Support NeoGAF

[Piecake]

Excuse me if I am defensive when a few posts above a poster arguing in nothing but insulting rhetoric is on me. You made an assumption that I have only just voted now. I have not. I don't tend to tolerate arguments based on assumption.

My argument wasn't based on assumptions. My tentative assumption was me trying to figure out why you are coming to an argument that simply isn't true.

Your excessive defensiveness and holier than thou attitude is getting mighty tiring though.

Do you not see how the two are related? If the youth isn't voting as much but people want them to be voting, it would behoove the party to energize and engage with that voting bloc. Putting the onus on just one party (the youth themselves) ignores the holistic issue at hand here.

That is a losing strategy because you can't depend on young voters to actually vote. No sane politician is going to tailor their campaign to young voters and the issues they care about when they don't vote. All politicians care and try to cater to the youth vote, but no politician will make it a focus of their campaign until young voters actually vote.

Bernie's youth vote is predominately young AAs, young white women and young white men. Even youngerish latinos too. There's a mixture there and it annoys me how it's constantly ignored and then used to justify sexist and racist remarks such as "Bernie Bro". That's nothing but shortform for white male. Accusing minorities of being privileged is also shortform of white male too 9 times out of 10. To characterize them in such a blanket way and to ignore the variance within is to me an issue in discourse. It is an issue with how the party treats minorities who don't "fall in the line" as some have argued. If one wants to have any healthy discussion, it would be worthwhile to instead make assumptions about who one is talking with, to get to know who they are and where they are coming from. Utilizing short-forn insults as a basis of argument adds nothing to the conversation and contributes to foregone biases and conclusions. It's a problem which has resulted in many minorities being insulted on this board, to be perfectly frank.

Bernie Bro refers to a specific segment of Bernie supporters. It has never been a term to define them all.

 

[ampere]

Yea. Especially given the GoP race this year, the Democrat nominee would have to be so fucking bad for me to consider not voting for them. I don't think a lot of Bernie's policies are realistic, but I'm still mostly on his side ideologically

 

[Owzers]

I'd go with him over Cruz/Trump, i'd debate Kasich if for some reason he got it but probably still end with Bernie....probably.

 

[Ekai]

My argument wasn't based on assumptions. My tentative assumption was me trying to figure out why you are coming to an argument that simply isn't true.

Your excessive defensiveness and holier than thou attitude is getting mighty tiring though.



That is a losing strategy because you can't depend on young voters to actually vote. No sane politician is going to tailor their campaign to young voters and the issues they care about when they don't vote. All politicians care and try to cater to the youth vote, but no politician will make it a focus of their campaign until young voters actually vote.



Bernie Bro refers to a specific segment of Bernie supporters. It has never been a term to define them all.

I'm not presenting a "holier than thou" attitude. I am presenting why I am so tired of assumptions dominating the narrative of some.

I don't see how it is a losing narrative to provide some tailoring to the youth vote. I have not at all argued that Democrats have to forego everything and only focus on the youth. We seem to be on the same wavelength here more than you realize. We just disagree on how effective they've been at appealing to the youth. I put more onus on both halves, particularly on the party needing to work on appealing to them. I do recognize that they need to vote too but frankly speaking I don't think the voters are wholly to blame here. You're putting more on the voters themselves. That seems to be where we differ.

Oh please, Bernie Bro has been a term used to blanket Bernie supporters here for quite some time now.

In what way did Democrats (and Obama specifically) ignore the youth vote in 2008 and 2012, Ekai?

I believe you're attempting to characterize his base as more diverse than it actually is. Or maybe I'm wrong. Can you cite anything showing his youth vote is not primarily young white males, Ekai?

I'd agree it was ignored less there than in other instances. It is true that Obama had some of the largest youth turnout in some time. The overall point is, it's a demographic that is normally largely under-represented. And it could do with more representation. Both in terms of the voters themselves going out and in terms of the party working on their message to appeal to them. Having it wouldn't hurt anything and a lack of it does nothing but harm. I don't think that's too much to argue.

I haven't exactly stated that his base is primarily one thing or the other. What I have argued is that his base has a bit more diversity than some want to believe. And they use their view of his base to be condescending to others. It's ridiculous how many blanket statements have been made about Bernie supporters here on Gaf when it's being spoken to a racial minority, a woman, a member of the LGBT community, etc. etc. That said, even some Hill Gaffers acknowledged data a while back that showed that Bernie was leading Hillary over in the demographics of young AAs, young women, and latinos (more so younger latinos). I recall this specifically with states more to the west/midwest region. As far specific data on these matters go, unfortunately I don't have anything on hand at the moment. If you'd like I will get specifics on this and pm you a bit later when I am less busy. It was a part of the discussion a while back here on gaf so so long as the topics are still around I'd imagine that data is buried here somewhere as well.

Does he have a large white cis-male base? Sure, I won't deny that. But to make base assumptions on who someone is and then to use that as a basis for aggressive argumentation is an issue for me.

 

[Cyan]

"Berniebro" is the equivalent of "Sonypony" or "Xbot" (or oldie but goodie "Nintenyearold"). The term exists to lump together people on the other team as having some particular negative characteristic and thereby make them easier to collectively dismiss. (In the Sonypony/Xbot case that would be "these people are hopeless fanboys who like everything their company puts out and hate everything the other company puts out, and therefore their opinions can't be trusted." In the Berniebro case it would be something like "these people are naive white male millennials who post a lot on reddit and don't care much about minorities, etc.") You can argue that it's not meant to apply to everyone, but the point of using those terms is to insinuate that it does.

But I'm not seeing a lot of use of the term here outside a poligaf regular using it as an affectionate nickname for his bf.

 

[TarNaru33]

You act like the democratic party gets to set some sliders on what portion of each demographic will turn out and if they put enough "points" in they'll get the minority turnout they need.

That simply isn't true. Various demographics turn out for various reasons. The black voting block jumped from 58% in 2000 and 60% in 2004 to 66% in 2008 and 2012. They turn out for Barack and dems across the nation ride his coattails. Sanders has a demonstrable inability to win the black vote which indicates the potential for black voter turn out decline.

Meanwhile the demographic Sanders is best with, urban/suburban white 20 somethings, are just about the least reliable or productive voting block in general elections, almost completely absent in mid-terms, and the dems have built all of their electoral strategies around not needing them.

Sanders gives ground on a proven block that has been gaining strength within the national electorate in favor of a wild card that may or may not show up, but almost certainly not in enough numbers and definitely not in the right locations to off-set the likely losses. Clinton is likely going to see some regression in black voter turnout herself mind you, just not anything close to what Sanders would likely see, based on primary turnouts and demographic divides.

I am saying the Democratic party will not just sit idly by due to Sanders being the nominee and Hillary will support Sanders if he was to win.

When you speak of the Black vote, we are talking about Sanders vs GOP, not Hillary vs Sanders. They both will likely lose some Black votes, but I highly doubt the drop would be so significant that either of them would lose against GOP candidate.

Who gives a shit about belief? Self identified independents are, generally, middle age, middle class white folk. They're the undecided as of right now who won't tune in until the general, make their pick based on the narrative of the general, and will almost certainly show up to vote. Selling a social democrat who will be continually painted as a "socialist" who has praised Castro and failed to provide meaningful oversight of the VA to those people is not easy. He loses self-identified Dems who fit that description by a landslide to Clinton. Even if he wins all the Dems in that group without a single defection nationwide he would still leave a massive opening with the only group who can get the GOP above 60% of the white vote. You're then left hoping for white voter apathy, a trend that only occurred, and then to a small degree, in 2008.

I do not believe he will lose just like do I not believe Hillary will lose. Sanders is definitely a wild card, because U.S have not had a candidate as liberal as Bernie in a long time.

We are not talking about complete stacks against Sanders, he have more chance of winning the GE than he do winning the primary. This all comes down to chance, his chance of winning or losing is not certain as of yet.

Tax increases is not, for the vast majority of Americans, a "single issue voting" standard a la abortion rights, same sex marriage/equality, etc.. It is an immediate disqualifier under the "I can't fucking afford you as president" standard.

The continued portrayal of those opposed to Sanders' ubiquitous taxation increases as those of a "fuck you, I got mine" mindset will only hurt as most people do not see themselves as living in the lap of luxury and able to give up an extra several thousand dollars a year on the hopes that Sanders will deliver them from the private healthcare hell they don't actually live in (since they predominantly have solid healthcare through their employers).

I don't really care for this "standard" you are talking about. To me if you agree with most of what a candidate says and disagree with the other more-so, but choose to vote the latter candidate due to one policy the former has, then you are single issue voting.

Single issue voting is not always a bad thing, but we are talking about ignoring the huge consequences in this specific case.

It isn't the dislike of his tax policy that I am even highlighting. Single issue voting is the very definition of "fuck you, I got mine" depending on what that issue is and the scenario at hand. Since you actually defend this, I hope you defend Sander supporters when they say they will not vote Hillary if she is nominee simple because they believe she isn't liberal enough.

 

[Piecake]

I'm not presenting a "holier than thou" attitude. I am presenting why I am so tired of assumptions dominating the narrative of some.

You are trying to make every argument a moral argument and position yourself as the morally right person.

I don't see how it is a losing narrative to provide some tailoring to the youth vote. I have not at all argued that Democrats have to forego everything and only focus on the youth. We seem to be on the same wavelength here more than you realize. We just disagree on how effective they've been at appealing to the youth. I put more onus on both halves, particularly on the party needing to work on appealing to them. I do recognize that they need to vote too but frankly speaking I don't think the voters are wholly to blame here. You're putting more on the voters themselves. That seems to be where we differ.

That already happens. Every politician reaches out to the youth. Nothing changes. If the youth vote showed signs of changing then more politicians would focus on the youth. Bernie reached out to the youth a lot and tried to engage them and there has been zero increase in youth participation. I am not quite sure why you think that anything would change if yet another politician tried to mobilize the youth vote.

Oh please, Bernie Bro has been a term used to blanket Bernie supporters here for quite some time now.

If it was used as a blanket statement then they were wrong, but again, you are trying to color that in a very moral superiority stance where people who support Hilary can easily point to Bernie supporters who have patronizingly stated that blacks are voting against their best interests and Southern democrats don't matter or shouldn't have a voice in the nomination.

Let's be clear here, I am not making an assumption. For all I know you might be the type of person who heavily criticizes Bernie supporters who do that, but if you don't then you are just being hypocritical.

 

[Ekai]

You are trying to make every argument a moral argument and position yourself as the morally right person.



That already happens. Every politician reaches out to the youth. Nothing changes. If the youth vote showed signs of changing then more politicians would focus on the youth. Bernie reached out to the youth a lot and tried to engage them and there has been zero increase in youth participation. I am not quite sure why you think that anything would change if yet another politician tried to mobilize the youth vote.



If it was used as a blanket statement then they were wrong, but again, you are trying to color that in a very moral superiority stance where people who support Hilary can easily point to Bernie supporters who have patronizingly stated that blacks are voting against their best interests and Southern democrats don't matter or shouldn't have a voice in the nomination.

Let's be clear here, I am not making an assumption. For all I know you might be the type of person who heavily criticizes Bernie supporters who do that, but if you don't then you are just being hypocritical.

I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. You're the one who has made this about moral superiority. If I am tired of the nonsensical insults that are directed towards minorities on the Bernie side and you take that as me trying to be superior then I have to say that's a very confusing stance to take.

If anything changed and they got more of the youth vote, they would lead Republicans more than they do now. A voting block ignored/not energized is a voting block that could be utilized to garner more votes than they have now. I don't see how that in any way is a negative.

I am not trying to color it in any way at all. Again, you're the one doing this, not me. And I am not going to participate in gotcha games with you. I never made this about you specifically but you are with me. You're trying to commit character assassination rather than address my points. That's not conducive to discussion. Further to the point and to address your deflection here: I have not, do not and never will condone such behavior from either side. If you want to sling mud on me for speaking out then that's your own prerogative but I will not participate in this discussion with you further if you're going to behave in such a manner. We are speaking past each other and I am not one to care for arguments that are continually based in assumption (you are making a clarifying statement here but the fact of the matter is you are presenting an assumption/equivalency as a means to negate my criticism all the same) rather than in simple exchange.

 

[Aaronology]

I'd agree it was ignored less there than in other instances.

Ekai, how was the youth vote ignored at all by Barack Obama and Democrats in either 2008 or 2012? What other instances are you referring to? Please elaborate.

The overall point is, it's a demographic that is normally largely under-represented. And it could do with more representation. Both in terms of the voters themselves going out and in terms of the party working on their message to appeal to them.

In what way should Democrats alter their message to appeal to the youth vote, Ekai? What should be done that is not now and has not been done in the last two elections you were able to participate in? I think representation begins squarely with voting, and the failure to do so disqualifies anyone from subsequently complaining of not having a voice in the process.

I haven't exactly stated that his base is primarily one thing or the other. What I have argued is that his base has a bit more diversity than some want to believe.

Has a single poster in this thread claimed that only white males support Bernie Sanders? This seems like a strawman. You continue to state Bernie Sanders' base is made up of young African Americans, young women and young white males in response to posters who have repeatedly pointed out young white males are significantly predominant in that makeup, not exclusively. If you're going to argue it is much more diverse than this I would like to see from where you're drawing this conclusion. I think pointing out that some minorities are in favor of him to rebut criticism is as dishonest as someone attempting to argue Clinton has huge support of the youth vote on account of a number of 30 and below voters who back her.

 

[Piecake]

I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. You're the one who has made this about moral superiority. If I am tired of the nonsensical insults that are directed towards minorities on the Bernie side and you take that as me trying to be superior then I have to say that's a very confusing stance to take.

What insults towards minorities on the Bernie side? Just because the term Bernie Bro only refers to to young white males does not mean that it is in insult to women and minorities.

If anything changed and they got more of the youth vote, they would lead Republicans more than they do now. A voting block ignored/not energized is a voting block that could be utilized to garner more votes than they have now. I don't see how that in any way is a negative.

It isnt. It would be fantastic, which I have said that I and the democratic party would love. But so far all attempts have failed.

am not trying to color it in any way at all. Again, you're the one doing this, not me. And I am not going to participate in gotcha games with you. I never made this about you specifically but you are with me. You're trying to commit character assassination rather than address my points. That's not conducive to discussion.

See, this is why I talked about your whole holier than thou attitude. I addressed all your posts and continue do so, but then you nitpick one little thing where I made a harmless tentative assumption to find out where you are coming from, but then you turn into some horrendous insult to you, and then you act like I am only attacking you personally and ignore everything else I said.

Christ, get over yourself. That wasnt even a freakin insult or character assassination.

Further to the point and to address your deflection here: I have not, do not and never will condone such behavior from either side. If you want to sling mud on me for speaking out then that's your own prerogative but I will not participate in this discussion with you further if you're going to behave in such a manner. We are speaking past each other and I am not one to care for arguments that are continually based in assumption (you are making a clarifying statement here but the fact of the matter is you are presenting an assumption/equivalency as a means to negate my criticism all the same) rather than in simple exchange.

Oh please, you were clearly using it to portray Sanders and his supporters in a better light than Clinton. Using an equivalency is perfectly valid under those circumstances.

And we will speak no more because I am sick of talking with you.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I honestly can't conceive of a world where you'd flip from Hillary or Bernie to Trump or Cruz.

At worst I could see somebody not voting.

 

[makingmusic476]

I will vote for whichever of the two becomes the nom.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Of course, not a sociopath

And voting for Kasich over Sanders is like choosing shit presented as chocolate ice cream over actual chocolate ice cream

 

[OuterLimits]

Nope. The two people left in the race(both parties) I would never vote for are Sanders and Cruz.

 

[Wall]

http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/vox-on-the-bernie-sanders-tax-tsunami

This article is pretty good at laying out the problems with the Vox tax calculator. Basically, when calculating how much people would pay in taxes, the calculator includes money spent on employees that people don't ordinarily consider as income if they are answering a question like: How much per year do I make?

The calculator isn't wrong to count that money as income, but it is misleading to people who don't know the assumptions upon which it is based, which is most people.

And even without getting into optics:



Both of these sentences ignore the observation that employers passing on cost savings to employees, a key assumption in the "you're gonna pay less overall" argument, will not be guaranteed and may well only be afforded by employers where people already need the help less.

There's also the risk that additional taxes / corporate benefit costs will be passed on to external customers (consumers). You may pay more in taxes to save more on benefits, but how will prices react? Most companies aren't going to willingly shoulder the extra burden.

These arguments actually contradict each other. If employers somehow have to pay more, there isn't going to be any savings to withhold from people.

Also, you can't argue that a plan is going to have tax impact "x" under the assumption that money spent on an employee's benefits counts as taxable income and then turn around and argue that employers won't pass along health care savings under the plan to employees so employees will be worse off due to scary number "x". Either the money used to arrive at tax impact "x" counts as income or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. If employers pocket some of the savings accrued from the plan, then that money isn't going to be part of an employee's income so it won't be taxed as income. Tax impact "x" in that case will be smaller because the employee's income would be smaller (relative to the income estimate used to arrive at tax impact "x").

 

[SolicitorPirate]

The way I see it, a Sanders Presidency would be a car crash. A Cruz or Trump Presidency would be a car crash followed by the wreckage falling into a volcano and then Earth gets invaded by aliens.

 

[cheezcake]

Nope. The two people left in the race(both parties) I would never vote for are Sanders and Cruz.

You vote for Trump over Sanders or Cruz?

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I don't think Alex Jones will vote for Bernie; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyWlV0cQrNc