Question: Do you feel it's wise to deride Bernie supporters with the moniker "Berniebros" when you will want them to vote for Hillary in the general? It honestly feels immature from my perspective.
Question: Do you feel it's wise to deride Bernie supporters with the moniker "Berniebros" when you will want them to vote for Hillary in the general? It honestly feels immature from my perspective.
Not every Bernie support is a Berniebro. The Berniebros are the super-hard-core, "Hillary is as bad as Trump", fuck-every-other-candidate types.
Yeah, I figured that was the distinction as well. I'm already seeing massive floods of #BernieOrBust hashtags and sentiments of writing him in during the general election.
As if that will have any positive impact on the system that they want to change so much.
Question: Do you feel it's wise to deride Bernie supporters with the moniker "Berniebros" when you will want them to vote for Hillary in the general? It honestly feels immature from my perspective.
I think it's a funny term (I actually refer to myself as a Establishment Shill or a Shillary Supporter), but don't use it. If you haven't noticed.
Note the bigger BernieBro commenter is not an American Citizen :-p or were past Bernie supporters who are annoyed with their more irrational side.
Question: Do you feel it's wise to deride Bernie supporters with the moniker "Berniebros" when you will want them to vote for Hillary in the general? It honestly feels immature from my perspective.
When I refer to "Berniebros," I'm referring to the "Bernie-or-bust" crowd, the "I will vote for Trump before I vote for Hillary" crowd, and the "Hillary sucks" crowd. These are people who are exceedingly unlikely to support Hillary, or to even bother voting if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.
There is no meaningful engagement with that crowd, and yes I've tried (and without being a condescending douchebag, at least as far as I am able to not be a condescending douchebag).
I've had lots of productive discussion with many Sanders supporters, and actually, I'm still a Sanders supporter at heart (well, the platform at least). I voted for him in the NY primary despite my significant reservations about his capacity as a leader. I found more value in enfranchising the groundswell than in throwing my vote towards the person who was extremely likely to win anyway.
I mean, it's the first time I can recall having an interesting and possibly meaningful choice as a liberal in New York. So what the hell, roll the dice and see what happens.
So the short version is, no, I'm not worried about Berniebros not voting for Hillary because they dislike my tone, because they're almost certainly not voting for her anyway.
Question: Do you feel it's wise to deride Bernie supporters with the moniker "Berniebros" when you will want them to vote for Hillary in the general? It honestly feels immature from my perspective.
When I refer to "Berniebros," I'm referring to the "Bernie-or-bust" crowd, the "I will vote for Trump before I vote for Hillary" crowd, and the "Hillary sucks" crowd. These are people who are exceedingly unlikely to support Hillary, or to even bother voting if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.
There is no meaningful engagement with that crowd, and yes I've tried (and without being a condescending douchebag, at least as far as I am able to not be a condescending douchebag).
I've had lots of productive discussion with many Sanders supporters, and actually, I'm still a Sanders supporter at heart (well, the platform at least). I voted for him in the NY primary despite my significant reservations about his capacity as a leader. I found more value in enfranchising the groundswell than in throwing my vote towards the person who was extremely likely to win anyway.
I mean, it's the first time I can recall having an interesting and possibly meaningful choice as a liberal in New York. So what the hell, roll the dice and see what happens.
So the short version is, no, I'm not worried about Berniebros not voting for Hillary because they dislike my tone, because they're almost certainly not voting for her anyway.
I don't know if I'm insulated from crazy people but I honestly have never seen a single person say "I will vote for Trump before I vote for Hillary"
I'm willing to guess it's not even a crowd. Just a handful of people. Maybe.
Nor have I. I've only seen Berniebros through the power of the internet. But I use the term to refer to that extremely small subset of Sanders supporters.
I don't know if I'm insulated from crazy people but I honestly have never seen a single person say "I will vote for Trump before I vote for Hillary"
I'm willing to guess it's not even a crowd. Just a handful of people. Maybe.
It's possible that it's a handful. I've had repeated direct interaction, both face-to-face and online, with people who have said directly that they will vote for Trump if they can't vote for Sanders. I'm also in one of the largest areas of Sanders supporters per-capita in New York - the Capital District voted pretty solidly in favor of Sanders, and I've seen a great number of Bernie supporters around.
We're all mostly collecting anecdotes, though. I don't know of any useful surveys of the Sanders-supporting crowd that would assess how many people would jump from Sanders to Trump. Just a lot of speculation and pontification.
I don't know if I'm insulated from crazy people but I honestly have never seen a single person say "I will vote for Trump before I vote for Hillary"
I'm willing to guess it's not even a crowd. Just a handful of people. Maybe.
I bump into a few here and there, but mostly in my LA friends, and mostly the ones who are not quite as politically savvy as most people here. But, they're at least of the "I'll just not vote" crowd, rather than the "I'll vote trump" crowd.
On reddit, though, not so much. If there was a central hub for exactly that kind of Bernie supporter, if it's not reddit, I don't know where it would be.
The percentage of people is, depending on which polls you prefer and keeping in mind it's during the primary rather than when the reality of Hillary Vs Cruz or Trump hits, about 25-33% of Sanders Voters.
You say that, but my brother has said that every time Hilary vs Bernie comes up. I'm worried we might have to disown him.
Then tell him to have some spine, and just start calling himself a trump supporter, because if you're willing to vote for Trump if you can't have Bernie, then you never supported what Bernie stands for in the first place.
I'm not particularly worried about Sanders supporters who say they won't vote for Hillary in a general election.
Bernie Sanders has gotten 42.6 percent of the popular vote so far (about 7.7 million votes out of 18 million). According to Politico, about 25% of Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Hillary, so that's only about 11% of the people who voted in the Democratic primaries (about 850k).
Additionally, as we get closer to the General Election, that number will most likely go down. Back in 2008, you had a similar percentage of Hillary Clinton supporters claiming they would never vote for Obama (Anyone remember the PUMAs? Party Unity My Ass), but something like 91% of all Democrats ended up voting for him, despite protests to the contrary.
It's neat how you guys decide that one screenshot is representative of a movement (Bernie Bros) while another is just an isolated crazy person based on your own prejudices, then accuse everybody else of same. Good reasoning skills there.
A preponderance of credible, national polling demonstrates that Clinton can barely win a general election. Trump is the only one she can likely beat, and he won't even get the GOP nomination. They'll use a brokered convention to put in Ryan or Kasich most likely. Either one will destroy her.
Anyway, if Glenn Greenwald can't convince you that the Bernie Bro narrative is bullshit I don't know what else I can say, except that "Correct the Record" exists. Campaigns with actual support don't need their Super PAC (who they use loopholes in the law to coordinate with in a way that is legal only on a technicality) to spend millions on astroturfing initiatives that they actually brag about in press releases.
Bernie isn't maxing out venues with a 30K seating capacity with Bernie Bros, folks. It's students... and moms, and dads, and grandparents, and an incredible cross section of you know... humans.
Hillary can barely fill a church. They've stopped televising her rallies. They're embarrassing.
Out of the last 10 states, Hillary has won 2, and both are under official investigation because of credible evidence of election fraud.
There's gonna be a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread in a couple of months. :-/
Greg, dude, the random pot shots are getting weird.
Muppet doesn't disappoint in toeing the conspiracy theory laden Bernie Supporters myths, I mean it takes literally seconds to do the research on stuff like the AZ voting problems to know that.
A. The Area that was having trouble was a heavily hispanic area. B. Hispanics in AZ were breaking for Clinton 60/40. C. Any suppression or location of voting booths was controlled by the county which was controlled by republicans. D. They were able to do this because of the Conservative decision on the supreme court that gutted the Voting rights act. (Note this is a reason to want a Democratic President regardless, since there is literally no liberal who would have done what they did) E. The Clinton team AND the Sanders team has filed suit. The lead Lawyer in the suit is from the Clinton team. F. She won by such a margin that even those voters had voted 100% against her she still would have won.
Give me a freaking break. Rallies don't win elections, voters do.
What was the Margin of victory in New York. 300k. Even if the 120k are all legit voters who were removed because they supported Sanders, unlikely since it was mainly from Poor and Minority areas where people move a lot it still would have been a resounding loss.
As I said somewhere else, Voting access and rights are HUUUUUGE issues that need the entire Democratic party to get behind, an issue that Republicans do not like because the more people vote the more Democrats have the advantage. Making this a Clinton/Sanders issue makes it more likely that we'll all forget about it after the primary because the winners will be tired of hearing the losers claim they are behind the oppression when it fact in these cases it's either Officals Fing up or Conservatives suppressing minority vote. Clinton was winning New York City 60/30. lets be real here. Most likely a large chunk of those 120k people moved and didn't change their address and were considered inactive or hadn't voted in a election in the last 10 years or are dead or forgot that they were registered independent. I'm sure there are some that were mistakes but lets be real.. The people most effected were minority groups and lower income people. Both groups who tend to vote for Clinton. in New York people with under 30k went 60/40 for Clinton, Black voters when 75% for Clinton and Hispanics went 64% for Clinton.
Forgive me muppet but you're making some serious claims there. I've done 0 research and here's what my gut tells me:
The person with the D next to their name will get almost half of the popular vote, and the person with the R will also get about half. Whether Hillary or Bernie, whether Trump, Kasich, or Ryan. Saying any one of those don't have a chance in the general is kinda useless. The dude with the letter has a chance, full stop.
Berniebros are probably a thing because any large cross section of a population is bound to have some bad apples, and if people wanna call them a name, that's as good as any.
Seating capacity and ability to fill arbitrary buildings seems a crappy way of measuring someone's ability to become president. It's great for telling me how good they are at filling buildings though.
Out of the last 10 states, Hillary has won 2, and both are under official investigation because of credible evidence of election fraud.
Ok, couple issues, voting fraud is simply no longer something I'm worried about. The last few years with all the malarkey about voter id and other nonsense that was touted by even your precious Greenwald as a solution looking for a problem (or perhaps a solution to a different problem) has made me numb to claims of voter fraud. If someone I don't like wins and then my peers start crying voter fraud, I think less of them for it.
Secondly from what I've heard, it's not about popular vote, (though it should be, another debate perhaps) it's about delegate pledges. Even if she has lost the last 10 states on the pop vote, I'm willing to bet she's doing just fine in the votes that count.
I don't have an agenda I'm pushing; I just wanna be a voice of reason here, inject some common sense.
Nah, that's OK. I list 'em and Churba finds a screenshot that says something else and the board calls it good. I'm bored of that game.
That's because you list the dumbest bullshit from the shadiest sources, and then act offended when people point out that your citations are usually bullshit. But hey, it's a funny way to characterize it, but you can call whatever you please, as long as you stop. You get rolled by almost everyone basically every time you show up, get a fucking clue man.
But of course, no surprise you showed up again when BernieBros were mentioned. It's like this forum's own personal Bloody Mary, say it three times in a politics thread, and one appears.
The last few years with all the malarkey about voter id and other nonsense that was touted by even your precious Greenwald as a solution
To be honest, the only reason he loves Greenwald is because the dude has been running roughshod over The Intercept, and using it as his personal pro-bernie blog, despite the deep problems with how that outlet is run, and their less-than-sterling record. If Greenwald supported Hillary, he'd be shoving me out of the way mid-criticism just to get an extra boot in their metaphorical kidneys.
"I'm making this claim while providing no evidence."
"That sounds awfully shady. You should provide evidence for these claims."
"Nah, not my reasonability. Someone else will do it, but I'll also be sarcastic about the counter-evidance they post. This is because all sources but mine are not trustworthy."
My recommended, long term remedy: EVERY school should have a class devoted to news and politics.
Did anyone here not have to take any courses on politics in high school?
It was a requirement in high school, same as you, but by then it is functionally too late. We need kids who are trained to think critically and are engaged with politics. Good luck making that happen as our newspapers die and blogs/social media become the news sources.
Muppet is providing a great example for why this is needed. Thanks, Muppet.
Bernie isn't maxing out venues with a 30K seating capacity with Bernie Bros, folks. It's students... and moms, and dads, and grandparents, and an incredible cross section of you know... humans.
Hillary can barely fill a church. They've stopped televising her rallies. They're embarrassing.
Hillary doesn't have rallies. She recognized a while ago that she sucks at those, and tailored her campaign to small events targeted at specific voters. In New York, for example, she did an event at the Apollo for black voters, she played dominoes with Dominican voters, she met small business owners in upstate, and so on.
Sanders, on the other hand, knows that he sucks at the small, personal meetings, so he goes for big rallies instead. It's an approach that works for him, just like how Hillary's approach of small events with targeted voters works for her.
So trying to say that Hillary not televising her non-existent rallies is a mark against her is disingenuous and stupid.
Also, fuck you for dismissing the people that show up to Hillary's events, and by proxy vote for her, by claiming they aren't human. That kind of BS (saying that Hillary's wins in the South don't mean anything because those states vote Republican in the General, which paints every single voter from those states as being worthless and not important to the Democratic party) is what ultimately turned me away from Bernie's campaign.
Comments
As if that will have any positive impact on the system that they want to change so much.
Note the bigger BernieBro commenter is not an American Citizen :-p or were past Bernie supporters who are annoyed with their more irrational side.
There is no meaningful engagement with that crowd, and yes I've tried (and without being a condescending douchebag, at least as far as I am able to not be a condescending douchebag).
I've had lots of productive discussion with many Sanders supporters, and actually, I'm still a Sanders supporter at heart (well, the platform at least). I voted for him in the NY primary despite my significant reservations about his capacity as a leader. I found more value in enfranchising the groundswell than in throwing my vote towards the person who was extremely likely to win anyway.
I mean, it's the first time I can recall having an interesting and possibly meaningful choice as a liberal in New York. So what the hell, roll the dice and see what happens.
So the short version is, no, I'm not worried about Berniebros not voting for Hillary because they dislike my tone, because they're almost certainly not voting for her anyway.
I'm willing to guess it's not even a crowd. Just a handful of people. Maybe.
We're all mostly collecting anecdotes, though. I don't know of any useful surveys of the Sanders-supporting crowd that would assess how many people would jump from Sanders to Trump. Just a lot of speculation and pontification.
On reddit, though, not so much. If there was a central hub for exactly that kind of Bernie supporter, if it's not reddit, I don't know where it would be.
The percentage of people is, depending on which polls you prefer and keeping in mind it's during the primary rather than when the reality of Hillary Vs Cruz or Trump hits, about 25-33% of Sanders Voters. Then tell him to have some spine, and just start calling himself a trump supporter, because if you're willing to vote for Trump if you can't have Bernie, then you never supported what Bernie stands for in the first place.
Bernie Sanders has gotten 42.6 percent of the popular vote so far (about 7.7 million votes out of 18 million). According to Politico, about 25% of Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Hillary, so that's only about 11% of the people who voted in the Democratic primaries (about 850k).
Additionally, as we get closer to the General Election, that number will most likely go down. Back in 2008, you had a similar percentage of Hillary Clinton supporters claiming they would never vote for Obama (Anyone remember the PUMAs? Party Unity My Ass), but something like 91% of all Democrats ended up voting for him, despite protests to the contrary.
A preponderance of credible, national polling demonstrates that Clinton can barely win a general election. Trump is the only one she can likely beat, and he won't even get the GOP nomination. They'll use a brokered convention to put in Ryan or Kasich most likely. Either one will destroy her.
Anyway, if Glenn Greenwald can't convince you that the Bernie Bro narrative is bullshit I don't know what else I can say, except that "Correct the Record" exists. Campaigns with actual support don't need their Super PAC (who they use loopholes in the law to coordinate with in a way that is legal only on a technicality) to spend millions on astroturfing initiatives that they actually brag about in press releases.
Bernie isn't maxing out venues with a 30K seating capacity with Bernie Bros, folks. It's students... and moms, and dads, and grandparents, and an incredible cross section of you know... humans.
Hillary can barely fill a church. They've stopped televising her rallies. They're embarrassing.
Out of the last 10 states, Hillary has won 2, and both are under official investigation because of credible evidence of election fraud.
There's gonna be a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread in a couple of months. :-/
Greg, dude, the random pot shots are getting weird.
Unless you know something Nate Silver doesn't.
A. The Area that was having trouble was a heavily hispanic area.
B. Hispanics in AZ were breaking for Clinton 60/40.
C. Any suppression or location of voting booths was controlled by the county which was controlled by republicans.
D. They were able to do this because of the Conservative decision on the supreme court that gutted the Voting rights act. (Note this is a reason to want a Democratic President regardless, since there is literally no liberal who would have done what they did)
E. The Clinton team AND the Sanders team has filed suit. The lead Lawyer in the suit is from the Clinton team.
F. She won by such a margin that even those voters had voted 100% against her she still would have won.
Give me a freaking break. Rallies don't win elections, voters do.
What was the Margin of victory in New York. 300k. Even if the 120k are all legit voters who were removed because they supported Sanders, unlikely since it was mainly from Poor and Minority areas where people move a lot it still would have been a resounding loss.
As I said somewhere else, Voting access and rights are HUUUUUGE issues that need the entire Democratic party to get behind, an issue that Republicans do not like because the more people vote the more Democrats have the advantage. Making this a Clinton/Sanders issue makes it more likely that we'll all forget about it after the primary because the winners will be tired of hearing the losers claim they are behind the oppression when it fact in these cases it's either Officals Fing up or Conservatives suppressing minority vote. Clinton was winning New York City 60/30. lets be real here. Most likely a large chunk of those 120k people moved and didn't change their address and were considered inactive or hadn't voted in a election in the last 10 years or are dead or forgot that they were registered independent. I'm sure there are some that were mistakes but lets be real.. The people most effected were minority groups and lower income people. Both groups who tend to vote for Clinton. in New York people with under 30k went 60/40 for Clinton, Black voters when 75% for Clinton and Hispanics went 64% for Clinton.
The person with the D next to their name will get almost half of the popular vote, and the person with the R will also get about half. Whether Hillary or Bernie, whether Trump, Kasich, or Ryan. Saying any one of those don't have a chance in the general is kinda useless. The dude with the letter has a chance, full stop.
Berniebros are probably a thing because any large cross section of a population is bound to have some bad apples, and if people wanna call them a name, that's as good as any.
Seating capacity and ability to fill arbitrary buildings seems a crappy way of measuring someone's ability to become president. It's great for telling me how good they are at filling buildings though. Ok, couple issues, voting fraud is simply no longer something I'm worried about. The last few years with all the malarkey about voter id and other nonsense that was touted by even your precious Greenwald as a solution looking for a problem (or perhaps a solution to a different problem) has made me numb to claims of voter fraud. If someone I don't like wins and then my peers start crying voter fraud, I think less of them for it.
Secondly from what I've heard, it's not about popular vote, (though it should be, another debate perhaps) it's about delegate pledges. Even if she has lost the last 10 states on the pop vote, I'm willing to bet she's doing just fine in the votes that count.
I don't have an agenda I'm pushing; I just wanna be a voice of reason here, inject some common sense.
But of course, no surprise you showed up again when BernieBros were mentioned. It's like this forum's own personal Bloody Mary, say it three times in a politics thread, and one appears. To be honest, the only reason he loves Greenwald is because the dude has been running roughshod over The Intercept, and using it as his personal pro-bernie blog, despite the deep problems with how that outlet is run, and their less-than-sterling record. If Greenwald supported Hillary, he'd be shoving me out of the way mid-criticism just to get an extra boot in their metaphorical kidneys.
"That sounds awfully shady. You should provide evidence for these claims."
"Nah, not my reasonability. Someone else will do it, but I'll also be sarcastic about the counter-evidance they post. This is because all sources but mine are not trustworthy."
"You haven't provided sources."
"*feedback loop*"
Muppet is providing a great example for why this is needed. Thanks, Muppet.
Sanders, on the other hand, knows that he sucks at the small, personal meetings, so he goes for big rallies instead. It's an approach that works for him, just like how Hillary's approach of small events with targeted voters works for her.
So trying to say that Hillary not televising her non-existent rallies is a mark against her is disingenuous and stupid.
Also, fuck you for dismissing the people that show up to Hillary's events, and by proxy vote for her, by claiming they aren't human. That kind of BS (saying that Hillary's wins in the South don't mean anything because those states vote Republican in the General, which paints every single voter from those states as being worthless and not important to the Democratic party) is what ultimately turned me away from Bernie's campaign.
It's not real, as far as I can tell, but I quite enjoyed seeing it.