• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

"According to the analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, fewer than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders, an independent, in the Democratic primary did the same for Clinton when she faced off against Trump a few months later. What's more, 12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...ders-voters-like-me-stayed-home/#1ee12478539f

There are lots of such articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

According to this, Bernie got 598,000+ votes in Michigan. Even if the article that show a 12% slippage are off by 50%, it would have cost Hillary about 36,000 votes. That's more than enough to carry MI. In PA, Bernie got over 780,000 votes, just the 12% would have been about 80,000 votes. That's more than enough to swing the state. In WI, Bernie got 570,000 votes. Hillary lost by less than 24,000.

Also remember on the switched votes, if you lose by 100, you don't have to get 101 new votes. You only need to switch 51 of the switched votes to win.

All of the above is even before adding in those who stayed home.

There is no question the disloyalty of the Bernie voters were a major factor in Hillary losing and if they act the same way this time, Trump could win again.

I am not saying Hillary's laziness and arrogance in not campaigning in those and other states wasn't also a major factor, but Bernie and his followers do have a lot of blame.

What you don't get about DSA is that the GOP is and will continue to use the term "socialist" to drive suburbanites and others away from voting for any Dem. You are proudly proving ammo for Trump. Like it or not, the vast majority of Americans don't want to be called socialists.

As to cannibalization, look at how Dems attacked the most popular Dem in the past quarter century at the most recent debate. A bunch of them piled on Obama over and over.

To your point, I know someone who went from being an ardent Bernie support to becoming an ardent Trump supporter. It still blows my mind.

The underlying thread between them is that they are an "outsider" candidate. Beyond that, they have nothing in common. But some people are stupid and don't think it through.
 
To your point, I know someone who went from being an ardent Bernie support to becoming an ardent Trump supporter. It still blows my mind.

The underlying thread between them is that they are an "outsider" candidate. Beyond that, they have nothing in common. But some people are stupid and don't think it through.

They also had economic protectionism and foreign policy isolationism in common, too. Then again, Trump hasn't really delivered on either of those promises. As you point out, some people are stupid and don't think it through.
 
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

"According to the analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, fewer than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders, an independent, in the Democratic primary did the same for Clinton when she faced off against Trump a few months later. What's more, 12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...ders-voters-like-me-stayed-home/#1ee12478539f

There are lots of such articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

According to this, Bernie got 598,000+ votes in Michigan. Even if the article that show a 12% slippage are off by 50%, it would have cost Hillary about 36,000 votes. That's more than enough to carry MI. In PA, Bernie got over 780,000 votes, just the 12% would have been about 80,000 votes. That's more than enough to swing the state. In WI, Bernie got 570,000 votes. Hillary lost by less than 24,000.

Also remember on the switched votes, if you lose by 100, you don't have to get 101 new votes. You only need to switch 51 of the switched votes to win.

All of the above is even before adding in those who stayed home.

There is no question the disloyalty of the Bernie voters were a major factor in Hillary losing and if they act the same way this time, Trump could win again.

I am not saying Hillary's laziness and arrogance in not campaigning in those and other states wasn't also a major factor, but Bernie and his followers do have a lot of blame.

What you don't get about DSA is that the GOP is and will continue to use the term "socialist" to drive suburbanites and others away from voting for any Dem. You are proudly proving ammo for Trump. Like it or not, the vast majority of Americans don't want to be called socialists.

As to cannibalization, look at how Dems attacked the most popular Dem in the past quarter century at the most recent debate. A bunch of them piled on Obama over and over.

1) I don't want to fall down the stats rabbit hole with you, but the referenced study is based on a nationally representative sample of 4,226 voter. There are obviously major issues with jumping to conclusions like "defecting Sanders primary voters explain Trump victory" from this type of sample. That's partially because Sanders primary voters who voted Trump were either Republicans or right leaning independents. See the chart tweeted by the guy who wrote the study:

 
The Democrats never look at the big picture and to “next time” like Republicans do. Republican are all in on the long con rather than your next meal, like Democrats. It is the reason we are in this mess (gerrymandering) and have 20 Dems running now. It’s crazy!

We are also in a situation were the issues mean nothing...just the R or D behind your name. All Dems are Socialists and Reps are bible thumping racists. I hate the modern political atmosphere, it is a catastrophe!
 
The Democrats never look at the big picture and to “next time” like Republicans do. Republican are all in on the long con rather than your next meal, like Democrats. It is the reason we are in this mess (gerrymandering) and have 20 Dems running now. It’s crazy!

We are also in a situation were the issues mean nothing...just the R or D behind your name. All Dems are Socialists and Reps are bible thumping racists. I hate the modern political atmosphere, it is a catastrophe!

The only way to transcend that is to believe in something (anything, really) and get out the vote!
 
To your point, I know someone who went from being an ardent Bernie support to becoming an ardent Trump supporter. It still blows my mind.

The underlying thread between them is that they are an "outsider" candidate. Beyond that, they have nothing in common. But some people are stupid and don't think it through.

This has been going on for a long time. In the 1968 presidential campaign, a surprising number of Gene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy supporters in the Democratic primaries (mostly blue-collar workers) ended up voting for George Wallace in the election in November, even though Wallace was the polar opposite of McCarthy and Kennedy on almost every issue. Surveys showed that what McCarthy, Kennedy, and Wallace voters liked about all three men was their belief that each was a "rebel" and "outsider" taking on the Establishment (the modern dreaded "elites"). To these protest voters, the issues and policies mattered less than what they thought each man symbolized.
 
Right. So which Dem candidate is more of an outsider? We aren’t going to win with a Mondale, Kerry, or Romney type but we could win with a Bill Clinton type.

I think Warren and Pete give off the outsider vibe the most of the top contenders. Bernie is in a bind because he is an outsider but he gets his boost from having run before which makes him less of an outsider.
 
According to this, Bernie got 598,000+ votes in Michigan. Even if the article that show a 12% slippage are off by 50%, it would have cost Hillary about 36,000 votes. That's more than enough to carry MI. In PA, Bernie got over 780,000 votes, just the 12% would have been about 80,000 votes. That's more than enough to swing the state. In WI, Bernie got 570,000 votes. Hillary lost by less than 24,000.

As much as you want to blame Bernie for the mistakes of the Democratic party in Michigan, it's a much deeper problem.

Remember when Obama drank "Flint water from the tap" and called it safe in a high school where the water had been turned off for months? Or how Hillary never met with UAW? Or with the Michigan Democratic Women’s Caucus representing tens of thousands of young, mostly nonwhite, mostly young women who stayed home in Michigan? The Clinton campaign didn't even send enough literature to Michigan for people who signed up to canvass for her. Her campaign spent 3% as much in Michigan and Wisconsin as it did in Florida, Ohio, and NC (though she lost all 5). Their polling data was largely based on "likely Democratic voters," most of whom they never spoke to.

I know it didn't sit right with my family in Michigan that a CNN commentator was feeding her questions in their home state in an important primary. Talk about cannibalizing your own.
 
As much as you want to blame Bernie for the mistakes of the Democratic party in Michigan, it's a much deeper problem.

Remember when Obama drank "Flint water from the tap" and called it safe in a high school where the water had been turned off for months? Or how Hillary never met with UAW? Or with the Michigan Democratic Women’s Caucus representing tens of thousands of young, mostly nonwhite, mostly young women who stayed home in Michigan? The Clinton campaign didn't even send enough literature to Michigan for people who signed up to canvass for her. Her campaign spent 3% as much in Michigan and Wisconsin as it did in Florida, Ohio, and NC (though she lost all 5). Their polling data was largely based on "likely Democratic voters," most of whom they never spoke to.

I know it didn't sit right with my family in Michigan that a CNN commentator was feeding her questions in their home state in an important primary. Talk about cannibalizing your own.

I think the centrist wing of the Democratic Party is post-fact at this point.

It’s the one thing that jhmd was right about...
 
READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. I also blamed Hillary's campaign. But to place no blame on Bernie and his followers would be wrong. But you you have always picked, chosen and eliminated what would be uncomfortable for you to admit. It's an ingrained part of your MO.
 
READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. I also blamed Hillary's campaign. But to place no blame on Bernie and his followers would be wrong. But you you have always picked, chosen and eliminated what would be uncomfortable for you to admit. It's an ingrained part of your MO.

In order for Bernie to be blamed for the Michigan loss you have to believe that the people that pushed him over the top in the primary were democrats to begin with. They weren’t. The Democratic Party doesn’t own its voters, they have to earn them. Bernie brought new voters in to the party who promptly left when Clinton demonstrated pretty clearly that she didn’t give a fuck about them.
 
Millennials are on the cusp of surpassing Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living adult generation, according to population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau. As of July 1, 2016 (the latest date for which population estimates are available), Millennials, whom we define as ages 20 to 35 in 2016, numbered 71 million, and Boomers (ages 52 to 70) numbered 74 million. Millennials are expected to overtake Boomers in population in 2019 as their numbers swell to 73 million and Boomers decline to 72 million.

Perhaps one day, in 2040 or so, when rj finally logs off, he'll look back and say, hey that one time on the internet? I was wrong.
 
In order for Bernie to be blamed for the Michigan loss you have to believe that the people that pushed him over the top in the primary were democrats to begin with. They weren’t. The Democratic Party doesn’t own its voters, they have to earn them. Bernie brought new voters in to the party who promptly left when Clinton demonstrated pretty clearly that she didn’t give a fuck about them.

I guess numbers don't matter. I showed how many people voted for Bernie in MI, the amount MI was lost by and the percentage of voter changes. I didn't even include the stay at home number.

To say Bernie's lack of enthusiasm didn't have an impact would be naive and unfounded.

AGAIN, I am not saying it was the only factor or that Hillary doesn't get blame, but there is no logical way around that Bernie did harm her chances.
 
There’s lies, damn lies, and RJ trying to understand statistics
 
Can we all at least admit that the Bernie supporters were not as invested in ensuring Donald was not elected as most democrats were and that this played a role in his election? I think that’s relatively clear.
 
NAH, they can't do that. Nothing is EVER their fault. It's everyone else.
 
Can we all at least admit that the Bernie supporters were not as invested in ensuring Donald was not elected as most democrats were and that this played a role in his election? I think that’s relatively clear.

I didn't go campaigning for Hillary (though there probably wouldn't have been signs or literature if I tried), but I voted for her as did every Bernie supporter on here save moon and bsf. The non-voting population is so much larger than those who stayed home or switched it's barely worth mentioning, but I think you can view that group as either

a) traitors who gave Trump the election
b) disaffected voters who weren't given a good second option

So long as you stick with the narrative in option A, you're turning away a lot of those same voters in 2020. It doesn't have to be a "take my ball and go home" situation if you get your head out of the rear view mirror though and focus on what the winning strategy is for 2020. I'd argue the phrasing of your question itself is a bit problematic. Bernie would have won, after all.

All of the above said, sure. Clear enough to make the point you're trying to make, if it misses the forest for the trees.
 
Can we all at least admit that the Bernie supporters were not as invested in ensuring Donald was not elected as most democrats were and that this played a role in his election? I think that’s relatively clear.

I mean sure but you have folks like RJ, itc, ChrisL, etc. who depending on when you catch them, blame Trump on “Bernie bros.”

That’s just not a true claim for all of the many substantiated reasons on this thread and a hundred others.
 
AND, Strick is ALWAYS right. No one should EVER think they could be correct as long as they don't kowtow to him.

Just ask him!!!
 
Back
Top