I think I can see the logic in: if we KNOW the election is rigged and the Dems won't fight, when now take to the streets NOW rather than sit and hope for the best for 2 months?
The "ifs" are the part where I think the argument falls down, not the logic
I have said things that were taken, not at all the way I meant them, so the best way I can deal with that is to clarify as you did, what was really meant.
This is by far the best site on the net that I have found and has spoiled me when I read the WaPo comments. Be well my friend and carry on the good fight. ps I love your 'nym.
Obviously i can't speak for the tens of millions of Sanders' supporters nationwide, just those i worked with (scores), or met in '15 (well over a hundred or more), and in the years since. My experience was limited to the local organization, that went active in late Sept. of '15, before there was a state chair or organization, through the primary (June, '16) and Convention. "Local" media described us as the largest and most active group in the state (a distinction we apparently held until the final two weeks before the primary, when the national staffers arrived), even though the core membership was only a dozen or so.
The core consisted of two Bros (i was one) and the rest were white, middle-aged, well educated, middle class women (the Hos). While the Bros didn't "like" Clinton any more than the women in the group did, we made a point limiting our criticisms to her public life--the policy initiatives she had as first lady; her voting record as a senator; her impeccable neo-conservative tenure as SoS; her platform as a candidate--and not what we thought of her as a person. While most of the women in the group did the same, there were a few (significantly the most active and engaged) whose contempt for her as a person bordered on the vicious. I'm still not entirely certain why that was.
That said, i really haven't ever encountered a committed Sanders supporter (e.g., one actively involved in the campaign) who came close to resembling a Bernie Bro, and most of the Hos were able to stick to the script and not go all ad hominem. As for what gets posted online (where, it seems to me,99% of Bernie Bro complaints originate), i have to question just how many were shit-stirring trolls, whether Russians, David Brock's #milliondollartrolls, or freelancers.
The Intercept. You're quoting the Intercept on the same day Wonkette publishes this: https://www.wonkette.com/sh.... Well done on reading the room. :D Mind you, if you're admitting that shit-stirring Russian trolls are a real thing, you're much closer to reality than G. Greenwald, for example.
If we're trading citations, how about this: “the white working-class voters that Sanders won were mostly anti-Clinton voters” https://www.vox.com/policy-.... No disrespect to Bernie, but his campaign attracted a whole lot of shitty people who really seriously think Trump is a lesser evil to shitlib Dems, and that the Trump movement would give up racism in a second if someone offered them socialism. I name D. Sirota and B. Joy Gray as among the worst.
Thank you Natalie! It’s very kind of you to share this and same to you. Of course none of us are going to agree on everything. What I love about Wonkette, besides the dick jokes and snark, is that the people here are so fiercely smart, thoughtful and willing to engage in good faith debate about ideas. I don’t have many people in my life with whom to discuss and debate The Big Ideas without a fight and this place and its people are a great and safe place for that. I endeavor to not be an asshole or antagonistic; my thoughts/opinions are also put forth in good faith and I welcome challenges and robust debate. I was taken aback by some of the responses to this, particularly being accused of being a “concern troll”. Thank you for helping me feel better.
Yes, it's always easier to kill the messenger than to read the message, isn't it?
I'd say that your comment represents a misreading of the broader public mood in '15 and '16. As a Sanders activist, i was initially perplexed by those who said they could vote for Sanders or Trump, but not Clinton, imagining it to be an ideological inconsistency.
It took a while to appreciate that the "inconsistency" wasn't ideological in the traditional left-right/liberal-conservative context, at least as far as "conservatives" (who are definitely 'post-ideological''*) were concerned; it was just a rejection of the status quo, a populist revolt, as it were, from the grassroots up, against the ruling elites of both Parties.
I don't know if you looked at the RCP electoral maps i linked to, but it's clear that Sanders, as a progressive populist, resonated much more with voters than Trump, the regressive populist, did. What the maps don't explain is why. For that, one has to look at the demographic breakdowns in the head-to-head, general election matchups (Quinnipiac, and yes, even Fox).
When the first such matchups were polled in mid-Oct, '15, Clinton and Sanders both led Trump, among 'independents', by one point. When the last such polls came out (mid-May, '16), Clinton still had her 1 point lead (which is what she ended up with in the general); but Sanders had a 15 point lead (Quinnipiac) and a 16 point lead (Fox). Unfortunately i can't access the archives (if you can, it's worth looking up).
Again, as per RCP, given the choice between a progressive and regressive populist, the progressive won. Given a choice between a regressive populist and a status-quo establishmentarian, the populist still won. This was largely a function of the loss of faith the public had in the neo-liberal policies, pursued by Republicans and Democrats alike, since the late 1970's--2016 is when those chickens came home to roost.
One last point is, without getting into a pissing match as to whose supporters were shittier, among Clinton supports i actually encountered, there wasn't much animosity or acrimony (and they, in turn, never voiced any complaints about the Sanders' supporters they encountered in real life either); again, i think this was a function of internet trolling, and not a reflection of real-world reality.
*When asked at Trump's first MAGAT rally in AL, if Trump's NY cosmopolitanism and former (if shallow) 'liberalism' gave him any pause, an attendee said, no, because "Conservatism is just another failed ideology". (As quoted in the NYT coverage). This was my first clue that the GOP base had devolved into nihilism, and was probably beyond reasoning with.
You... didn't even read how the Intercept (Greenwald in particular) is trying to claim there's a Witchhunt against that poor teenager in Kansas who just choked/stalked a few women, because he's an anti-Clinton/Biden conversative?
Actually, i haven't. As for Greenwald, i'm rather ambivalent--when he's right, he's very, very right. When he's wrong, he's very, very wrong. Based on my own experiences, i generally agree with him about the establishment's hatred of Sanders. If he's defending the jerk in KS, he's obviously wrong. Very, very wrong.
And i take it you didn't read the third link, which was written by Mehdi Hasan, who (last time checked) isn't Greenwald. And any time you want to acknowledge David Brock's poisonous contributions to civil discourse, i'm here. (I'll admit Brock's at his best trashing Republicans, but totally sucks when it comes to defending Clinton)
Great analysis, they never heard the follow-up statement the we will train you in new, better paying jobs in the replacement industries.
I think I can see the logic in: if we KNOW the election is rigged and the Dems won't fight, when now take to the streets NOW rather than sit and hope for the best for 2 months?
The "ifs" are the part where I think the argument falls down, not the logic
Hey ya Red!https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
That makes me want to vomit.
Tax-cuts and Russian money in their coffers.
Uber allies for trump.
I have said things that were taken, not at all the way I meant them, so the best way I can deal with that is to clarify as you did, what was really meant.
This is by far the best site on the net that I have found and has spoiled me when I read the WaPo comments. Be well my friend and carry on the good fight. ps I love your 'nym.
Obviously i can't speak for the tens of millions of Sanders' supporters nationwide, just those i worked with (scores), or met in '15 (well over a hundred or more), and in the years since. My experience was limited to the local organization, that went active in late Sept. of '15, before there was a state chair or organization, through the primary (June, '16) and Convention. "Local" media described us as the largest and most active group in the state (a distinction we apparently held until the final two weeks before the primary, when the national staffers arrived), even though the core membership was only a dozen or so.
The core consisted of two Bros (i was one) and the rest were white, middle-aged, well educated, middle class women (the Hos). While the Bros didn't "like" Clinton any more than the women in the group did, we made a point limiting our criticisms to her public life--the policy initiatives she had as first lady; her voting record as a senator; her impeccable neo-conservative tenure as SoS; her platform as a candidate--and not what we thought of her as a person. While most of the women in the group did the same, there were a few (significantly the most active and engaged) whose contempt for her as a person bordered on the vicious. I'm still not entirely certain why that was.
That said, i really haven't ever encountered a committed Sanders supporter (e.g., one actively involved in the campaign) who came close to resembling a Bernie Bro, and most of the Hos were able to stick to the script and not go all ad hominem. As for what gets posted online (where, it seems to me,99% of Bernie Bro complaints originate), i have to question just how many were shit-stirring trolls, whether Russians, David Brock's #milliondollartrolls, or freelancers.
https://extranewsfeed.com/p...
https://theintercept.com/20...
https://theintercept.com/20...
Probably because it was Meth, with DJ, and the Gargoyle. She looked like she was tweaking to me.
The Intercept. You're quoting the Intercept on the same day Wonkette publishes this: https://www.wonkette.com/sh.... Well done on reading the room. :D Mind you, if you're admitting that shit-stirring Russian trolls are a real thing, you're much closer to reality than G. Greenwald, for example.
If we're trading citations, how about this: “the white working-class voters that Sanders won were mostly anti-Clinton voters” https://www.vox.com/policy-.... No disrespect to Bernie, but his campaign attracted a whole lot of shitty people who really seriously think Trump is a lesser evil to shitlib Dems, and that the Trump movement would give up racism in a second if someone offered them socialism. I name D. Sirota and B. Joy Gray as among the worst.
I have always enjoyed reading your comments. We don't always agree, but they are well thought out, and I respect your opinions.
29th?
Thank you Natalie! It’s very kind of you to share this and same to you. Of course none of us are going to agree on everything. What I love about Wonkette, besides the dick jokes and snark, is that the people here are so fiercely smart, thoughtful and willing to engage in good faith debate about ideas. I don’t have many people in my life with whom to discuss and debate The Big Ideas without a fight and this place and its people are a great and safe place for that. I endeavor to not be an asshole or antagonistic; my thoughts/opinions are also put forth in good faith and I welcome challenges and robust debate. I was taken aback by some of the responses to this, particularly being accused of being a “concern troll”. Thank you for helping me feel better.
Yes, it's always easier to kill the messenger than to read the message, isn't it?
I'd say that your comment represents a misreading of the broader public mood in '15 and '16. As a Sanders activist, i was initially perplexed by those who said they could vote for Sanders or Trump, but not Clinton, imagining it to be an ideological inconsistency.
It took a while to appreciate that the "inconsistency" wasn't ideological in the traditional left-right/liberal-conservative context, at least as far as "conservatives" (who are definitely 'post-ideological''*) were concerned; it was just a rejection of the status quo, a populist revolt, as it were, from the grassroots up, against the ruling elites of both Parties.
I don't know if you looked at the RCP electoral maps i linked to, but it's clear that Sanders, as a progressive populist, resonated much more with voters than Trump, the regressive populist, did. What the maps don't explain is why. For that, one has to look at the demographic breakdowns in the head-to-head, general election matchups (Quinnipiac, and yes, even Fox).
When the first such matchups were polled in mid-Oct, '15, Clinton and Sanders both led Trump, among 'independents', by one point. When the last such polls came out (mid-May, '16), Clinton still had her 1 point lead (which is what she ended up with in the general); but Sanders had a 15 point lead (Quinnipiac) and a 16 point lead (Fox). Unfortunately i can't access the archives (if you can, it's worth looking up).
Again, as per RCP, given the choice between a progressive and regressive populist, the progressive won. Given a choice between a regressive populist and a status-quo establishmentarian, the populist still won. This was largely a function of the loss of faith the public had in the neo-liberal policies, pursued by Republicans and Democrats alike, since the late 1970's--2016 is when those chickens came home to roost.
One last point is, without getting into a pissing match as to whose supporters were shittier, among Clinton supports i actually encountered, there wasn't much animosity or acrimony (and they, in turn, never voiced any complaints about the Sanders' supporters they encountered in real life either); again, i think this was a function of internet trolling, and not a reflection of real-world reality.
*When asked at Trump's first MAGAT rally in AL, if Trump's NY cosmopolitanism and former (if shallow) 'liberalism' gave him any pause, an attendee said, no, because "Conservatism is just another failed ideology". (As quoted in the NYT coverage). This was my first clue that the GOP base had devolved into nihilism, and was probably beyond reasoning with.
You... didn't even read how the Intercept (Greenwald in particular) is trying to claim there's a Witchhunt against that poor teenager in Kansas who just choked/stalked a few women, because he's an anti-Clinton/Biden conversative?
Actually, i haven't. As for Greenwald, i'm rather ambivalent--when he's right, he's very, very right. When he's wrong, he's very, very wrong. Based on my own experiences, i generally agree with him about the establishment's hatred of Sanders. If he's defending the jerk in KS, he's obviously wrong. Very, very wrong.
And i take it you didn't read the third link, which was written by Mehdi Hasan, who (last time checked) isn't Greenwald. And any time you want to acknowledge David Brock's poisonous contributions to civil discourse, i'm here. (I'll admit Brock's at his best trashing Republicans, but totally sucks when it comes to defending Clinton)