Bernie Sanders town hall feat. Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore

[Venom]

....... I think she would have made a great president, but she was a terrible candidate. She had the charisma of a potato.
You're still doing it: blaming people for not voting for a candidate they didn't want instead of blaming the candidate for not being what they wanted.......

... then people continue making the same statements for the next year and a half instead of stopping to consider that they might just have been wrong the whole time.

 

[Segnosaur]

Plus she was born without a penis.

Not to derail the discussion, but I keep hearing about how being a woman was some sort of negative for her, but I've not seen much in terms of evidence for that claim.

Well the evidence we have:

- A very large gender gap in the people that voted for Trump and Clinton

- A 2015 poll showed that 92% of voters would vote for a female candidate. Ok, that's the majority. Hurrah, sexism is over! But it also means that 8% of voters won't vote for a female candidate. So, any female candidate has a roughly 1-in-10 voter deficit to make up (and that's assuming all those polled are actually honest.)

- Then there is what is called the "backlash" effect. From: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/hidden-sexism/
An extensive body of research has shown that women who seek leadership positions often encounter resistance from both men and women if they violate gender norms by acting in stereotypically masculine ways, like being competitive, assertive and self-promotional. This is known among social psychologists as the "backlash" effect

Even if you discount the 'backlash' effect, the simple pole showing 8% of people (much bigger than the margin of victory in the swing states that Trump won) won't vote for a woman should be evidence enough.

There is a general trend when describing women.... traits that seem beneficial in men are often looked down on in women. A man is assertive, a woman is pushy. A man who sleeps around is seen as a "lady's man", a woman is a harlot. Even in this thread, someone claimed Clinton had the charisma "of a potato"; had a man had the same characteristics the description might have been "calm demeanor".

By that logic I'd think Obama would never have been elected, never mind twice.

Keep in mind that being subject to sexism/racism in an election doesn't mean you will automatically lose, but it does mean you are at a disadvantage and your chance of winning drops significantly. Obama was able to overcome the disadvantages, Clinton was not.

ETA: it could mean that Obama was just that much better of a candidate. Or it could mean that while sexism and racism exists, Sexism was the bigger detriment. As comedian Patton Oswalt said:
What I've learned so far tonight: America is WAAAAAAAAY more sexist than it is racist. And it's pretty (f-bomb) racist.

There were a lot of reasons why Clinton failed, and I don't think anyone can point to any single factor. Clinton did make mistakes (as mentioned before, failing to work to shore up support in certain states). There was sexism (as mentioned before). There was Russian interference. There were Republican attacks going back decades. Simply chalking it up to "horrible candidate" is overly simplistic, inaccurate, and not helpful.

Bernie didn't do her any favour by delaying his graceful exit from the race and his endorsement of her.

Yup, I agree.

Which brings up another point... all these BernieBros like to think he's some sort of master strategist who will manage to sway the electorate through his magical abilities. Yet here's a guy who misjudged how he should have withdrawn from the election (as well as completely misjudging how to handle minority groups.)

 

[kellyb]

Which brings up another point... all these BernieBros like to think he's some sort of master strategist who will manage to sway the electorate through his magical abilities. Yet here's a guy who misjudged how he should have withdrawn from the election (as well as completely misjudging how to handle minority groups.)

Nobody thinks that - we don't think he needs to be a master strategist.

And I'm sorry, but it's really hard to take too seriously advice from the folks who thought promoting Trump as the R candidate, and pushing the least popular Democratic candidate in American History, on the topic of "misjudging."

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Sure it is. Radical freedom and all that. Knowing that an effective partisan smear campaign had rendered her politically nonviable for high office, she still chose to put herself forward as the most viable candidate, and still chose to focus the resources of the party on supporting her candidacy.

But she didn't know that - and it wasn't true.

But hey, if that's the criteria then any candidate who isn't totally sure that they are the 'most viable' should not put themselves forward. That would have included Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, George Pataki, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal...

And of course, Donald Trump - who was as surprised as anyone to get the support he did.

O’Brien: I agree completely that shamelessness is one of his key traits. I wouldn’t call it a skill, though, as much as a malady, and I think that—I think Donald lacks any kind of sophisticated strategic planning. I think he’s simply a force of nature. He’s Mr. Id, and he just plows forward into any situation in which he can get attention. And he soaks it up and he performs.

And I think he stumbled onto this national stage without a lot of long-term plans about what he was going to do when he began running. I think he was surprised as anyone else that he got as much pull with the voters as he did. And I think even if you look at some of the photos from him as the vote tallies came in, some of the photos of him he looks a little surprised and stunned himself that all of this is suddenly upon him. It’s like Robert Redford at the end of The Candidate, “Now what do we do?”

And I think we now have somebody who’s going to sit in the Oval Office who is lacking in a lot of adult restraints and in mature emotions. And America’s going to get a front-row seat to watching what that means.

 

[kellyb]

Yeah what kind of an idiot blames people for their own choices?

Agreed. And it's not all on Clinton herself - her staff (along with the media, Bernie bros, et al) deserve some of the blame for Trump, too, yes?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428

So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up. Shortly after her kickoff, top aides organized a strategy call, whose agenda included a memo to the Democratic National Committee: “This memo is intended to outline the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field,” it read.

“The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo.

 

[Segnosaur]

Which brings up another point... all these BernieBros like to think he's some sort of master strategist who will manage to sway the electorate through his magical abilities. Yet here's a guy who misjudged how he should have withdrawn from the election (as well as completely misjudging how to handle minority groups.)

Nobody thinks that - we don't think he needs to be a master strategist.

Yet whenever I bring up the fact that tax increases to fund is social program expansion (free college among other things), the suggestion by BernieBros is "Its ok... Sanders will find a rallying cry that will make people forget increased taxes". Sounds to me like people are assuming some sort of advanced strategic thinking.

And yes, you need a candidate who is good at strategy. You seem to be blaming the democrats for the "bad strategy" of picking Clinton, but what type of strategy do you think Sanders will provide if he can't even figure out "Minorities are a significant voting block. Maybe you should try appealing to them".

And I'm sorry, but it's really hard to take too seriously advice from the folks who thought promoting Trump as the R candidate

According to a reference you provided in another post, the democrats were favoring Cruz and Carson, not just Trump. They thought their biggest competitor at the time was Jeb Bush, who had the advantages of being able to raise huge amounts of money and being from Florida (a key swing state). While hindsight is 20/20, I think its understandable that the Democrats and Clinton would be concerned had he won the nomination.

The democrats were guilty of underestimating the amount of bigotry in the U.S.

and pushing the least popular Democratic candidate in American History, on the topic of "misjudging."

Somehow it seems like the average BernieBro has the same characteristics as a brain damaged parrot. Whatever arguments you bring to point to why Sanders would not be an ideal candidate and would lose worse than Clinton, the whole "Look at the popularity polls" comes up.

Let me summarize my conversation with a brain damaged parrot:

Parrot: Squack! Bernie polled better

Me: There were potential scandals that weren't brought up in the primaries that would have drastically affected his popularity. Here's a list.

Parrot: Squack! Bernie polled better

Me: Not only that, here is how several of his policies would likely have been received by a majority of the electorate

Parrot: Squack! Bernie polled better

Me: Not only that, here is an analysis that examines Democratic candidates for the past half century, showing that candidates that are further to the left like Sanders always lose

Parrot: Squack! Bernie polled better

 

[kellyb]

According to a reference you provided in another post, the democrats were favoring Cruz and Carson, not just Trump.

Oh, wow, that really changes things, doesn't it? Nothing at all for Team Clinton to regret then, since they also tried and failed to install the Zodic Killer as the R nominee. LOL

"Minorities are a significant voting block. Maybe you should try appealing to them".

He did ok with some minorities:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...rent-united-behind-clinton-like-their-elders/

“When you look at the numbers, the reality is that it’s just a different generation,” he said. “Forty percent of African-American millennials don’t choose Hillary. Young black voters overall don’t have an allegiance to a party.” Across racial lines, polling research shows, 48 percent of millennials consider themselves political independents, though more are Democratic-leaning than GOP-leaning.

Prudhome said issues key to black millennials include not only jobs and education, but also the fact that older millennials who earn a good living still can’t afford to buy a house in some parts of the county.

The majority of black millennial voters still prefer Clinton. One of them is Eboney Pearson, 30, who lives in Long Beach, California, and works on literacy and numeracy programs for at-risk youth. Compared to her peers in the area, “I was definitely in the minority” in supporting Clinton, Pearson said. “I didn’t even talk about it too much. It kind of felt controversial to be open about it with my age group, in particular, and specifically within the black community.”

It's the name recognition, "brand loyalty" effect with the older minorities, just like it is with older white people when it came to Clinton.

 

[Belz...]

Well the evidence we have:

Aside from the backlash effect you describe, it's not much to support your claim, however.

There is a general trend when describing women.... traits that seem beneficial in men are often looked down on in women. A man is assertive, a woman is pushy. A man who sleeps around is seen as a "lady's man", a woman is a harlot. Even in this thread, someone claimed Clinton had the charisma "of a potato"; had a man had the same characteristics the description might have been "calm demeanor"

.

No, he'd been called "low-energy" or something, like Jeb!

I generally agree that we don't see men and women the same, but that doesn't necessarily translate into an unwillingness to put women in leadership roles. Unless you think the US is marginal in that regard in the western world, which I would disagree with.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The democrats were guilty of underestimating the amount of bigotry in the U.S.

<snip>

And I think it even came as something of a surprise to more than a few Republicans (even though they should have been inured to it after half a century of making it their own) while watching Trump cut his way through a huge field of primary contenders ... the GOP's best, the cream of their crop ... like a farmer with a brand new harvester.

Trump did much more than tap into the always barely concealed bigotry roiling under the skins of American conservatives, the GOP had already long mastered that. He made it okay to bring it out from under the rocks and out of the dark corners and wave it like a flag.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Even in this thread, someone claimed Clinton had the charisma "of a potato"; had a man had the same characteristics the description might have been "calm demeanor".

That was me, and no. Had a man the same characteristics his name would be Al Gore and he would have lost in 2000, as well, in almost exactly the same way and for almost exactly the same reason. The Democrats seem to have a running problem fielding candidates who are skilled, experienced, intelligent, and about as fun as a wet sandwich. And then they lose to dumbasses, because no one wants to vote for those people.

Stop blaming sexism and propaganda when your unlikable, boring-ass candidate fails to waltz in on a mandate.

 

[kellyb]

That was me, and no. Had a man the same characteristics his name would be Al Gore and he would have lost in 2000, as well, in almost exactly the same way and for almost exactly the same reason.

They do share the same robotic creepy factor. Kinda triggers the Uncanny Valley reflex. I think Ted Cruz has the same problem with his persona, and it was why he was rejected by the Rs.

 

[Venom]

The DNC has been trying to ride name recognition in several elections. But lookie, the most popular politician in the United States. Time to embrace him right? Surely the Democratic Party can overlook their donors to win in the long run?

 

[The_Animus]

Ummm.... say what?

Remember when I suggested posters here were more intelligent than the average American? Well, maybe I was wrong.

Anyone who, when faced with an election where the 2 main choices were Clinton and Trump, decided to either vote for Trump or waste their vote (3rd party candidate, abstaining, etc.) is a class-A moron, not much better than the idiots who wear confederate flag T-shirts and chant "Lock her up" at Trump rallies. People like that are almost as responsible for getting the current Racist in office as those who actually supported Trump from the beginning. Congrats.... thanks to people like that we got a leader who thinks neo-nazis are "fine people" and that adding billions to the debt to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy is good economic policy.

Gee I've never heard this terrible rhetoric before. You feel good about that post? Thanks for showing your true colors. I can't speak for anyone else but I can say I had reasons for doing what I did. But you're clearly not interested in those and just want to ad hom people and lump everyone together who disagrees with you. I guess the discussion is done.

 

[kellyb]

Gee I've never heard this terrible rhetoric before. You feel good about that post? Thanks for showing your true colors. I can't speak for anyone else but I can say I had reasons for doing what I did. But you're clearly not interested in those and just want to ad hom people and lump everyone together who disagrees with you. I guess the discussion is done.

As someone who really cares about the Democratic Party, I have to say those posts sadden me, too. I've noticed over the years that Team Red doesn't do that stuff to their "waywards".

While the supposed "serious people" on Team Blue like to berate lefties about unrealistic expectations of ideological purity, Team Red has mastered the art of controlling and using ideological solidarity.

 

[theprestige]

Gee I've never heard this terrible rhetoric before. You feel good about that post? Thanks for showing your true colors. I can't speak for anyone else but I can say I had reasons for doing what I did. But you're clearly not interested in those and just want to ad hom people and lump everyone together who disagrees with you. I guess the discussion is done.

It helps if you keep in mind that these threads are less about discussion, and more about Two Minutes Hate.

 

[Belz...]

It helps if you keep in mind that these threads are less about discussion, and more about Two Minutes Hate.

I thought they were about broadcasting how morally superior we are to one another.

 

[Egg]

As someone who really cares about the Democratic Party, I have to say those posts sadden me, too. I've noticed over the years that Team Red doesn't do that stuff to their "waywards".

While the supposed "serious people" on Team Blue like to berate lefties about unrealistic expectations of ideological purity, Team Red has mastered the art of controlling and using ideological solidarity.

I think you're right. Team red managed to unite at least 3 separate ideologies in opposition (when it comes to the vote at any rate - doesn't work so well for governing). I'd see that as a victory for negative campaigning, which they are masters at.

I understand the anger in Segnosaur's rhetoric there, even if it's not particularly helpful. But it is a reaction to the lack of ideological solidarity that you're talking about - wasn't ideological purity (along with everyone thinking she had it in the bag) why some stayed home?

That said, I'd have to agree on Segnosaur's assessment on Bernie's chances. It should be noted that Hillary's favorable rating was actually polling pretty well before the start of the whole election cycle. And while Bernie wouldn't have had as bad smears from the left and the advantage of being male, I don't think we can underestimate the negatively that would have been piled on him and just how effective that can be. Aside from his cupboard skeletons, we'd have seen the talking heads mentioning atheism and how dangerous that is ad nauseam... and communism...and the Jewish heritage - I think the transition from fun, grumpy old protester talking common sense hope into dangerous, enemy of American values and a threat to the economy would have been swift and brutal.

 

[kellyb]

I think the transition from fun, grumpy old protester talking common sense hope into dangerous, enemy of American values and a threat to the economy would have been swift and brutal.

Yeah, but I question how effective it would be. It's really an open question.

 

[Egg]

Yeah, but I question how effective it would be. It's really an open question.

Probably safe to say as effective as expected of an incredibly well-funded political machine with world experts in marketing and psychology willing to play as dirty as they need to. They certainly did a number on Hillary. Obama caught the push-back wave against Bush's administration and they mostly only had lies and racism against him. Ultimately of course we can't know, but Bernie had weaknesses to exploit and his wave of popularity would have taken a severe battering and left a lot of people a lot less sure. The debates would have been interesting though

 

[kellyb]

Probably safe to say as effective as expected of an incredibly well-funded political machine with world experts in marketing and psychology willing to play as dirty as they need to.

They tried it with Trump, tho, and it seemed to result in something like the "backfire effect".

They certainly did a number on Hillary. Obama caught the push-back wave against Bush's administration and they mostly only had lies and racism against him. Ultimately of course we can't know, but Bernie had weaknesses to exploit and his wave of popularity would have taken a severe battering and left a lot of people a lot less sure. The debates would have been interesting though

I realize you're probably going to disagree, but I think a whole lot of people who like him are already aware of most of the [broad category of] stuff that could be used against him, and I also wonder if what works against an "establishment" candidate might have the opposite effect against an anti-establishment one.