has donated $600 to Warren's primary campaign. Being within polling error in 3 polls?
Or as real clear politics likes to put it, an average of being down 7.3 points:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Why do you continue to ignore my question about specific differences and advantages of Warren's policies vs Bernie's?
Or your supporters make establishment Democrats understand that their jobs are on the chopping block unless they support progressive policies.
Yep. Buy they're quickly becoming that way.
Show me polling data that supports that.
The Democratic Party Is Actually Three Parties https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/opinion/2020-progressive-candidates.html
You've got "very liberal" (read progressive) and "liberal" tracking closely together, and they make up two thirds of the party.
Those aren’t ideological differences, that’s just tribalist signaling. Policy wise there is barely any daylight between them and the Sanders contingent spends most of its time making bad faith statements about how everyone who isn’t Bernie is a sell out and how Bernie has some kind of green lantern ring that will allow him to accomplish amazing things through sheer willpower.
And most of this stuff isn’t even anything Bernie himself says because he’s a veteran politician who actually understands how Congress works. But even otherwise intelligent columnists seem to take complete leave of their senses when anything electoral comes around.
The “Warren isn’t really pro M4A” line is especially ridiculous. To say Bernie can get M4A passed if even Warren doesn’t support it is such fantastical magical thinking. If Warren isn’t on board then Sanders would be walking in with zero ex-ante supporters in the Senate but we are to believe he will somehow Magic his policies into place anyway? What’s the realistic mechanism here? The narrative that everyone’s a sellout out to undermine Bernie doesn’t mesh with the narrative that Bernie is actually going to accomplish anything once in office.
I mean by that logic how is Warren going to get anything she says she wants done? At least with Bernie you have an ideology-based populist backing nearly 50 years in the making, and as Trump has shown us, that's worth quite a lot.
I don’t think you understood what I said. I said if the claim were true that Warren is insincere about M4A and literally every other Democrat is a corporatist sellout, then the claim that Bernie is going to accomplish anything he’s talking about is farcical. These two statements don’t follow.
What has it been worth exactly? Trump has accomplished almost zero programmatic policy during his tenure and the only change he’s managed to bring has been to tear down constitutional protections and tear apart government services. It’s easy to tear shit down, a toddler can do it. Building things that are worth a damn is harder.
You're also assuming that the people of the United States won't vote in progressive candidates in both the House and the Senate in 2020 and 2022. If the Democrats understand that their jobs are on the chopping block, they'll shift their support.
Tax breaks for the wealthy? Family separation? Appropriating money for his ridiculous wall?
I mean that last one was a stretch since not much has been done, but nobody has been able to stop him yet, and Republicans basically get to pass any bills they want.
None of that is programmatic policy. Programmatic policy means developing and executing on a program. Cutting rich people's taxes and willfully finding opportunities to abuse your power to be a dick to people isn't a programmatic policy, it's just passing a single piece of legislation. There are not projects being created, there are no offices being staffed. There are no procedures and processes being promulgated. Even the family separation was thoroughly botched and if he was any good at it they would have managed the optics better.
Also tax breaks had to be passed by Congress so that example is literally not true
This happened multiple times. It's a continuous project, not just a single piece of legislation.
You cut off the part of the sentence where I explain why that's not a programmatic policy and then proceed to ignore it. Why would you do this?
Once again:
Tax breaks for the wealthy had to go through the house and senate multiple times before barely squeezing through so that not even a true example.
I mean it's literally an example of programmatic policy.
The tax break example I misread the context. I thought it was a part of the argument "Trump has gotten things done without Congress" and not "Trump hasn't gotten anything done".
I would say that there is in fact a large ideological difference between someone who says they are a socialist and someone who says they are a capitalist. In the context of American politics, which has drifted incredibly far to the right, maybe it appears that a socialist and a progressive capitalist are the same, but socialism and capitalism are fundamentally opposed.
Sanders' plan, as I understand it, is to organize labor & leftist movements around the country to put pressure on politicians to make change happen. I don't think anyone really thinks he will be able to do it on his own, and if they do I'd say they're pretty naive.
There really isn’t, because both of these terms have abused so thoroughly by ideologues that they’ve lost all meaning. When you can get six marxists in a room together without an argument breaking out as to what socialism means I’ll revisit.
At this point it really is just tribalist signifiers. The fact that the label is people care about instead of any actual statement of what they intend to do makes that pretty clear.
What part of this requires being President of the United States? The magical thinking comes in again when we start arguing that a guy with the bully pulpit is magically going to organize labor and create class consciousness. If he really wanted to do this, he should have pulled a Grover Norquist and played kingmaker instead of trying to be king.
I completely agree. Bernie even flip-flopped on UBI this cycle. He'd come out supporting it numerous times, but the instant Yang dropped it as the solution to the automation issue, Bernie suddenly decided that a federal jobs guarantee and a minimum wage is a better solution, and that automation isn't really a serious problem. He's clearly playing the game now.
That immediately soured me on Bernie. I prefer Yang but I'll back Warren over Bernie in a heartbeat unless he does something dramatic to change my mind. He's become a cranky old socialist who thinks he can lecture his way into the white house. That's not the guy I remember from last cycle.
Sorry, I'm failing to see where he ever supported UBI full-throatedly. He's always said that it's one of the ways we might correct inequality, and that the goal should be providing Americans with a minimum standard of living, but never specifically said "yep, this is the best way".
https://medium.com/basic-income/on-the-record-bernie-sanders-on-basic-income-de9162fb3b5c
If you're finding more explicit endorsement of UBI from him, I'd love to see it.
You can see him say he supports it on two separate occasions. In both of those interviews he does go on about minimum wage and a jobs guarantee as well, but it's only recently he's started saying he does not support UBI. He's also started downplaying the effects of automation recently. He did specifically say that 'he has a better idea' than UBI, and then goes right into his minimum wage/jobs guarantee pitch.
Did you just link an almost exclusively Yang-centric YouTube channel as of it was unbiased?
Because in the context of Yang, it only serves to prop up the existing capitalist structure, rather than advancing a socialist structure where UBI or a living wage wouldn't just go back into the pockets of the owners.
I'm confused. Are you saying those are fake clips of Bernie? If not, my point stands, despite your hand waving.
I'm saying that UBI in a Yang context is very very different than UBI in a socialist context.
Do you disagree?
I mean to some extent, unless those talking points are false, isn't that just good messaging?
If I repeat "the world is round" to flat-earthers, isn't that just stating a fact?
It's funny that this is the example you went with, because Nietzsche had a parable about exactly this. He posits a man who escapes from a sanitarium and is terrified of being discovered as being insane. So racks him brain to determine what's a basic fact about the world that nobody could possibly disagree with and settles on the roundness of the Earth. He proceeds to talk at anyone he can find about the roundness of the world and haranguing people to acknowledge and admit that the world is round.
He is promptly rounded up and thrown back in the asylum.
"Just stating a fact" repeatedly and assholishly isn't actually a helpful way to behave.
Yeah, that's because back in Nietzsche's day, there wasn't an entire faction dedicated to denying the fact that the world is round.
That's why I specifically said "to flat Earthers", not anyone and everyone.
When you're doing political speech, your comments aren't directed to any one audience. Everyone can hear them. And what they hear is you ranting on twitter constantly about the world being round and there being a giant conspiracy to suppress your round-earth truth.
And that's setting aside the dubious equivalence you're trying to draw between people who think Sanders might not be the most capable political operator on offer and people who think the Earth is flat.
They'll see it in direct response (via retweets with comments) to people who literally think the earth is flat.
It's an analogy, not an equivalence. And when people make shit up about Bernie, expect people to plop down some facts in response.
Insofar as your flat earth equivalence has no bearing on comparing the merits of various political figures, this analogy isn't really worth engaging with anymore.
It's definitely an equivalence or the analogy means nothing. You're implying that disagreements with Sanders are factual inaccuracies rather than differences of values or opinion.
I see way more bad faith nonsense coming from the Bernie gang than just about any other major candidate on the slate. You need to start scraping the bottom of the barrel and deal with Gabbard and Williamson before you get to worse.
Of course not, once you got your zinger out of it, you were done with it.
The point is that political speech, especially on platforms like Twitter, can be done in direct response to other political speech. I'm not simply running around like a madman screaming facts at anyone who will listen, I'm saying them in direct response to those who don't care about facts or those who spread untruthful statements.
In these instances, they absolutely are.
Really? Nothing about the disingenuous arguments by the Yang Gang about how Before "flip-flopped" on UBI, nor how they swarm in order to completely overwhelm the opposition?
The point of a debate is not to change the other person's mind. It's to change the third party who is watching's mind.
And I'm not just going to let someone compare me to a crazy person in an apocryphal story while completely misrepresenting my point.
And yet it was only once I started defending myself that you replied specifically to me to say that I should probably stop arguing. Yes, you mentioned others in this discussion, but it was me you replied to...
I'm sure this is what you think you're doing, but Sanders' unfavorables speak for themselves. The guy himself is perfectly likable, but as soon as he started running for president his disapproval and unfavorable ratings have been steadily creeping up and it's largely because of his obnoxious fanboys online.
You're gonna need to state these instances then because you're long on accusations and short on specifics.
I said major candidate. Yang is polling at like, 5% on his best day. Being a front-runner involves catching a much broader net to attract more people than being a niche candidate for extremely online NEETs.
Interesting. So you believe that the reason why, despite being routinely in third place throughout this election cycle, major outlets have failed to mention much of anything about him, instead focusing on Biden, Warren, and Yang?
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/27/msnbcs-anti-sanders-bias-makes-it-forget-how-do-math
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/msnbc-graphic-bernie-sanders/
Sure! For example, where's your evidence showing that Bernie's likeability ratings have been dropping because of his "obnoxious fanboys online"?
Interesting how somehow the online fanboys get a pass, not because of their online presence or their virulence in promoting Yang, but because Yang isn't polling high enough.
Why would a lack of attention make someone's unfavorables go up over time? By what mechanism do you reckon this would happen?
And just as a point of optics, cherry picking stuff out of Common Dreams to validate a victim narrative isn't exactly going to reinforce your point as persuasively as you might want.
Honestly dude. Stuff like this is not at all hard to google and it would be much easier to have a productive conversation with you if it didn't feel like you were trying to tire me out with a Gish gallop of bad faith statements that I then have to do the work to debunk. Sanders' tanking favorability ratings have been a story for a while now. This is a precipitious drop from where he was as recently as June and July of this year.
Look at that RCP link. Even just constraining to a single pollster, the Economist, you see in June he was routinely at +20 and he is now pulling in the high single digit negatives. And this is all despite having good debate showings and policies that are broadly quite popular. What else do you reckon it is besides the stank of pervasive negativity and bellicosity that surrounds his campaigns' web presence?
Yeah dude. Candidates who actually hope to win get held to more scrutiny than candidates who don't stand a ghost of a chance. This isn't exactly rocket surgery here. In case you haven't noticed, this is an election for the Presidency, not a beauty contest. There are actual practical considerations and outcomes involved.
Sorry, I must have missed the part where the polls you linked specifically mentioned Sanders' "obnoxious fanboys online".
See, this is what I'm talking about. It could literally be any number of things, including Sanders' inability to modulate his voice beyond a yell, MSNBC's consistent "that man ain't right" narrative, or the pervasive lies told about him on social media among Republicans, but here you jump directly to "it must be the fanboys!" without a shred of evidence.
Sorry, but this is exactly my point I made above: people have it out for Sanders, specific media outlets love to forget he even exists, and yet it's the people who plop down actual facts that get told they're acting like crazy people.
Aside from 2 cherry picked articles, one from a partisan source that's in the tank for him, and another a no context Snopes link, I haven't seen you bring much useful evidence to bear here either dude. You can feel free to disagree that Sanders' fanboys are obnoxious, but if your default mode to any criticism of him is to immediately start Sea Lioning, you're kind of demonstrating the point.
Unfortunately, the thing you haven't pictured anywhere here are these "actual facts" you're talking about. Your comments have had a lot of accusations, a little bit of special pleading, and a pervasive victim narrative with absolutely nothing specific. Is it any wonder people have started to sour on him when he's geared the top staff of his campaign to specifically be stocked with people who stoke these sorts of grievances with little in the way of positivity to offer?
I'm not the one conclusively claiming with 100% certainty that there could be no other possible explanation for Sanders' drop in favorability ratings.
Then, when faced with other explanations for why this could be, you retort with personal attacks like claiming I'm Sea Lioning.
Attacking sources doesn't mean they don't contain relevant facts.
Oh, you're right! I should have instantly acknowledged that there was no other option on the table than his "obnoxious online supporters" as to why Sanders' favorability ratings have dropped. Clearly that's the kind of positive uplifting comment we're looking for here. /s
Can you point me to where I said anything with "100% certainty?" I'm open to a convincing argument for a better root cause. You're not bringing one, just casting FUD.
Ironically, pearl clutching when it's pointed out you're not speaking in good faith is literally the definition of sea lioning. And to be honest, I probably wouldn't even have gone there if you didn't claim elsewhere in this thread that you're literally not interested in having a productive discussion with me and are just here to propagandize.
Man I was trying to give you advice on being better at persuading a "third party," which you said is what you were trying to do.
This isn't how evidence works. You start with a supposition and then you impartially seek out evidence to invalidate the supposition. If it continues to stand without being convincingly invalidated it is more likely to be accurate. If it loses support it becomes less likely and you'd raw your conclusions based on the balance of evidence.
You're not doing this. You're starting with a conclusion and then finding sources to validate it and looking for excuses to invalidate anything that weakens it. If you're trying to actually be persuasive you need to find sources that will be persuasive to a listener. If the sources you're picking suggest you're in a media echo-chamber, it just makes you less credible.
Yup. Or if you have reasonable and credible doubts, you can raise them. But explicitly trying to kick up FUD without actually saying anything yourself is, like I said, not helpful and not a good look for you or your guy.
And just look how far we've veered off here. You've gone from making a weird claim analogizing Sanders critics to Flat Earthers and now pivoted to "Well you can't prove beyond all doubt that the causative factors are what you say they are." This is because you have no thesis. You're not actively saying anything, just nitpicking what I'm saying. And the minute you're asked for specifics you find something else to attack, at times even modifying sentences to willfully miss the point just so you can have something to strike at.
This is unconvincing to the third parties you're trying to convince. At best, you're going to get support from the choir who is already in the tank with you, but this is utterly off-putting to anyone who isn't.
It's not just their 100 votes. It's the money that they can give to other candidates which will fund ads that can make a massive difference in a campaign.
I think "massive difference" is overstating it. There's lots of strong evidence that presidential campaigns hit saturation points on media type stuff. Money plays a much bigger role downticket for local and state races. So f they're pouring their cash into "feel-good" spending to attack Warren it's unlikely it'll do much.
Trump got outspent by a lot. He only won because everyone who would have funded a Republican candidate put their money into grassroots GOP organizing instead, which basically translated into Trump votes without actually have to write "To: Donald J. Trump" on the check but it kept the donors from having to feel icky.
I see what you are saying. But my point was that these relatively few people have outsized influence.
God forbid the people with money don't get enough more money. Who knows what would happen then?
Exactly. My response to the headline?
"Fucking good."
The system is broken
That is one hell of an endorsement. I'm sure she thanks you.
Will they start lining up at the Central Park Guillotine if we nominate Bernie, or what?
I'm hoping both Sanders and Warren can still see the sure-fire way to win: Regardless who wins the nomination, they need to pick the other for VP.
Sanders/Warren, Warren/Sanders doesn't matter. It's a slam dunk ticket.
I agree. I wonder if it would be possibile to crowdfund a major polster to ask this question and then publish the numbers?
I am a Bernie supporter, but I like Warren too. I imagine one will drop out after Super Tuesday. I'd like to see Bernie as president with Warren as secretary of the treasury. I could handle Warren as president with Bernie as secretary of labor too. I think the animus between supporters of the two is counterproductive. Yeah, she's Bernie Lite but at least she's not Biden in a pantsuit.
Why do you think one endorsing the other is the sure-fire way to win? This isn't meant to be an attack on your statement, I just don't see that.
Not endorsing, but running on the same ticket. President Warren, and VP Sanders; or President Sanders, and VP Warren, doesn't matter.
A big thing that happened last time were the "Bernie or bust" folk, who were so pissed, they voted for Trump. They wanted a populist.
Now, we have two. If one wins, and kicks the other to the curb, we're looking at a split vote again, and a possible Trump 2020.
Ok I agree with some aspects of that but I don't see how that is a sure-fire way to win the ticket? Warren is doing really well on her own and is the candidate being considered the most by people who currently support another primary candidates. I just don't see how Warren's issues (mostly appealing to white voters, especially college educated) is greatly improved by Bernie, a candidate polling worse than Warren (see figure 51) in those categories. I guess I can see the argument that putting Bernie as VP for Warren might help Warren the most because Bernie/Warren overlap is her weakest potential to gain voters (see table under section: Which candidates appeal to the same voters?) but I'm still not completely sold that it guarantees anything. Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary and a large portion of his supporters either didn't vote or went to Trump. So I guess the only way to guarantee Bernie supporters vote D is to make the candidate who is polling better and has more momentum and generally more liked by voters considering other candidates become his VP? Which is, in my opinion, not a great plan.
If he isn't polling well enough in actual primaries to win, in order to prevent the "Bernie or Bust" from just going Trump or staying home is to have Warren make him VP.
If he wins the primary, GOP solidification would happen, and we need to get Dems to not stay home. Bernie isn't energizing enough to get voters to the polls anymore, especially for those gunning for a female president.
Basically, a combined ticket, either way, is about the only sure-fire way to ensure Trump doesn't win in 2020.
But no, I'm not saying put him as VP regardless... The other should make the other their VP pick.
I’m saying I’m not sold the “Bernie or Bust” crowd see Bernie as a VP as a Bernie and not as a Bust.
What evidence would suggest that to you?
Isn't it just as simple as that if you added their polling numbers together, they're bigger than Biden?
If you're willing to make a bunch of oversimplifications and assumptions and ignore the way delegates work, maybe?
Edit: Sorry, re-reading this comment it comes off as very dismissive and condescending which isn't my intent. I'm at the office right now so I wrote a short reply. I will get data and write a more in-depth writeup of why this isn't really true when I am out of this meeting.
So in order to do this you need to assume
(1) Every supporter of the VP becomes a voter for the person who stays in. After the first debate there were polls of voter overlap that showed that actually more overlap between Warren/Harris and Biden/Sanders. That is to say Warren supporters were most likely to have harris as their second choice and vice versa, and same with Bernie Biden. Though that info was from around the second debate when harris was polling we’ll so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. It also assumes no supporters are going to be mad their candidate dropped out. See: Bernie or Bust from 2016 happening for either candidate.
(2) Assumes national polling victory => most delegates. Bernie + Warren numbers might be greater nationally, But that’s not necessarily true when you go state by state like a primary does
(3) Treats delegates like a winner-take-all system as opposed to what it really is: proportional.
(4) Ignores the impact of other candidates outside the Biden, Warren, Bernie and where their supporters go if their candidate drops out and also what happens to any delegates that they accrued.
Maybe it works out and Bernie + Warren on a ticket wins the primary. But there’s enough assumptions that need to be made that I wouldnt say it’s a sure-fire thing.
This kinda reminded me of a blog post I read that posited, until a week ago, that the Senior Democrats were letting a lot of Trump's nonsense fly because it was the most unchecked government spending they would see in their lifetimes and will allow them to keep their asses in power and be the good guys fighting the good fight waving their fists at the bad man.
https://www.politicalorphans.com/why-senior-democrats-love-donald-trump/
The blog thinks that Peloci is in on that action, actively siding with the money as opposed to trying to moderate the party into lighting only a little bit of the furniture on fire, which is not a take I entirely agree with, but I guess she is behaving like she knows which side of her bread is buttered, so 🤷.
I think I agree with you, I'm just undecided on whether enablement on the Democrats' scale is treasonous.
Because representing "the left" and constantly losing is in the interest of their major donors.
Looks like I’m an Elizabeth Warren supporter now.