-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NPR: Bernie Sanders staying in the race 'Until The Last Vote Is Cast'
- Thread starter Wiz
- Start date
- Status
Honest question: when was the last time you watched a Sanders rally or read a Sanders interview? Because I find it hard to believe that anyone closely following this primary could be confused about why people want Bernie to drop the hell out.
About a month ago, a lot of HillaryGAF was fine with Bernie staying in. Sure, he has no chance in hell of winning, and that's been the case since Southern Democrats overwhelmingly rejected him, but a long primary is healthy for the party overall. It keeps people energized and invested. (Even Barack Obama credits Hillary staying in and keeping the primary going with him getting his ground game established before the general election, which gave him a huge advantage over McCain.) But that was when Bernie was running largely an issue based campaign. That hasn't been the case for the last few weeks. Lately he's been almost exclusively focused on attacking Hillary Clinton, attacking the DNC, falsely accusing the Clinton campaign of illegal actions, and claiming that any state outcome or process that does not favor him as fraudulent. He's sidelined his message. This isn't helpful, and most importantly it does nothing to educate his voters which was really the entire point of his campaign in the first place. All it does is poison the well against Hillary Clinton, who is the Democratic front-runner, and ensures that his most fervent supporters will only ever be invested in him and distrustful of everyone else.
Issue-Based Bernie is more than welcome to stay in the race and work with Hillary to attack Trump. Bern-It-All-Down Bernie, however, needs to go.
What does this even mean? What "issues" did Hillary need to get serious about other than the issues that have earned her the lion's share of the Democratic vote?
ugaboga232
Member
Maybe we should just pull a fallout 3 and install a nice AI that would never hate humans in congress.
I agree directly on all points, and think hillary is not some conservative corrupt monster, but would have rather she been a bit more picky with her funding/speeches.
TBH the lower levels of government is where the most bang for the buck occurs and could use a big overhaul
The lesson to be taken from this is that the fans are always terrible no matter what property, person, item it is. Actually focus on the candidates instead of each other.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
Trump is literally just quoting Bernie Sanders attacks on Hillary at this point, and Bernie has been getting nastier and nastier in his speeches by the week. Democrats want this to be over so they can start campaigning against Trump.
Prodigal Son
Member
You can also read what you post.
The funds pooled going to the DNC will be redistributed when they have a strategy to go for November.
It can't go to Clinton's campaign because the FEC would flag the funds as over the max limit or some other violation.
AND the state's parties get 1% of the funds earned that way directly which is still more than the 1 grand Sanders spared from the comic book store reopening.
I'm not generalizing Sanders supporters, I'm pointing out that if you're a Sanders stan and used the same lines his surrogates used to dismiss the South there is certainly an argument to be made about racism.
If you didn't I'm not talking about you.
If you accepted funds to defend Clinton online you clearly are a 'bought out shill', if you didn't then it's clear slander.
Thatonemoor
Member
You are acting like Trump won't attack Hillary unless Bernie gives him fuel. Which is silly.
Prodigal Son
Member
Except you sort of are. "We lost the south because it has, statistically, a higher percentage of both conservative voters and African American voters, both of which we performed poorly with" isn't racist. If you read that and your racism alarm goes off, you should get it fixed at the nearest convenient hour. It's a statement of facts and the facts aren't prejudiced.
Here's a suggestion. Let's stop making baseless assumptions and generalizing millions of people.
This is a problem with First Past the Post, not specifically the parties.
If people would bother to vote in local low level government that uses ranked voting or any other alternative voting system not as bad as FPTP it would percolate up to the presidential election.
I'm pretty sure Trump wouldn't say "Look Clinton is laundering money! Bad! I'm not the one saying that it's Sanders!" if the comic book store remodeling rally wasn't throwing shit at the wall.
Note that it's what he's been doing for the last 2 weeks too.
Source:bernbright.com
Most of those voters are actually due to heavy Latino registration drives and have little, if anything, to do with the Democratic race.
I think you underestimate Trump too much, which isn't good as everyone else has done so for months and look where he's at now and how much closer he is to being the next POTUS.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I think your definition of a personal insult is different from the actual definition.
For instance, Calling someone a dumbass is a personal insult, telling voters that money influences politicians is not a personal insult.
And the republicans are not going to use poltiical contributions as ammunition because that would be laughably hypocritical. They will smear her with Benghazi/Email like they have been for the last few years.
Prodigal Son
Member
I'm pretty sure Trump wouldn't say "Look Clinton is laundering money! Bad! I'm not the one saying that it's Sanders!" if the comic book store remodeling rally wasn't throwing shit at the wall.
Note that it's what he's been doing for the last 2 weeks too.
Source:bernbright.com
In your mind, is the sentence in that image the equivalent to what I quoted?
Admittedly, I'm not sure where the sentence you quoted was from.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I'd really appreciate if Bernie would put his energy to fighting Republicans like he said he would.
I'm absolutely not underestimating Trump, the truth of the matter is that Trump attacking Clinton by basically echoing Sanders do more damage than the shit he throws at her.
His last attack "she wouldn't be at 5% if she was a man" proved so effective it allowed Clinton to raise more than $2Mil on that alone!
He's not very good at attacking Clinton if he's not using the usual right wing playbook that Sanders legitimized for the last 6 months.
SoRuffShoNuff
Member
We don't need baseless vitriolic attacks coming from someone running in the party. Trump doesn't even need to paint Hillary as a corrupt elitist who isn't qualified to be the president and may belong in prison, Bernie is doing that for him.
All Trump has to do is play videos of Bernie rallies, it's all the smearing he needs.
Colonel Mustard
Banned
I went to one at the end of April in WV. He talked primarily about substance abuse in areas without economic opportunity, the state's dependence on a failing coal industry and the fact that your average West Virginian dies ten years sooner than people in VA. (A point about having access to healthcare in rural areas.) A bit about corporate corruption too, leading back to Don Blankenship. All of his points were solid.
Really neat experience, was about 7 feet away.
There wasn't any vitriol. More or less a speech to galvanize WV progressives to take our state back.
Prodigal Son
Member
What I paraphrased was, in fewer words, the essence of what Sanders himself has said regarding his loss of the south.
shinra-bansho
Member
The tendency has been to partially or entirely ignore and omit that the Southern states have huge AA populations among the Dem electorate and focus on it being the "conservative" part of the US. By both the ardent nutjobs and on occasion the campaign itself. This despite that those who want less liberal policies than Obama actually break towards Sanders.
the-pi-guy
Member
That's not even remotely what he said.
eu pfhor ia
Neo Member
War on terror, foreign policy and geopolitics in general. Though I'm not sure there are any politicians "getting serious", whatever that means, about these kind of things. At least from what we see in the debates, in TV news, etc
Prodigal Son
Member
You'd have a real argument here if he wasn't also losing the white vote in those states as well. I'm sure you're aware of how large Clinton's victories were in the south and with how many demographics she won, outside of the youth.
I was being sarcastic.
If you truly think he lost because of AA and conservative, there's not much difference between the image macro and your statement.
Thatonemoor
Member
I'm pretty sure Trump wouldn't say "Look Clinton is laundering money! Bad! I'm not the one saying that it's Sanders!" if the comic book store remodeling rally wasn't throwing shit at the wall.
Note that it's what he's been doing for the last 2 weeks too.
Source:bernbright.com
Is this not an election, can people not make attack adds based on whatever they want to say. Seriously you guys act like Bernie invented the attack ad or that trump wouldn't say "Hey hillary did this in the past" or "Hey hillary is untrustworthy because of ____ and the other guy backs me on this" seriously Bernie didn't event the attack ad guys. If Hillary's campaign can't adjust that's her own problem.
Seriously don't see any lies in that chart.
Well, he actually said:
He says he'll do everything to defeat the Republican candidate, but he's pretty nonchalant about his own movement and the role that he plays as the leader of that movement for a candidate who should be moving towards trying to unify the party, if he doesn't want to drop out, for the sake of the country. I think that's what bugs people.
patjburns89
Member
Almost like he wants his message to get out there and for their voices to be heard. Almost like democrats have forgotten about a large part of their constituents, and he's making sure they are heard.
Weird! How dare he?!
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I believe the democratic process is not about pandering or one-mind or unification but by honestly expressing your views and why you think you are fit to lead the people.
I think it's unbecoming of anyone to excuse why they are losing, but I also think it's incredible to obtuse like Bernies saltiness dropped from the sky. Frustration, and anger gets to him. Nobody is 100% classy all the time. I think a level of understanding can be applied to the mans legacy and not have that counter against everything he has accomplished.
Bernie Sanders had made history. His movement is the largest of his kind. He has come further than any socialist or atheist before him, and nobody thought he would get this far.
His policies are what matter, and the grassroot movement afterwards. Bernie Sanders has done a lot. He has started a conversation, and it's up to Americans now to decide how large steps they want to take and how much they want to risk. Great progressive change has often come at a high risk and often in decisive moments.
I'll be disappointed in Sanders grassroot movement if it dies after the election. If all the political activism was just to get an old man elected who doesn't matter.
Sanders has a lot of credibility and he has been right on his opinions a lot, but he doesn't matter. It's the policies that matter. It's the rebuilding of the labor force.
The labour movement was completely destroyed by the 1920s which was the last time we had this level of inequality, and after the despair, a new labor force rose up, which led to the new deal.
It's up to Sanders movement after the election to remain political active. Fight for the unions, fight for workers rights, for the minimum wage, fight for social issues, fight for stopping the senseless foreign policy. They can change a lot on a local level and at a state level. They just don't have to be engaged in apathy.
Chomsky has said that he thinks the movement will die out after the election, and that it is a shame. It is a damn shame. Because the entire point of social democracy is solidarity and taking care of each other. It's saying that you want to pay more to ease the suffering on the bottom.
I think there is a deep lack of understanding when Sanders is being called out for not unifying the party. No candidate represents the will of the entire party. That is why the two party system is garbage. It ends up in this reductionist rhetoric.
Any noble politician will not run on popularity, but on the issues and principles of the matter. Without that there is no trustworthiness at all. It's just as much about saying what needs to be said, standing for the values you have said you are going to stand for, and not jumping off the plank when first case scenario is not an option.
It's out there now.
Sanders has said that he will do anything in the GE to keep the republicans from winning. I think he will support clinton in the GE, but like clinton herself in 08, he will run up until that point because he has a responsibility to the people who vote for him and his causes.
He is on line with a lot of things about hillary, but not everything, and those differences matter to some voters.
I think it's unbecoming of anyone to excuse why they are losing, but I also think it's incredible to obtuse like Bernies saltiness dropped from the sky. Frustration, and anger gets to him. Nobody is 100% classy all the time. I think a level of understanding can be applied to the mans legacy and not have that counter against everything he has accomplished.
Bernie Sanders had made history. His movement is the largest of his kind. He has come further than any socialist or atheist before him, and nobody thought he would get this far.
His policies are what matter, and the grassroot movement afterwards. Bernie Sanders has done a lot. He has started a conversation, and it's up to Americans now to decide how large steps they want to take and how much they want to risk. Great progressive change has often come at a high risk and often in decisive moments.
I'll be disappointed in Sanders grassroot movement if it dies after the election. If all the political activism was just to get an old man elected who doesn't matter.
Sanders has a lot of credibility and he has been right on his opinions a lot, but he doesn't matter. It's the policies that matter. It's the rebuilding of the labor force.
The labour movement was completely destroyed by the 1920s which was the last time we had this level of inequality, and after the despair, a new labor force rose up, which led to the new deal.
It's up to Sanders movement after the election to remain political active. Fight for the unions, fight for workers rights, for the minimum wage, fight for social issues, fight for stopping the senseless foreign policy. They can change a lot on a local level and at a state level. They just don't have to be engaged in apathy.
Chomsky has said that he thinks the movement will die out after the election, and that it is a shame. It is a damn shame. Because the entire point of social democracy is solidarity and taking care of each other. It's saying that you want to pay more to ease the suffering on the bottom.
I think there is a deep lack of understanding when Sanders is being called out for not unifying the party. No candidate represents the will of the entire party. That is why the two party system is garbage. It ends up in this reductionist rhetoric.
Any noble politician will not run on popularity, but on the issues and principles of the matter. Without that there is no trustworthiness at all. It's just as much about saying what needs to be said, standing for the values you have said you are going to stand for, and not jumping off the plank when first case scenario is not an option.
It's out there now.
Sanders has said that he will do anything in the GE to keep the republicans from winning. I think he will support clinton in the GE, but like clinton herself in 08, he will run up until that point because he has a responsibility to the people who vote for him and his causes.
He is on line with a lot of things about hillary, but not everything, and those differences matter to some voters.
This is the problem. Trump can now cite a liberal (who's a man of the people not beholden to his party, just like him!) as the source for his attacks ("Even the Democrats don't trust her ! Sad !").
The catch being that Sanders isn't basing his smears and implications off of anything except speculation and conspiracy theory, but Trump doesn't need to mention that part.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm not particularly sure I follow.
How does her winning the white vote as well, something I'm going to assume the verity of because I can't be bothered looking, affect whatsoever the disingenuous notion that the campaign itself sometimes puts forward that the South being "conservative" and "Red states" is the main reason for the rout.
Prodigal Son
Member
I take issue with reducing those parts of the country as "cotton states" or "confederate states." I think it's fairly evident why that image is problematic.
I'm going to repeat what I said in quotes. A straight, candid response would be wonderful.
"We lost the south because it has, statistically, a higher percentage of both conservative voters and African American voters, both of which we performed poorly with"
This is the essence of what Bernie himself has said regarding the south.
Do you think this is racist?
Because the implication that I take issue with is that either the campaign or his surrogates have, in some way, discredited or invalidated the south because of its African American population. If the African American population alone is not responsible for his brutal defeat, the assertion of racism has no legs to stand on.
Because it plays to the idea that only the South is the conservative party of the country (it's not), and that Hillary is only doing well in the South (she's not). Please tell me how liberal Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alaska are? And how about Clinton's wins in deep red Nevada, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware?
Yeah, Clinton won the South. She also won in almost every region in the country besides the Pacific North West and parts of the West.
Melkezadek
Member
Which is true, I agree. My opinion on Bernie didn't sour because of the fanbase, however.
I followed Bernie for awhile before announcing his run for POTUS. I found myself on YouTube for hours just listening and becoming thoroughly impressed by his common sense, all about the policies straight talk. He really seemed to care. When he announced he was running for President, I was fully on board.
Over the next several months, I began to notice that many of his speeches started to sound the same. Which wasn't a huge issue for me as it was at least consistent. I figured he would elaborate more once it got closer to the primaries. Then he started appearing on more talk shows and that's when I began to notice that when asked questions, it always inevitably pivoted back to his stump speech. It became a bit difficult to watch whatever interviewer look kind of dumbfounded as the answers were usually not quite answers.
Then the insinuations about Hilary's corruption started to creep in. Was still on board, because she's always been known to be untrustworthy, right? At least that's what I've always heard. Then the night came when he was directly asked to point out specifics and I was waiting for the KO..and we got nothing. I was a bit taken aback. It was actually embarrassing for me to watch. Afterwards, I did some soul searching and really started to look at him through an unbiased lense. It became clear to me that he was very much like Trump. Not in the hateful, ignorant way. No, I still hold him FAR above ANYONE on the right. It was the demagoguery. Many of the things he implies could be applied to Obama - someone whom I highly respect and has seen his presidency accomplish great things. I can't see him as "corrupt " in any sense.
I honestly don't mind him staying in the race as long as he just focuses on the issues. If he wants to be critical of Hilary then he also can do so, but he must have evidence to back it up. That isn't too much to ask.
You don't see any lies in that chart?
I'm confused, are you talking about Sanders now?
Because he's the guy who repeatedly ignored parts of the democrats to only push for the issues he sees as important.
Karsticles
Member
Can Hillary run her campaign without SuperPACs?
Can Sanders win the election without superdelegates?
Do you see the difference?
Fenderputty
Banned
He's been heard. At this point he's just talking because he likes to hear himself talk.
Thatonemoor
Member
Oh sorry wasn't thinking about the implication of blue on that chart. Yeah I wouldn't say the states that are listed are either solidly red or blue. I just didn't disagree with the notice that hillary had the south on lock.
No, but it's trying to sell a narrative that Hillary can only win in the South, or can only win with conservative voters. If that were the case, this race would look significantly different.
Prodigal Son
Member
Are you talking about your uncle at the thanksgiving dinner table or a presidential candidate addressing a country of over 300 million people? I speak to voters every day who have no fucking clue what Bernie's platform is. Not everyone follows this to the same degree that you or I do.
And you have no issue with not so subtle dog whistle about the confederacy/land of cotton/high AA population?
Not to single you out directly... But basically every one one of his campaign promises requires congressional support.
Which:
A) He apparently doesn't care about
B) Refuses to support down ticket races which could possibly make any of his promises possible.
C) Repeatedly describes this nebulous 'revolution' as some kind of plan.
I don't get it. Even Jake Tapper tried to ask him this question last night, and he dodged that too.
Fenderputty
Banned
That's actually a pretty good description of Bernie Sanders at the moment.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked