Support NeoGAF

[wandering]

Yes, and they tend to be rather bullish on him, do they not? And by that I mean a few points higher than other mainstream polling outfits.

Not particularly, according to 538. Quite a few are in the 40s.

 

[B-Dubs]

Really not the case. Ed Miliband was one of my favourite politicians, and he simply doesn't have it. Farage is one of my most despised politicians, and he definitely does.

See, the thing you like about Bernie is the thing I don't like about him. It's not really charisma, Bernie's not going to convince you to change your stance on something, not like Obama could and does, but Bernie preaches to his choir with a conviction that he's absolutely right about things. It works if you're a part of the choir, but if you're not it won't. Personally I like my political figures to come with a good dollop of intellectual curiosity, of a willingness to admit they're wrong and change their views based on new information, to question themselves and their assumptions about the world, I don't want them to continue to hold a view if they're wrong.

 

[sphagnum]

I can't imagine thinking Bernie Sanders is charismatic.

The kids just love him because they love cranky grandparents

 

[East Lake]

See, the thing you like about Bernie is the thing I don't like about him. It's not really charisma, Bernie's not going to convince you to change your stance on something, not like Obama could and does, but Bernie preaches to his choir with a conviction that he's absolutely right about things. It works if you're a part of the choir, but if you're not it won't. Personally I like my political figures to come with a good dollop of intellectual curiosity, of a willingness to admit they're wrong and change their views based on new information, to question themselves and their assumptions about the world, I don't want them to continue to hold a view if they're wrong.

So like a make believe Obama then.

 

[Father_Brain]

it's one thing to dislike Bernie Sanders, but I don't understand how people can look at how he's consistently polled and be incredulous that others find him charismatic, or believe that his messaging only works on the level of preaching to the choir

 

[Kusagari]

See, the thing you like about Bernie is the thing I don't like about him. It's not really charisma, Bernie's not going to convince you to change your stance on something, not like Obama could and does, but Bernie preaches to his choir with a conviction that he's absolutely right about things. It works if you're a part of the choir, but if you're not it won't. Personally I like my political figures to come with a good dollop of intellectual curiosity, of a willingness to admit they're wrong and change their views based on new information, to question themselves and their assumptions about the world, I don't want them to continue to hold a view if they're wrong.

I think you underestimate how much zealotry and conviction can appeal to undecided/low info voters.

 

[B-Dubs]

it's one thing to dislike Bernie Sanders, but I don't understand how people can look at how he's consistently polled and be incredulous that others find him charismatic, or believe that his messaging only works on the level of preaching to the choir

His polling is soft as fuck. When he's been attacked for more than 30 seconds then I'll believe those numbers are solid. When he goes through 8 years of sustained attacks from the right and comes out more popular than Obama, then I'll believe he's more popular than Obama. No one's really hit him at all in the last two years, the closest we got to someone looking to draw blood was the end of that Univision debate in the primaries.

Or am I supposed to pretend he didn't wind up filling a gap in the most recent cycle due to how everyone with a pulse ran away from the Dem primary.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

See, the thing you like about Bernie is the thing I don't like about him. It's not really charisma, Bernie's not going to convince you to change your stance on something, not like Obama could and does, but Bernie preaches to his choir with a conviction that he's absolutely right about things. It works if you're a part of the choir, but if you're not it won't. Personally I like my political figures to come with a good dollop of intellectual curiosity, of a willingness to admit they're wrong and change their views based on new information, to question themselves and their assumptions about the world, I don't want them to continue to hold a view if they're wrong.

I mean, I don't think you're right - Sanders obviously 'converted' an enormous, astonishing number of people; I can dig up Democratic primary polls from July 2015 if you want proof of the impact. He's the most popular national politician in America, quite comfortably.

I didn't get the impression Sanders doesn't change his mind on policy issues - his discussion about Brexit was interesting because he actually went back and forth a bit over the course of the discussion itself, I don't think he's really considered it very deeply before (which is fair for a non-American politician). That's in terms of methods, though. If you're talking goals, I don't think he has changed in decades, no.

 

[B-Dubs]

I mean, I don't think you're right - Sanders obviously 'converted' an enormous, astonishing number of people; I can dig up Democratic primary polls from July 2015 if you want proof of the impact. He's the most popular national politician in America, quite comfortably.

I didn't get the impression Sanders doesn't change his mind on policy issues - his discussion about Brexit was interesting because he actually went back and forth a bit in the discussion, I don't think he's really considered it very deeply before (which is fair). That's in terms of methods, though. If you're talking goals, I don't think he has changed in decades, no.

Again, it's easy to be popular when no one's hit you and when you're filling a gap created by the lack of a primary field.

 

[Father_Brain]

Sanders is constantly accused of costing Clinton the election, dividing the party, throwing women and POC under the bus, using phony math in his campaign, etc., but sure, those attacks don't count.

You can say that those attacks don't count because they mainly come from Democrats and not the GOP, but that conveniently ignores how he polls with Democrats, who you would think would be more inclined to take internal criticism of Sanders to heart.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Again, it's easy to be popular when no one's hit you and when you're filling a gap created by the lack of a primary field.

Right, which is why O'Malley is America's most popular politician.

Honestly, I don't think I'm the one affected by partisan blinkers here. With respect, I think you might need to try thinking about how Sanders appears to middle America and why.

 

[B-Dubs]

Sanders is constantly accused of costing Clinton the election, dividing the party, throwing women and POC under the bus, using phony math in his campaign, etc., but sure, those attacks don't count.

By who? Randoms online? That ain't shit and you know it. I'm talking real political attacks. I'm talking reporters digging up dirt (or taking random shit and blowing it out of proportion) and writing damaging articles, FOX making random shit up and pushing it to make him look bad, rival politicians giving speeches about how shit he is. He hasn't gotten an iota of the shit Obama or Clinton or Kerry or pretty much anyone else got when they ran and you know it.

Right, which is why O'Malley is America's most popular politician.

Honestly, I don't think I'm the one affected by partisan blinkers here. With respect, I think you might need to try thinking about how Sanders appears to middle America and why.

O'Malley isn't popular because he's a charisma vacuum and had a character in the Wire based off him.

Talking about those polls, unless you can separate out the "pro-Bernie" from the "not-Clinton" it's kinda hard to make the argument you want to make.

 

[kirblar]

Right, which is why O'Malley is America's most popular politician.

Honestly, I don't think I'm the one affected by partisan blinkers here. With respect, I think you might need to try thinking about how Sanders appears to middle America and why.

Yes, people espouse strong convictions as a way of signalling trustworthiness. It's why your priest that's secretly hooking up w/ guys on craigslist is so fervently anti-gay. And why I learned to absolutely not trust it whatsoever as a method of evaluating someone.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Not particularly, according to 538. Quite a few are in the 40s.

It's really concerning to me that even with 4 months of L's and embarrassing self inflicted scandals he's still hovering around 40%. Imagine what will happen if he just keeps his mouth shut and lets Ryan/McConnel do their thing.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

O'Malley isn't popular because he's a charisma vacuum

So you're saying right here the significant difference between O'Malley and Sanders is that O'Malley doesn't have charisma and then you're simultaneously trying to argue that Sanders doesn't have charisma? Come on, B-Dubs. Pull the other one.

 

[B-Dubs]

So you're saying right here the significant difference between O'Malley and Sanders is that O'Malley doesn't have charisma and then you're simultaneously trying to argue that Sanders doesn't have charisma? Come on, B-Dubs. Pull the other one.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. Stop misrepresenting my argument and actually read some posts for once.

O'Malley is the bog-standard white guy politician with a history of corruption to boot. Do you really not get why he never took off? Why he didn't fill the void in the primary and Bernie did?

 

[Ac30]

It's really concerning to me that even with 4 months of L's and embarrassing self inflicted scandals he's still hovering around 40%. Imagine what will happen if he just keeps his mouth shut and lets Ryan/McConnel do their thing.

538 has a good article on this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-base-is-shrinking/

His "strong approval" margins are cratering, while "strong disapproval" has spiked.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

538 has a good article on this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-base-is-shrinking/

His "strong approval" margins are cratering, while "strong disapproval" has spiked.

Oh, well thats good at least.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Crab, less fighting, more transcribing!

Spoiler

ty for doing this friend

 

[Father_Brain]

By who? Randoms online? That ain't shit and you know it. I'm talking real political attacks. I'm talking reporters digging up dirt (or taking random shit and blowing it out of proportion) and writing damaging articles, FOX making random shit up and pushing it to make him look bad, rival politicians giving speeches about how shit he is. He hasn't gotten an iota of the shit Obama or Clinton or Kerry or pretty much anyone else got when they ran and you know it.

Sanders has been publicly attacked by plenty of people with actual power and influence within the Democratic Party. Media, donors, think tanks, elected officials, etc. And yet they've completely and utterly failed to dent his standing with the party rank and file.

 

[B-Dubs]

Sanders has been publicly attacked by plenty of people with actual power and influence within the Democratic Party. Media, donors, think tanks, elected officials, etc. And yet they've completely and utterly failed to dent his standing with the party rank and file.

Bullshit and you know it. What scandals did he have during the primary? How often was he asked about them during the debates?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. Stop misrepresenting my argument and actually read some posts for once.

I am reading your posts.

I said: "Sanders has charisma, an ability to persuade people."
You said: "He doesn't have charisma, and the evidence is that he's never persuaded people, only kept people who already agree."
I said: "No, he has persuaded many people, see the difference between July 2015 and now." (implicitly: therefore he does have charisma)
You said: "That was only because he was in an uncontested primary and because he was never seriously attacked." (implicitly: therefore he does not have charisma)
I said: "O'Malley fits both of those characteristics and did not significantly improve."
You said: "Yes, but that's because O'Malley has no charisma", which means you have conceded that the significant factor is Sanders' charisma, which was where our conversation started.

 

[B-Dubs]

I am reading your posts.

I said: "Sanders has charisma, an ability to persuade people."
You said: "He doesn't have charisma, and the evidence is that he's never persuaded people, only kept people who already agree."
I said: "No, he has persuaded many people, see the difference between July 2015 and now." (implicitly: therefore he does have charisma)
You said: "That was only because he was in an uncontested primary and because he was never seriously attacked." (implicitly: therefore he does not have charisma)
I said: "O'Malley fits both of those characteristics and did not significantly improve."
You said: "Yes, but that's because O'Malley has no charisma", which means you have conceded that the significant factor is Sanders' charisma, which was where our conversation started.

That's a real big simplification dude, also those asides are putting some words in my mouth I never said. I was explaining that Bernie had no charisma and his popularity was due to other factors.

 

[Mizerman]

Yes, people espouse strong convictions as a way of signalling trustworthiness. It's why your priest that's secretly hooking up w/ guys on craigslist is so fervently anti-gay. And why I learned to absolutely not trust it whatsoever as a method of evaluating someone.

Pretty much.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's a real big simplification dude, also those asides are putting some words in my mouth I never said. I was explaining that Bernie had no charisma and his popularity was due to other factors.

Why is Sanders popular and O'Malley not? Because the factors you gave were an uncrowded primary and lack of attacks. Exactly the same conditions apply to O'Malley. Yet he isn't popular. So your explanation doesn't work. It's provably wrong. When pressed on this, you said this is because O'Malley is a charisma vacuum and this explains the difference. But this necessarily implies that Sanders is charismatic by contrast.

 

[Officerrob]

Feels like we are back in the primaries again

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

do we need a #BernieWouldaWon and #StillWithHer schism and never the two shall meet?

pigeon can have #MartinO'MalleyO'Mentum

 

[Father_Brain]

Bullshit and you know it. What scandals did he have during the primary? How often was he asked about them during the debates?

It isn't bullshit and I don't, but thanks! But keep on believing that most Americans would despise him as much as you do, if only Hillary had had the guts to bring up what he wrote about rape in 1972.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Crab, less fighting, more transcribing!

Spoiler

ty for doing this friend

I got two questions in the end for lack of time. So I asked about his role in future elections. He says that he wants his role to be primarily transforming the Democratic Party. He thinks it would be unhealthy for the Democrats to rely on him to be the sole frontman, and that they need new talent, but currently the Democratic party kills talent and blocks grassroots engagement, both intentionally and unintentionally. So his goal is to try and bring in that new blood; although he will also have a prominent campaigning role.

EDIT: Oh, and he linked this back to 2020. He wouldn't confirm either way, but I got the impression he is not interested in running in 2020.

Then I asked about the tension between getting back suburban ex-Democrats and keeping minoritty voters. He fundamentally disagrees with the analysis the white working class and black America are necessarily opposed. He argued that the New Deal was wildly popular with black Americans and significantly increased black American employment and decreased black-white inequality. The white working classes are being won over by Trump's xenophobia because the economy isn't growing and they're having to fight to defend 'their' share; if the economy grows, then everyone can benefit and it's not about competition but co-operation.

Other questions were more boring because I am a tremendous questioner, the best, and I know the top questions, but outline:

He nudge nudge wink wink endorsed Corbyn.

He's concerned about gerrymandering and wants to work closely with President Obama at addressing it.

He spat some supah hot fiah at Trump. Absolutely lambasted him. Talked about the importance of winning in 2020 to win back the Supreme Court.

He thinks that we do have an important international and moral duty, and that the American government ought to do more to invest in developing countries and to redistribute wealth globally (this was part of a longer Brexit answer, not sure how interested you are in Britpol).

 

[Crocodile]

I mean, it seems pretty easy to argue both that Sanders has little charisma (though this depends on how you define charisma, I get the feeling not everybody is defining it the same way) but that he still has more than O'Malley. I'd argue that there is an actual constituency for "Sander-ism" and not "O'Malley-ism" as opposed into getting into debates on which is more or less charismatic.

It's really concerning to me that even with 4 months of L's and embarrassing self inflicted scandals he's still hovering around 40%. Imagine what will happen if he just keeps his mouth shut and lets Ryan/McConnel do their thing.

*looks at polling for AHCA*

I'm pretty sure his ratings would drop LOL

Feels like we are back in the primaries again

Did we ever leave?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Republican candidate recruitment for Senate races has been pretty poor this cycle, only Brown has a real opponent and he's a pretty poor one (Mandel). This might help explain why:

There are ten Trump state Democrats running, so it'll still be an incredible feat if Democrats run the tables, but they have history on their side.

For those wondering, those incumbents are/were: (losses in bold)

2014 - Susan Collins (ME)
2010 - Chuck Grassley (IA)
2006 - Jeff Bingaman (NM), Robert Byrd (WV), Kent Conrad (ND), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL)
2002 - Max Cleland (GA), Mary Landrieu (LA), Max Baucus (MT), Tim Johnson (SD), Jay Rockefeller (WV)
1998 - John McCain (AZ), Chuck Grassley (IA), Al D'Amato (NY), Arlen Specter (PA) (Harry's chart seems to be off here)
1994 - William Roth (DE), Conrad Burns (MT), John Chafee (RI), Jim Jeffords (VT)
1990 - Howell Heflin (AL), David Pryor (AR), Joe Biden (DE), Sam Nunn (GA), Paul Simon (IL), Bennett Johnston, Jr. (LA), Carl Levin (MI), Max Baucus (MT), J. James Exon (NE), Bill Bradley (NJ), David L. Boren (OK), Al Gore (TN) (off again, I count 12 to his 10)
1986 - Dale Bumpers (AR), Alan Cranston (CA), Chris Dodd (CT), Daniel Inouye (HI), Alan J. Dixon (IL), Wendell H. Ford (KY), John Glenn (OH), Ernest Hollings (SC), Patrick Leahy (VT) (I count 9 to his 5... ok)
1982 - Dennis DeConcini (AZ), Lawton Chiles (FL), Ted Kennedy (MA), Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (MI), John C. Stennis (MS), John Melcher (MT), Edward Zorinsky (NE), Howard Cannon (NV), Daniel Patrick Moynihan (NY), Quentin N. Burdick (ND), Howard Metzenbaum (OH), Jim Sasser (TN), Lloyd Bentsen (TX), Henry M. Jackson (WA), William Proxmire (WI) (no idea how this count got so off)

Edit: oh nvm it's based on the last two elections. I'm not figuring that shit out

 

[kirblar]

I think Trump and Sanders both have a similar type of charisma that has severe limitations in reach relative to say, an Obama. (either one)

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

He thinks that we do have an important international and moral duty, and that the American government ought to do more to invest in developing countries and to redistribute wealth globally (this was part of a longer Brexit answer, not sure how interested you are in Britpol).

very interested if there's a longer answer, love me some Anglosphere politics (except Australia because I don't know anything about them)

also can't believe you left out my question of your three, I'm taking this as a personal affront

 

[Autodidact]

Then I asked about the tension between getting back suburban ex-Democrats and keeping minoritty voters. He fundamentally disagrees with the analysis the white working class and black America are necessarily opposed. He argued that the New Deal was wildly popular with black Americans and significantly increased black American employment and decreased black-white inequality.

Aaaaand he hasn't changed and continues to drum the class-first, income-redistribution-as-a-panacea. Black Americans' incomes rose in the '50s and '60s, but they still enjoyed less prosperity than their white counterparts and faced unbelievable discrimination. Fixing income inequality alone only means that black folks have more money for a funeral when their son gets shot.

Anyway, thank you for your reporting.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

very interested if there's a longer answer, love me some Anglosphere politics (except Australia because I don't know anything about them)

also can't believe you left out my question of your three, I'm taking this as a personal affront

Wasn't intentional, I didn't ask in any particular order and didn't realize we were going to run out of time.

 

[Father_Brain]

do we need a #BernieWouldaWon and #StillWithHer schism and never the two shall meet?

pigeon can have #MartinO'MalleyO'Mentum

arguing over whether Bernie would have won is dumb. I bring up his post-primary polling mainly because it's useful in illustrating just how removed various online, institutional, and media bubbles affiliated with the Dems are from both the general public and the party they claim to represent.

 

[NihonTiger90]

Republican candidate recruitment for Senate races has been pretty poor this cycle, only Brown has a real opponent and he's a pretty poor one (Mandel). This might help explain why:

There are ten Trump state Democrats running, so it'll still be an incredible feat if Democrats run the tables, but they have history on their side.

For those wondering, those incumbents are/were: (losses in bold)

2014 - Susan Collins (ME)
2010 - Chuck Grassley (IA)
2006 - Jeff Bingaman (NM), Robert Byrd (WV), Kent Conrad (ND), Ben Nelson (NE), Bill Nelson (FL)
2002 - Max Cleland (GA), Mary Landrieu (LA), Max Baucus (MT), Tim Johnson (SD), Jay Rockefeller (WV)
1998 - John McCain (AZ), Chuck Grassley (IA), Al D'Amato (NY), Arlen Specter (PA) (Harry's chart seems to be off here)
1994 - William Roth (DE), Conrad Burns (MT), John Chafee (RI), Jim Jeffords (VT)
1990 - Howell Heflin (AL), David Pryor (AR), Joe Biden (DE), Sam Nunn (GA), Paul Simon (IL), Bennett Johnston, Jr. (LA), Carl Levin (MI), Max Baucus (MT), J. James Exon (NE), Bill Bradley (NJ), David L. Boren (OK), Al Gore (TN) (off again, I count 12 to his 10)
1986 - Dale Bumpers (AR), Alan Cranston (CA), Chris Dodd (CT), Daniel Inouye (HI), Alan J. Dixon (IL), Wendell H. Ford (KY), John Glenn (OH), Ernest Hollings (SC), Patrick Leahy (VT) (I count 9 to his 5... ok)
1982 - Dennis DeConcini (AZ), Lawton Chiles (FL), Ted Kennedy (MA), Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (MI), John C. Stennis (MS), John Melcher (MT), Edward Zorinsky (NE), Howard Cannon (NV), Daniel Patrick Moynihan (NY), Quentin N. Burdick (ND), Howard Metzenbaum (OH), Jim Sasser (TN), Lloyd Bentsen (TX), Henry M. Jackson (WA), William Proxmire (WI) (no idea how this count got so off)

Edit: oh nvm it's based on the last two elections. I'm not figuring that shit out

I'm pretty sure the state GOP lets Mandel run against Brown because it keeps him from running for governor. And mucking that up.

 

[kirblar]

Aaaaand he hasn't changed and continues to drum the class-first, income-redistribution-as-a-panacea. Black Americans' incomes rose in the '50s and '60s, but they still enjoyed less prosperity than their white counterparts and faced unbelievable discrimination. Fixing income inequality alone only means that black folks have more money for a funeral when their son gets shot.

Anyway, thank you for your reporting.

Why is this giant gap a thing? In large part because the FHA refused them loans, which allowed white Americans an investment base that black ones did not have access to that they were able to pass down to generation after generation!

 

[SpaceCadetKeon]

In other news, Arkansas state senator Jason Rapert is making an ass of himself. Again. He's currently under fire for posting this on Facebook earlier today:

 

[Wilsongt]

I got two questions in the end for lack of time. So I asked about his role in future elections. He says that he wants his role to be primarily transforming the Democratic Party. He thinks it would be unhealthy for the Democrats to rely on him to be the sole frontman, and that they need new talent, but currently the Democratic party kills talent and blocks grassroots engagement, both intentionally and unintentionally. So his goal is to try and bring in that new blood; although he will also have a prominent campaigning role.

EDIT: Oh, and he linked this back to 2020. He wouldn't confirm either way, but I got the impression he is not interested in running in 2020.

Then I asked about the tension between getting back suburban ex-Democrats and keeping minoritty voters. He fundamentally disagrees with the analysis the white working class and black America are necessarily opposed. He argued that the New Deal was wildly popular with black Americans and significantly increased black American employment and decreased black-white inequality. The white working classes are being won over by Trump's xenophobia because the economy isn't growing and they're having to fight to defend 'their' share; if the economy grows, then everyone can benefit and it's not about competition but co-operation.

Other questions were more boring because I am a tremendous questioner, the best, and I know the top questions, but outline:

He nudge nudge wink wink endorsed Corbyn.

He's concerned about gerrymandering and wants to work closely with President Obama at addressing it.

He spat some supah hot fiah at Trump. Absolutely lambasted him. Talked about the importance of winning in 2020 to win back the Supreme Court.

He thinks that we do have an important international and moral duty, and that the American government ought to do more to invest in developing countries and to redistribute wealth globally (this was part of a longer Brexit answer, not sure how interested you are in Britpol).

Bernie endorsed Corbyn?

Rip Corbyn's chances.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Aaaaand he hasn't changed and continues to drum the class-first, income-redistribution-as-a-panacea. Black Americans' incomes rose in the '50s and '60s, but they still enjoyed less prosperity than their white counterparts and faced unbelievable discrimination. Fixing income inequality alone only means that black folks have more money for a funeral when their son gets shot.

Anyway, thank you for your reporting.

Right, but his point was that the gap narrowed. The black-white income gap trended down between 1945 and 1980, and then started expanding again after 1980 (no idea how accurate this is, it was the statistic he used, although this seems to corrborate the last part). The gap was being addressed better then than it was now; whatever we're doing now isn't effective.

EDIT: You can get the stats from the US Census bureau. Black-white inequality widened 1980-1992, narrowed 1992-2000, and then has expanded continually again since. Weirdly, Bill Clinton made an impact but Obama appears not to have done so.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

arguing over whether Bernie would have won is dumb. I bring up his post-primary polling mainly because it's useful in illustrating just how removed various online, institutional, and media bubbles affiliated with the Dems are from both the general public and the party they claim to represent.

I was just using a hashtag slogan as a stand in for each camp, not trying to make a statement about Bernie's electability.

Also DSA have a member running for the Virginia House of Delegates, cool, hope he wins.

 

[Autodidact]

Right, but his point was that the gap narrowed. The black-white income gap trended down between 1945 and 1980, and then started expanding again after 1980 (no idea how accurate this is, it was the statistic he used, although this seems to corrborate the last part). The gap was being addressed better then than it was now; whatever we're doing now isn't effective.

I won't deny that the economic gap narrowed even though minorities still lagged far behind.

The social gap never closed and cannot be closed through economic means alone. He regularly fails to grasp this point.

 

[kirblar]

Right, but his point was that the gap narrowed. The black-white income gap trended down between 1945 and 1980, and then started expanding again after 1980 (no idea how accurate this is, it was the statistic he used, although this seems to corrborate the last part). The gap was being addressed better then than it was now; whatever we're doing now isn't effective.

IIRC, the end of the draft hurt this, w/ the GI bill and such. (not the only factor, of course.)

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Thank you for asking my question Crab.

What was this for? Was this an event he was hosting? Are you a journalist? Will this be published anywhere?

I know Sanders travels pretty frequently (he was in Portland, Maine not long ago and I could have gone to see him) and I'm curious of the context for the interview. Was it something like that?

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Right, but his point was that the gap narrowed. The black-white income gap trended down between 1945 and 1980, and then started expanding again after 1980 (no idea how accurate this is, it was the statistic he used, although this seems to corrborate the last part). The gap was being addressed better then than it was now; whatever we're doing now isn't effective.

Which circles back to the question of reconciling WWC and minorities. The argument of "you get some of what they get" isn't a compelling reason to trust his philosophy.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Thank you for asking my question Crab.

What was this for? Was this an event he was hosting? Are you a journalist? Will this be published anywhere?

I know Sanders travels pretty frequently (he was in Portland, Maine not long ago and I could have gone to see him) and I'm curious of the context for the interview. Was it something like that?

He was attending the Hay Festival in Wales, which is one of the biggest book fairs in the world (I think the biggest until quite recently) to flog his book. He gave a speech, then a Q&A session with the audience, and then hung around a bit after that for a particular group - you'll have to forgive me for being detail vague about that part. I'm not a journalist, I'm a consultant (at the moment, pending career change). It might be published, I'm not sure - I'd imagine so?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I won't deny that the economic gap narrowed even though minorities still lagged far behind.

The social gap never closed and cannot be closed through economic means alone. He regularly fails to grasp this point.

I mean, my impression is that the fastest progression in black American social standing also took place over the same period, with all of the civil rights legislation of the '60s and '70s, so even granting that one doesn't completely address the other, they seem quite closely related.

 

[The Technomancer]

It's not necessarily a good trait. For example, Nigel Farage definitely has it too and I despise the man - I'm obviously not his target crowd. I think it's an absolutely iron sense of self-belief, something like that. There's no doubt at all about what they think and believe and it doesn't leave room for you to doubt either. Compare that to Clinton or Ed Miliband, who I think both suffered from a kind of insecurity about their position and beliefs.

I think I know exactly what you mean, and I'd believe Sanders has it

 

[The Technomancer]

Then I asked about the tension between getting back suburban ex-Democrats and keeping minoritty voters. He fundamentally disagrees with the analysis the white working class and black America are necessarily opposed. He argued that the New Deal was wildly popular with black Americans and significantly increased black American employment and decreased black-white inequality. The white working classes are being won over by Trump's xenophobia because the economy isn't growing and they're having to fight to defend 'their' share; if the economy grows, then everyone can benefit and it's not about competition but co-operation.

Thanks. That is...not the answer I was looking for :/
This is something I think he is wrong about, at least in terms of what level of animosity exists between black voters and a large block of white voters.

Its not that I think black american and "the white working class" are nessecarily opposed, mind you, but I don't buy that racism is something deployed by the elites to turn the WWC against their black allies, intentionally or not. The racism can (and I argue is) perfectly capable of being internally driven