Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
And if she does, what than? What are they going to do? Vote for Trump?The Romulan Republic wrote:I will be voting for Clinton regardless. But there are many who won't. What you are saying is that Hillary Clinton should basically tell the Leftmost quarter of the electorate to go fuck itself going into the general election.
Weird. Looks to me like they've begun to do just that.The Romulan Republic wrote:You seem to think that Clinton can ignore Sanders supporters and they'll just go away. They won't.
The Romulan Republic wrote:Basically, the Democratic Party has two choices- it can reach out to Sanders progressives, give them something. Or it can watch increasing numbers of them go third party/independent, go to the Republicans out of spite, or just not vote.
The Romulan Republic wrote:I will be voting for Clinton regardless. But there are many who won't. What you are saying is that Hillary Clinton should basically tell the Leftmost quarter of the electorate to go fuck itself going into the general election.
The key point is that we've got someone like TRR saying over and over and over about how if Bernie loses he'll pivot to Clinton and vote for her, but now he's ranting about how she needs to make concessions to try to attract the ones Bernie grabbed from parties like the god damn Green party and there's not a way on earth to make them a dependable vote even if she went so far left as to drive the typical Democratic party insane over it.Terralthra wrote:I find it amusing that someone is saying someone else is making a "big pissy toddler-level hissy fit" while repeatedly pasting the same screenshot as if Sec. Clinton's 1% gain in polls is at all relevant to the current conversation. Sec. Clinton's supporters have been talking all along about how important down-ballot races are, and how critical it is that primary voters turn out in the fall, but now, when an admittedly somewhat dopey Sen. Sanders supporter says "The DNC should make some concessions to someone who won 40% of the progressive primary vote", the response is "they don't matter, Sec. Clinton is winning in polls vs. Trump". Do you not see the logical disconnect between those statements?
Apologies. Won't happen again.SCRawl wrote:That image is too obnoxiously, gratuitously large to post four times. Next time you want to make a point, please use your words. - SCRawl
It's a 6% net gain. One that flies directly in the face of the rhetoric from TRR and the rest of the BernieBullshitters.Terralthra wrote:I find it amusing that someone is saying someone else is making a "big pissy toddler-level hissy fit" while repeatedly pasting the same screenshot as if Sec. Clinton's 1% gain in polls is at all relevant to the current conversation. Sec. Clinton's supporters have been talking all along about how important down-ballot races are, and how critical it is that primary voters turn out in the fall, but now, when an admittedly somewhat dopey Sen. Sanders supporter says "The DNC should make some concessions to someone who won 40% of the progressive primary vote", the response is "they don't matter, Sec. Clinton is winning in polls vs. Trump". Do you not see the logical disconnect between those statements?
I'm not sure where all of Clinton's new votes are coming from, but if, as I hope, more Sanders supporters are (somewhat) getting behind Clinton, that does not mean that they have gone away or stopped believing in and pushing for a progressive agenda. It simply means that they're choosing to pursue their goals within the Democratic Party, which is the sensible course of action.FireNexus wrote:Weird. Looks to me like they've begun to do just that.
Link doesn't work.
Link doesn't work.
In which a Clinton supporter engages in yet another tirade of personal abuse against a Sanders supporter for daring to suggest that it might be wise to make any compromises whatsoever with someone who won over 40% of the Primary voters going into the general election, or that their might still be voters on the fence who it would help Clinton to win over.Listen, you dumb, self-righteous motherfucker: Sanders' "revolution" supporter group is not a reliable voting bloc who can be counted on to even vote in the first place, let alone make pragmatic choices going forward. The ones who are worth courting have already made the rational choice to vote for the best available candidate. Even histrionic, self-righteous, borderline illiterate fucking morons like you have already recognized it and have been polling accordingly.
"Resoundingly" is a hell of a stretch.The Sanders supporters who are still screaming "Bernie or Bust" are a lost cause. And making big policy concessions to them is potentially sacrificing support among the wider electorate to cow a group whose policy proposals have lost resoundingly among even the liberal half of the country.
Once again, link doesn't work.Once again:
There is a difference between "The Sanders campaign for the Presidency is over" (true for all practical purposes) and "The progressive movement he leads is over" (not true, it will continue to push the Democratic Party to the Left from within, with Bernie as its most prominent spokesperson).Kindly go fuck yourself and stop acting like Sanders has a movement with any kind of lasting political power. It's over.
Whatever other differences we may have, let's just take a moment to bask in the glorious self-destruction of the Republican Party. It is so richly deserved.WASHINGTON – Conservative columnist George Will has left the Republican Party, and he is urging others to make sure the GOP’s presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, doesn’t win.
“Make sure he loses,’’ Will told PJ Media, an online news company, in an interview Friday. “Grit their teeth for four years and win the White House.”
Will, a long-time columnist and commentator, spoke Friday at the Federalist Society luncheon. “This is not my party,’’ he said during the speech.
According to PJ Media, Will said he has changed his GOP registration in Maryland to “unaffiliated.’’
Will, a Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist, has long been critical of Trump. The Washington Post columnist warned in a column in April that Trump’s damage to the party had only just begun.
Trump, he said, would be the “most unpopular nominee ever’’ and unable to get support from women, minorities and young voters.
In a column earlier this week, Will urged Republican donors not to contribute to Trump's campaign.
Trump, in turn, called Will a “major loser’’ last month on MSNBC’s Morning Joe.
Just because she's being a magnanimous victor doesn't mean she's going to pivot hard enough to the left to try to convince voters that historically can never be guaranteed to be convinced when most of the fighting is in the other direction dude.The Romulan Republic wrote: Telling Sanders supporters, literally, to go fuck themselves won't help accomplish that.
Clinton is smart enough to be a magnanimous victor. So why can't her loyal internet trolls learn from her example?
Now, I'll admit the Hill is a biased source (hard to find one that isn't), but I find this rather interesting.Democrats' platform drafting committee took a first step toward giving Bernie Sanders a major concession, voting to adopt language in support of a $15 minimum wage.
The 15-person committee, chaired by Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), finalized its draft of the guiding document Sunday after days of negotiations.
ADVERTISEMENT
The panel also aligned itself with progressive ideas such as abolishing the death penalty and expanding Social Security, the Associated Press reported. The minimum wage language adopted echoes a common refrain by Sanders, calling the current federal minimum of $7.25 a "starvation wage."
An amendment from Sanders backer Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.) to strengthen the language supporting a $15 minimum wage and index it to grow with inflation was shot down, however.
The platform also tackles financial reform, calling for "an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall."
But the panel did block several proposals favored by Sanders and his supporters. It refused to adopt a proposed amendment by Ellison that would have opposed President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership; both Sanders and Hillary Clinton have spoken against the trade deal.
It also rejected amendments putting a national freeze on fracking, imposing a carbon tax, and promoting a single-payer healthcare system.
In a statement to the AP, Sanders said he is "disappointed and dismayed" over the panel's decision not to oppose the TPP but applauded the inclusion of death penalty abolition and financial reform.
Sanders has refused to suspend his campaign and endorse Clinton despite the fact that she has clinched the nomination. He has turned his focus to instilling progressive ideas into the party's platform — the draft could factor into Sanders's potential support of Clinton.
"Right now, to be very frank with you, we are talking to the Clinton campaign to try to determine whether or not they can come up with some very serious proposals which will help us transform America," Sanders said to supporters at a rally in Albany, N.Y., Friday. "Whether it will happen or not — that's a good question. I don't know. We are working with them right now."
Clinton has proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $12 but has expressed support for movements calling for $15 in places like New York and Los Angeles.
Sanders has also called for the end of the superdelegate system and the inclusion of Independent voters in all primary contests.
The party's full platform committee will consider the draft at next month's convention.
Are...are you sure you read my post?FireNexus wrote:It's a 6% net gain. One that flies directly in the face of the rhetoric from TRR and the rest of the BernieBullshitters.Terralthra wrote:I find it amusing that someone is saying someone else is making a "big pissy toddler-level hissy fit" while repeatedly pasting the same screenshot as if Sec. Clinton's 1% gain in polls is at all relevant to the current conversation. Sec. Clinton's supporters have been talking all along about how important down-ballot races are, and how critical it is that primary voters turn out in the fall, but now, when an admittedly somewhat dopey Sen. Sanders supporter says "The DNC should make some concessions to someone who won 40% of the progressive primary vote", the response is "they don't matter, Sec. Clinton is winning in polls vs. Trump". Do you not see the logical disconnect between those statements?
No, you misunderstand me. My point is "Go fuck yourself, and do whatever you want. I don't care what you think or do, or how you vote."The Romulan Republic wrote:But seriously, are you capable of understanding why a position that can basically be summarized as "Go fuck yourself, you don't matter, now vote for our candidate" offends people?
With that in mind, you're basically asking for a participation trophy. Want concessions on the platform? Win.Win over and over again.Get a large percentage of people who aren't young, white, and clueless to vote your way. Stop saying "I'm going to do what I think is right, which is what you want anyway, but you should do what I want, OR ELSE!!!!"And most of us will probably vote the way you want, if only because the alternative is Trump. That's the right, the necessary thing to do.
I did, and you missed the point, which doesn't really surprise me. Despite Sanders trying to play his leverage, refusing to tell his supporters it's ok to vote for Clinton, her lead has widened for a month. Because that 40% was mostly fine with Clinton. I'm advocating ignoring a bunch of people who will just assume her change in positions is naked political maneuvering, and who would be right. They're not going to care that she changes her policy positions, and it wouldn't result in any action because she wouldn't really want or expect to achieve those policy positions.Terralthra wrote:Are...are you sure you read my post?
No, you missed my point entirely. Her lead is not relevant. Barring a massive earthquake-level shift in American politics, Donald Trump is going to lose to Sec. Clinton, and he's going to lose hard.FireNexus wrote:I did, and you missed the point, which doesn't really surprise me. Despite Sanders trying to play his leverage, refusing to tell his supporters it's ok to vote for Clinton, her lead has widened for a month. Because that 40% was mostly fine with Clinton. I'm advocating ignoring a bunch of people who will just assume her change in positions is naked political maneuvering, and who would be right. They're not going to care that she changes her policy positions, and it wouldn't result in any action because she wouldn't really want or expect to achieve those policy positions.Terralthra wrote:Are...are you sure you read my post?
Translation: "My spite and hate are more important to me than whether Donald Trump suffers a crushing defeat." Got it.FireNexus wrote:No, you misunderstand me. My point is "Go fuck yourself, and do whatever you want. I don't care what you think or do, or how you vote."
Way to stereotype, asshole.I feel this way because you've all been self-righteous pricks for way longer than is entertaining given how early it was clear you were never going to win, and because
The lie that Sanders only has significant support from young white people has been refuted over and over again. There is little point in doing so again, except to point out that you are peddling a racist narrative that falsely paints non-white people as a more or less homogenous pro-Clinton block.With that in mind, you're basically asking for a participation trophy. Want concessions on the platform? Win.Win over and over again.Get a large percentage of people who aren't young, white, and clueless to vote your way. Stop saying "I'm going to do what I think is right, which is what you want anyway, but you should do what I want, OR ELSE!!!!"
Considering your entire argument here is predicated on a stereotype, I'm not terribly convinced.BernieBots either were never going to vote until they got a chance to hang out in a stadium with people who were going to agree with them, or they were always going to do the right thing in the end, and be pretty much happy with the result.
So by your definition, any faction of a party that comprises less than fifty percent of the total is irrelevant and powerless?You have no leverage. You have no power. You lose.
It's pretty much indisputable at this point that young white folks are Bernie Sanders' political base. They were his political base at the beginning of the election, and the only "color" they added over the course of the election came from young people of color. Everyone else rejected him as their candidate. This is why, with the sole exception of Michigan, Sanders failed to win a single primary in a diverse state. And given how poorly he fared in the beauty contest primaries after two caucuses, it's unlikely that he would have fared well in diverse caucus states either.The Romulan Republic wrote:The lie that Sanders only has significant support from young white people has been refuted over and over again. There is little point in doing so again, except to point out that you are peddling a racist narrative that falsely paints non-white people as a more or less homogenous pro-Clinton block.
In short, yes. FireNexus is hitting this point a bit on the nose, but there's substance to it. Bernie's been given unprecedented levels of consideration post-primary, particularly with the DNC granting him seats on the platform committee. The fact that he's seeking to get Hillary Clinton to adopt aspects of his agenda is also unprecedented. Bernie is hardly the first left-wing populist to enter the primary, be thoroughly repudiated by the national party, and then have a hard choice about what to do going forward. He is, however, the first one to make serious demands that the nominee adopt his policies and priorities wholesale. This strikes me as a bit odd, considering that Sanders supporters complained loudly and endlessly about Clinton's alleged poaching of his ideas. Now that the Primary is over, and now that the Primary was very clearly over from about March 15th, the main demand is...to have Hillary poach Sanders' ideas wholesale.So by your definition, any faction of a party that comprises less than fifty percent of the total is irrelevant and powerless?
Sure, you could run a party that way, but you'll probably start bleeding supporters pretty fast, until one of these days that fifty percent plus one is pretty much all the party you have left. I don't want that to happen. You, apparently, don't give a fuck.
But hey, in ten or twenty years, all those young Bernie supporters will have aged, risen through the ranks, and will be running the Democratic Party, unless people like you succeed in driving them out. And then all this will be moot.
Edit: Anyway, this is once again starting to veer off-topic, so I'll leave it of that, unless you have something of actual substance to address.
You don't think it's at least a little bit grifty that Trump's campaign has spent twice as much money on Make America Great Again hats as they have on paid advertising?Patroklos wrote: Be specific. What expense from this article rings as inappropriate to you? Why is that?
Lets be real here, the article is a hit job. It brings up $400 spent on ice as as if we should care. The only difference between this and other campaigns is that Trump has businesses interests that can cater to the activities campaigns normally engage in. It would be stupid not to utilize them.
All she has to do to get those votes is to scare people of Trump. That's it. No policy changes required.The Romulan Republic wrote:To Purple's point, well, this really shouldn't even need to be said, but the idea that any group comprising less than 51% of the vote is irrelevant is... really not how politics works. For one thing, Clinton cannot win on 51% of primary voters, or 60% of primary voters. She has to win over undecideds and independents. And while many, hopefully most of her primary opponents will vote for her over Trump, elections can be decided by the level of turnout from the base. This is all the more important because their is a certain complacency on the Left, the idea that Trump can't possibly win. So I can see a lot of people who hate Trump, would prefer Clinton, but aren't enthusiastic about her, staying home on election day, thinking their one vote won't matter so they can sit it out. While Trump's raving, bigoted base will turn out for him.
And why should she care what you want? She is an ancient carrier power seeker whose only goal is to finally get ultimate power. That's it. Why would she care if she won by one vote or 99%? Same result.Besides, we shouldn't be content with just beating Donald. Like I said, I want him to have his ass handed to him by as wide a margin as possible. A narrow Trump loss still establishes his brand of politics established as the mainstream alternative to the Democrats.
If she manages to be alive and in running condition by the time the inertia on her as president should be sufficient to prevent that. Like as far as I know the only presidents of yours that don't get a second term almost by default are the ones that got impeached or a bullet.Also, you've got to think long-term. Those people may vote for her this year to stop Trump, but there is absolutely no garuntee that they will back her in four years. If Clinton runs a Centre Right campaign, and serves as a Centre Right President, I can pretty much promise you she'll get primaried from the Left in four years. Weather I or anyone else thinks that's a good idea is irrelevant.
See, I agree with you here. These people will grow up, they will enter politics to some extent and they are the future of the Democratic Party. But, here's the thing about growing up (and correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're more than a couple of years older than 25 I'll be amazed): You stop being an intransigent asshole, mostly. You become a part of the world and a part of the system and you get more pragmatic. Bernie will ultimately be an unimportant footnote because he never learned how to do that, and seemed to fail his way upward through most of the second half of his life.The Romulan Republic wrote: But hey, in ten or twenty years, all those young Bernie supporters will have aged, risen through the ranks, and will be running the Democratic Party, unless people like you succeed in driving them out. And then all this will be moot.
No. I'm doing the exact opposite. Support for Clinton among Sanders' voters is insanely high (not among those who currently support Sanders, which is in the toilet but not really significant). It's like 81%. Yeah, half of the people who still say they support Sanders getting the nomination say they won't vote for her, but they're never going to. Making concessions to try to get those voters would be stupid. More people who supported Sanders said they would vote for Clinton when asked by CNN in May than Clinton supporters who ever said they would vote for Obama in 2008.Terralthra wrote:Seriously, dude, "what about down-ticket races? Sen. Sanders doesn't care about a House majority" was the line of Sec. Clinton supporters a month or two ago, and now you're writing off turnout and with it, House seats, because of petty sore-winner-syndrome? As I said in my previous post, do you not see the logical disconnect?
Oh, come off it. I made no claim that non-whites are a homogenous pro-Clinton block. I said that young, white and clueless people (such as yourself) are a homogenous pro-Sanders bloc (different word, no k). It is not a lie that the demographic breakdown of the election, such that it can be measured, broke down along demographic lines. Young people of color did support Sanders more than older ones, no question. But Sanders' base was white people. The states he won were whiter than average. The ones that weren't were caucuses, and the beauty contest primaries plus the ND/SD split showed that Sanders massively overperformed in caucuses.The Romulan Republic wrote:The lie that Sanders only has significant support from young white people has been refuted over and over again. There is little point in doing so again, except to point out that you are peddling a racist narrative that falsely paints non-white people as a more or less homogenous pro-Clinton block.
My argument is predicated on the consistent demographic trends in votes. If it was a primary, the single best predictor of result was the number of black and hispanic voters. If it was a caucus, mostly it was whether your name was Bernie Sanders irrespective of all other factors. But dude, like it or not, Bernie did not enjoy wide support of black and hispanic voters. They broke for Clinton by well over 2-to-1. It's not racist to point that out, it's just inconvenient for... I don't know really. Your argument in this instance is not supported by pretending it isn't true.Considering your entire argument here is predicated on a stereotype, I'm not terribly convinced.
No. I'm saying don't pretend they're in charge when they were mostly okay with the actual outcome (most democrats on both sides would have been fine with either candidate). The faction that is demanding concessions are not even the majority of Sanders' voters. Every poll showed that the vast majority of Sanders supporters were ultimately cool with Clinton. That number receded near the end, but it never got under 70 before the voting stopped and only the true believers bothered to answer that Sanders should be the nominee.So by your definition, any faction of a party that comprises less than fifty percent of the total is irrelevant and powerless?
