By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

SpokenTruth said:
Mnementh said:

This 26% number seems interestingly concrete. Any source for that?

He's referring to a real situation but the numbers seem off.  12% of those that voted Sanders in the primaries voted Trump in the general election.  I'm not sure what the 26% represents. 

While that 12% number sounds insane, that's actually pretty normal. 34% who voted for Kasich in the primary, voted Clinton in the general.  From Clinton to McCain in 2008 was 25%.  From Obama to Trump it was 13% (2012 to 2016 election).

It's just another hit people put on Sanders despite it happening to all candidates.

Thanks for this clarification. I did some digging into this. And interestingly enough, the same source that found the 12% of Sanders primary voters moved to Trump in the general, also looked at 2008 and found that 24% Clintons primary voters moved on to vote for McCain in the general. So Clinton-or-bust is even more a thing than Bernie-or-bust. But also this source has the highest number of these movements. Other sources say that 6% or 8% of Sanders primary voters voted for Trump in the general election. Actually all the supporters of non-Trump candidates in the primary voted stronger for Clinton than Sanders-supporters for Trump.

https://medium.com/@jriddle/the-12-bernie-to-trump-figure-and-24-clinton-to-mccain-figure-comes-from-brian-schaffner-of-the-9905971c9f45

In the end it turns out, this is also only a way to shift the blame from Clintons fail as a candidate to something else. In this case to Bernie Sanders. The reality is: Bernie did not get Trump elected, Clinton lost on her own.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network
uran10 said:
tsogud said:

Yes, I understand the various reasons, that's nothing new to me. It's just in Tulsi's case it seems like a net negative for her.

Its easy when it comes to Tulsi. She's not doing it to benefit herself, she's doing it to bring attention to the regime change wars we've waged and on ending the wars. On foreign policy she's easily the furthest left and her entire thing is dragging the party left on foreign policy. She's not an isolationist btw, she's just anti-interventions and for diplomacy first. On top of that she's in for exposing the corruption in the dem party and the entire system when it comes to going against the MIC. Honestly, she's clearly trying to win to force this push and while I like her, I don't think she's the best choice for president right now.

Yeah but I honestly haven't noticed her debates and the free pr she gets from running having any effect on the Democratic electorate or the candidates themselves. Please correct me if I'm wrong though, but in a sea of candidates her voice is getting drowned out and her message lost and since she's relatively unknown she doesn't have the clout to push the party. On top of that the only press she gets in the media are smears and negative coverage, that's why I feel that her staying in the race is of no consequence to the electorate but has a negative impact on her. Kind of a lose-lose situation for her.



 

tsogud said:
uran10 said:

Its easy when it comes to Tulsi. She's not doing it to benefit herself, she's doing it to bring attention to the regime change wars we've waged and on ending the wars. On foreign policy she's easily the furthest left and her entire thing is dragging the party left on foreign policy. She's not an isolationist btw, she's just anti-interventions and for diplomacy first. On top of that she's in for exposing the corruption in the dem party and the entire system when it comes to going against the MIC. Honestly, she's clearly trying to win to force this push and while I like her, I don't think she's the best choice for president right now.

Yeah but I honestly haven't noticed her debates and the free pr she gets from running having any effect on the Democratic electorate or the candidates themselves. Please correct me if I'm wrong though, but in a sea of candidates her voice is getting drowned out and her message lost and since she's relatively unknown she doesn't have the clout to push the party. On top of that the only press she gets in the media are smears and negative coverage, that's why I feel that her staying in the race is of no consequence to the electorate but has a negative impact on her. Kind of a lose-lose situation for her.

Maybe on the debate stage with so many other candidates, however she does draw crowds and she knows how to get the spotlight on her and how to spread her message. Think about all the debates. She brought down Kamala, schooled Tim Ryan on and pointed out Pete was just a war hawk neoliberal. On top of that She's highlighting issues which no other candidate is and going on indie Media to spread her message. She's doing a lot and she's actually drawing crowds. The reason the smears are so strong is because of what she did in 2016 and because she's fighting against the MIC. They want to discredit her, but the more the media that people do not trust flings dirt, the more people actually read into it. That's part of why she gets googled the most after debates as well.

Jumpin you're wrong on the whole bernie or bust is why hillary lost. This has been debunked so many times. Simple, simple fact. There were more Hillary voters that voted for John Mccain than there were Bernie supporters that voted for Trump. Hillary lost cause she ran a the worst campaign I've ever seen in my life and she lost by not going to the rustbelt. Most Bernie supporters sucked it up and voted for her, more than her own supporters did in 08 so stop spreading that baseless lie.

Maybe if she wasn't running on "Look me, historic female president" and actually focused on the issues she would have won. You want to know something? I can't think of 1 central policy that Hillary was running on, all I can remember is pandering. With Trump I remember him running to Hillary's left a hell of a lot of times and I also remember him and his build a wall. That's how you know she ran a bad campaign. Don't blame Bernie supporters for Trump, our job isn't to be sheep and vote for the nominee, its the nominee's job to convince us to vote. But she ran to her right, just look at her VP. I mean... jeez... anyway I can go on forever about hillary's terrible campaign. My point is, stop blaming bernie or bust when that had nothing to do with it.



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-strategist-ex-hillary-clinton-staffer-unleashes-vulgar-attack-on-bernie-sanders
Former Clinton staffer attacked Bernie for defending Gabbard. Its wild how Clinton has inserted herself into the primary.



uran10 said:
tsogud said:

Yeah but I honestly haven't noticed her debates and the free pr she gets from running having any effect on the Democratic electorate or the candidates themselves. Please correct me if I'm wrong though, but in a sea of candidates her voice is getting drowned out and her message lost and since she's relatively unknown she doesn't have the clout to push the party. On top of that the only press she gets in the media are smears and negative coverage, that's why I feel that her staying in the race is of no consequence to the electorate but has a negative impact on her. Kind of a lose-lose situation for her.

Maybe on the debate stage with so many other candidates, however she does draw crowds and she knows how to get the spotlight on her and how to spread her message. Think about all the debates. She brought down Kamala, schooled Tim Ryan on and pointed out Pete was just a war hawk neoliberal. On top of that She's highlighting issues which no other candidate is and going on indie Media to spread her message. She's doing a lot and she's actually drawing crowds. The reason the smears are so strong is because of what she did in 2016 and because she's fighting against the MIC. They want to discredit her, but the more the media that people do not trust flings dirt, the more people actually read into it. That's part of why she gets googled the most after debates as well.

Jumpin you're wrong on the whole bernie or bust is why hillary lost. This has been debunked so many times. Simple, simple fact. There were more Hillary voters that voted for John Mccain than there were Bernie supporters that voted for Trump. Hillary lost cause she ran a the worst campaign I've ever seen in my life and she lost by not going to the rustbelt. Most Bernie supporters sucked it up and voted for her, more than her own supporters did in 08 so stop spreading that baseless lie.

Maybe if she wasn't running on "Look me, historic female president" and actually focused on the issues she would have won. You want to know something? I can't think of 1 central policy that Hillary was running on, all I can remember is pandering. With Trump I remember him running to Hillary's left a hell of a lot of times and I also remember him and his build a wall. That's how you know she ran a bad campaign. Don't blame Bernie supporters for Trump, our job isn't to be sheep and vote for the nominee, its the nominee's job to convince us to vote. But she ran to her right, just look at her VP. I mean... jeez... anyway I can go on forever about hillary's terrible campaign. My point is, stop blaming bernie or bust when that had nothing to do with it.

Then those crowds should be reflected in the polls which they aren't and the reality is that she's not pulling the party left and she's not gaining ground with the electorate. So there's no reason to stay in besides tarnish her name even more. I get what she's trying to do but it's just not working. Maybe next election.



 

Around the Network
Jumpin said:
Mnementh said:

Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stone has also some words about Clintons conspiracy theory: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/clinton-gabbard-russian-asset-jill-stein-901593/

And everyone thinking I have an anti-Clinton bias: you're right. I think Clinton is the reason Trump won in 2016. And instead of accepting her errors she blames her loss on some crazy conspiracy theories. Trump has pushed a lot of 'alternative facts', but in regards to these conspiracy theories Clinton is not far away. The problem is, that she is still very influential to the democratic party and this shit clearly damages the party and the new candidates.

What did she do, then?

As an outsider from the US, I'm not subject to your propaganda umbrella. The reason the Democrats lost was all the Bernie or Bust campaign. This was a group of 26% of Bernie Sanders supporters who not only didn't vote Democratic, but about half of whom actually voted for Trump. Then there was the massive anti-Democratic Party campaign from the Bernie or Bust people, the ultimate useful idiocy.

Weren't you just decrying the lies about Warren? And then you lie about Sanders and his supporters'??? At least be consistent.

Last edited by tsogud - on 23 October 2019

 

Jumpin said:
Mnementh said:

Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stone has also some words about Clintons conspiracy theory: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/clinton-gabbard-russian-asset-jill-stein-901593/

And everyone thinking I have an anti-Clinton bias: you're right. I think Clinton is the reason Trump won in 2016. And instead of accepting her errors she blames her loss on some crazy conspiracy theories. Trump has pushed a lot of 'alternative facts', but in regards to these conspiracy theories Clinton is not far away. The problem is, that she is still very influential to the democratic party and this shit clearly damages the party and the new candidates.

What did she do, then?

As an outsider from the US, I'm not subject to your propaganda umbrella. The reason the Democrats lost was all the Bernie or Bust campaign. This was a group of 26% of Bernie Sanders supporters who not only didn't vote Democratic, but about half of whom actually voted for Trump. Then there was the massive anti-Democratic Party campaign from the Bernie or Bust people, the ultimate useful idiocy.

Couldn't be more incorrect.

As a citizen who resides in the heart of the US Midwest, I can tell you definitively that HILLARY is the reason Hillary lost the election (you know, the candidate who actually ran against Trump?). It had very little if anything to do with Bernie. The only thing Bernie is responsible for is helping to bring the Democrats farther left and closer to the FDR Dems of old.

While it's not a guarantee Bernie would have beat Trump, in my humble opinion, he would have had a FAR better chance. Why?

The Rust Belt.

As a Midwesterner I can tell you, we are liberal, but (outside of pockets of maybe Chicago) we're extremely wary of the Neolib/Neocon policies that have decimated Midwestern industry and thus city economies like Detroit, Flint, Cleveland, etc. Clinton's support of free trade agreements like NAFTA - largely responsible for this ruin of Midwest industry and countless lost jobs - was very unpopular here. Bernie had these areas with his support of the working class and opposition of free trade. Clinton did not. Even Trump was opposed to free trade. Thus the Midwest favored him over Clinton.

Remember, the key areas she lost - which was ultimately the reason she lost to Trump in the electoral college - was the "Blue Wall" or Rust Belt areas. Win over Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Penn, and Michigan (or hell even 3 of those) and you win the presidency. She lost these key areas. 



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

Wow. I just looked over the thread on Bernie's tweet in defense of Gabbard and omg Hillary really has a way of dividing our party. She's such a hack if I'm being honest, throwing out baseless claims and smearing people... And since she's part of the Democratic establishment the media runs her lies, way to abuse your influence Clinton... She just mad she didn't win and is taking it out on someone who helped her competitor. She needs to get over herself and stop blaming other people. I honestly hope she runs so she can lose AGAIN lmao

Last edited by tsogud - on 23 October 2019

 

tsogud said:

Wow. I just looked over the thread on Bernie's tweet in defense of Gabbard and omg Hillary really has a way of dividing our party. She's such a hack if I'm being honest, throwing out baseless claims and smearing people... And since she's part of the Democratic establishment the media runs her lies, way to abuse your influence Clinton... She just mad she didn't win and is taking it out on someone who helped her competitor. She needs to get over herself and stop blaming other people. I honestly hope she runs so she can lose AGAIN lmao

Ah. I love how the civility and cool head is thrown out the window when it is someone you don't like.

Trash talk Tulsi? Disgusting. Trash talk Hillary? Fair game. So hypocritical.

Anyway, I'm glad Sanders is getting all the hate. Brought it fully on himself for defending someone who is unquestionably a Russian asset.

Last edited by Moren - on 23 October 2019

morenoingrato said:
tsogud said:

Wow. I just looked over the thread on Bernie's tweet in defense of Gabbard and omg Hillary really has a way of dividing our party. She's such a hack if I'm being honest, throwing out baseless claims and smearing people... And since she's part of the Democratic establishment the media runs her lies, way to abuse your influence Clinton... She just mad she didn't win and is taking it out on someone who helped her competitor. She needs to get over herself and stop blaming other people. I honestly hope she runs so she can lose AGAIN lmao

Ah. I love how the civility and cool head is thrown out the window when it is someone you don't like.

Trash talk Tulsi? Disgusting. Trash talk Hillary? Fair game. So hypocritical.

Anyway, I'm glad Sanders is getting all the hate. Brought it fully on himself for defending someone who is unquestionably a Russian asset.

I think it is somehow sad, that the talking point of right-wing about alleged russian influence on the candidates that coincidentally are opposed to oneself has now become something in the democratic party. Shows how much right-wingers are now present at the core of the democratic party. And, not to forget, never ever present any proof, evidence or whatever. Just claim the connection. Nobody needs any evidence, we are in the age of Trump.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]