Bernie Sanders 2020

[hanimmal]

Agree that a few are lost in propaganda but they aren't why Trump won. Exit polling in the key states showed that 90% of the people who voted for Sanders in the primary, voted for Clinton in the general election. Historically, it was was above average for voters who lost the primary but stuck with the Democratic Party's candidate instead of flipping to a third party or Trump. The best analysis I've read showed that Trump won mainly because his rhetoric strongly resonated with white people whose biases leaned toward racism and misogyny. That doesn't mean your scenario won't play out this time around but then again, this time Bernie isn't the only one who appeals to people on the left.

That is still consistent, figure 80-90% of voters won't be swayed much by propaganda posted by foreigners one way or the other when voting. It is that fringe 10-20% that they can get super fired up in the direction they want.

So if you can depress a portion of the voters (who would normally vote, remember the Russians were given polling data and hacked the voter rolls so knew who votes and for which party) and fire up the people you can direct at the politician of choice, and you can swing states/districts to the candidate of choice.

Take Michigan, depress black and muslim voters through targeted social media posts convincing them to not waste their time voting, push some other voters to the libertarian and green party candidates, and make sure to fire up the trumpets to go vote and Trump pulls it out with 10,000 votes over Clinton in a state the libertarian guy pulls 170k votes.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

That is still consistent, figure 80-90% of voters won't be swayed much by propaganda posted by foreigners one way or the other when voting. It is that fringe 10-20% that they can get super fired up in the direction they want.

So if you can depress a portion of the voters (who would normally vote, remember the Russians were given polling data and hacked the voter rolls so knew who votes and for which party) and fire up the people you can direct at the politician of choice, and you can swing states/districts to the candidate of choice.

Take Michigan, depress black and muslim voters through targeted social media posts convincing them to not waste their time voting, push some other voters to the libertarian and green party candidates, and make sure to fire up the trumpets to go vote and Trump pulls it out with 10,000 votes over Clinton in a state the libertarian guy pulls 170k votes.

And the whole time, those voters that got played will be screaming "I am voting for the candidate that supports my interests!!!"

Gee, where have I heard that before.

 

[ttystikk]

And the whole time, those voters that got played will be screaming "I am voting for the candidate that supports my interests!!!"

Gee, where have I heard that before.

So you're not supposed to vote for candidates who support your interests?

Go vote for Trump, then.

 

[UncleBuck]

So you're not supposed to vote for candidates who support your interests?

Go vote for Trump, then.

Didn’t you say you’d prefer trump over Biden?

How is that in your best interests?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

So you're not supposed to vote for candidates who support your interests?

Go vote for Trump, then.

Yeah, I would explain it to you but I am not going to try to discuss game theory with a pigeon. Didn't you advocate ranked-choice voting once? I see you didn't understand it. Not surprising.


Sad.

 

[ttystikk]

Yeah, I would explain it to you but I am not going to try to discuss game theory with a pigeon. Didn't you advocate ranked-choice voting once? I see you didn't understand it. Not surprising.


Sad.

Oh look- more drivel.

You've never explained why voting for politicians who won't act in my interest is somehow in my interest.

Just another clown.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Oh look- more drivel.

You've never explained why voting for politicians who won't act in my interest is somehow in my interest.

Just another clown.

You are becoming as dumb as @schuylaar.

 

[Fogdog]

That is still consistent, figure 80-90% of voters won't be swayed much by propaganda posted by foreigners one way or the other when voting. It is that fringe 10-20% that they can get super fired up in the direction they want.

So if you can depress a portion of the voters (who would normally vote, remember the Russians were given polling data and hacked the voter rolls so knew who votes and for which party) and fire up the people you can direct at the politician of choice, and you can swing states/districts to the candidate of choice.

Take Michigan, depress black and muslim voters through targeted social media posts convincing them to not waste their time voting, push some other voters to the libertarian and green party candidates, and make sure to fire up the trumpets to go vote and Trump pulls it out with 10,000 votes over Clinton in a state the libertarian guy pulls 170k votes.

Yes, all the things you say affected the votes around the margins. It's not why most of the people who voted for Trump did so. Trump's rhetoric attracted the racist and misogynist voters -- most were Republican but a lot were Independent conservative voters. It was enough to make the fringe elements count. That doesn't mean the fringe elements, who exist in every election were why Trump won. It was racists and misogynists who make up more than half of the the white population that drove Trump's minority win. .

In every election, there are people who flip their vote to the other party when their candidate lost. More Hillary voters did that to Obama than Sanders voters did to Hillary. Obama simply got enough votes to make those who flipped irrelevant.

One can point to many small groups who "could" have made a difference the other way. I think it's giving too much credence to the Bernie Bros to say their really small number made a difference.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Anybody who buys into that argument has failed to adequately address this point; How can you attribute the result of the 2016 election to foreign interference? What about the legitimate political grievances that were mentioned during the Democratic primary? Hillary Clinton's political record dating back to the 90s. Mainstream media and DNC favoritism during the primary. Donor funding going to corporate friendly candidates. Etc. All of this happened without the help of any foreign intervention. Clinton's record was enough to dampen the progressive support for her. The issue with the DNC again had nothing to do with any foreign entity, except that Clinton campaign/DNC collusion was exposed by one through legitimate emails they never expected to be released to the public. Instead of directing the anger brought by the content of those emails, it was instead directed at those who exposed them. I don't doubt Julian Assange and Wikileaks had ulterior motives to release them, if he wanted Trump to defeat Clinton, that's his own opinion. My argument is he would have never had the fodder to do so, according to your side, without DNC officials and Clinton campaign staffers colluding against progressives in the primary.

Essentially the argument boils down to "Wikileaks exposed corruption, the public disapproved of it, it turned off the progressive base towards Hillary Clinton, and that helped Donald trump defeat her in the general election.". For anyone to claim Hillary Clinton lost the election because progressives didn't vote for her, I would argue progressives didn't vote for her because they clearly saw that she cheated. And I'd also add that if they try to do it again with the DNC and another third way corporate Democrat like Biden, they have a very good chance of losing to Trump again because it will have the same effect within the progressive base, whereas if someone like Biden wins a race that's viewed as legitimate, most progressives will certainly vote for him, even though they disagree with most of his centrist political beliefs, and he has a good chance of defeating Trump in 2020.

 

[travisw]

Anybody who buys into that argument has failed to adequately address this point; How can you attribute the result of the 2016 election to foreign interference? What about the legitimate political grievances that were mentioned during the Democratic primary? Hillary Clinton's political record dating back to the 90s. Mainstream media and DNC favoritism during the primary. Donor funding going to corporate friendly candidates. Etc. All of this happened without the help of any foreign intervention. Clinton's record was enough to dampen the progressive support for her. The issue with the DNC again had nothing to do with any foreign entity, except that Clinton campaign/DNC collusion was exposed by one through legitimate emails they never expected to be released to the public. Instead of directing the anger brought by the content of those emails, it was instead directed at those who exposed them. I don't doubt Julian Assange and Wikileaks had ulterior motives to release them, if he wanted Trump to defeat Clinton, that's his own opinion. My argument is he would have never had the fodder to do so, according to your side, without DNC officials and Clinton campaign staffers colluding against progressives in the primary.

Essentially the argument boils down to "Wikileaks exposed corruption, the public disapproved of it, it turned off the progressive base towards Hillary Clinton, and that helped Donald trump defeat her in the general election.". For anyone to claim Hillary Clinton lost the election because progressives didn't vote for her, I would argue progressives didn't vote for her because they clearly saw that she cheated. And I'd also add that if they try to do it again with the DNC and another third way corporate Democrat like Biden, they have a very good chance of losing to Trump again because it will have the same effect within the progressive base, whereas if someone like Biden wins a race that's viewed as legitimate, most progressives will certainly vote for him, even though they disagree with most of his centrist political beliefs, and he has a good chance of defeating Trump in 2020.

Jesus Christ you mentioned Hillary Clinton 7 times and the DNC 5 times in the same fucking post. You sound like my crazy uncle Carl. I bet you spam your friends with this shit too.

Let it go kid, she ain't running for anything,

 

[Padawanbater2]

you mentioned Hillary Clinton 7 times and the DNC 5 times

This time you won't be able to blame it on progressives

Said arguments remain unaddressed

 

[hanimmal]

I think politics would be much easier if people figured out, nobody is really capable of worrying about anyone else interests unless they happen to be the same.

Yes, all the things you say affected the votes around the margins. It's not why most of the people who voted for Trump did so. Trump's rhetoric attracted the racist and misogynist voters -- most were Republican but a lot were Independent conservative voters. It was enough to make the fringe elements count. That doesn't mean the fringe elements, who exist in every election were why Trump won. It was racists and misogynists who make up more than half of the the white population that drove Trump's minority win. .

In every election, there are people who flip their vote to the other party when their candidate lost. More Hillary voters did that to Obama than Sanders voters did to Hillary. Obama simply got enough votes to make those who flipped irrelevant.

One can point to many small groups who "could" have made a difference the other way. I think it's giving too much credence to the Bernie Bros to say their really small number made a difference.

I did kind of gloss over the Trump voters part a bit, and I agree that the majority that voted for Trump were not tricked into it.

I think that the groups the foreign treatment, not that it mattered much:

Evangelical: Used anti-abortion a lot.
Small Government/Gun rights: Hilary is taking your guns
Bigots: Anti Gay stuff
Racists comes in many flavors:
Muslim Racists: ISIS, terrorists are going to get you
Black Racists: Trumps south African black people killing white farmers tweet did it for me, that was when I couldn't ignore it anymore.
Hispanic Racists: 'build the wall' hype
Jewish Racists: George Sauros and so many others
Anti-intellectual: Calling everyone 'elites', science is a hoax stuff

Im sure there are several more, but with an excel sheet and voter data that Manafort gave to the Russians,,,, oh wait i think technically it was a Ukrainian he gave it to so that Trump can say 'no collusion with Russia' and keep a strait face. .... you know who you will try to fire up with what argument. Make some posts for each in word, and slap them all over the internet with your trolls, liking people posts who say nice things, and if nobody takes the bait, log in with a second/third account that is a 'lib' and start your own virtual argument until real people bite and get sucked into the hate spiral.

Rinse and repeat.

I do think that the majority of people that voted for Trump would have voted republican no matter what last election though similar to what you said, and will again, I just hope people see what is happening online better though. It is really messing a lot of people up.

 

[hanimmal]

Anybody who buys into that argument has failed to adequately address this point; (1)How can you attribute the result of the 2016 election to foreign interference? (2)What about the legitimate political grievances that were mentioned during the Democratic primary? Hillary Clinton's political record dating back to the 90s. (3)Mainstream media and DNC favoritism during the primary. (4)Donor funding going to corporate friendly candidates. Etc. All of this happened without the help of any foreign intervention.(5) Clinton's record was enough to dampen the progressive support for her. (6)The issue with the DNC again had nothing to do with any foreign entity, except that Clinton campaign/DNC collusion was exposed by one through legitimate emails they never expected to be released to the public. (7)Instead of directing the anger brought by the content of those emails, it was instead directed at those who exposed them. (I don't doubt Julian Assange and Wikileaks had ulterior motives to release them, if he wanted Trump to defeat Clinton, that's his own opinion. My argument is he would have never had the fodder to do so, according to your side, without DNC officials and Clinton campaign staffers colluding against progressives in the primary.

(9)Essentially the argument boils down to "Wikileaks exposed corruption, the public disapproved of it, it turned off the progressive base towards Hillary Clinton, and that helped Donald trump defeat her in the general election.". For anyone to claim Hillary Clinton lost the election because progressives didn't vote for her, I would argue progressives didn't vote for her because they clearly saw that she cheated. And I'd also add that if they try to do it again with the DNC and another third way corporate Democrat like Biden, they have a very good chance of losing to Trump again because it will have the same effect within the progressive base, whereas if someone like Biden wins a race that's viewed as legitimate, most progressives will certainly vote for him, even though they disagree with most of his centrist political beliefs, and he has a good chance of defeating Trump in 2020.

(1) Because for several years there was very clearly foreign involvement in all of the garbage that was posted online that manipulated arguments and provided false information that over a hundred million Americans saw. Then for the election they pulled on every string that they had attached to peoples emotions to get them to be fired up for Trump with suppressing the vote for Hilary.

(2) Hilary Clinton's voting records in google was pretty informative and gives a interesting look at how she voted on each bill, first one was in 2001 as a co-sponsor for campaign finance reform. I really don't think it would be fair to place blame on Milania Trump for locking up children in jail for being homeless just because she was first lady and visited the border, so not sure what you mean by her voting record since the 90's.

(3) What exactly is 'mainstream'? I thought Fox was highest ratings, it seems every local station was cloned by right wing propaganda machine, and every personality on AM radio that I have heard is a right winger. Maybe you count NPR as mainstream radio? But I doubt they pull the same numbers as Rush.

(4) If I am a big business owner I too would not give money to people who have no clue what happens when they start pulling strings on everything attached to my business. People like stability when trying to consider long term business decisions.

(5) Maybe, but I doubt many people would/did take the time to actually understand her record. They just bit on the anti Hilary campaign telling them that she is bad.

(6) A foreign government broke into the DNC and stole their emails and funneled them to a puppet and leaked them strategically to do the most harm with the other candidate weaponizing them in speeches, tweets, etc. And every troll account using them in highly selective ways ignoring everything else about them to sway people into thinking that they were anything but normal.

(7) After the election though, during it they were used to beat up Clinton.

(8 ) Unless he was told to have that opinion by he masters.

(9) Wikileaks was part of a fraud on American voters.

 

[schuylaar]

You are becoming as dumb as @schuylaar.

you forgot to add 'sad'.

 

[schuylaar]

Anybody who buys into that argument has failed to adequately address this point; How can you attribute the result of the 2016 election to foreign interference? What about the legitimate political grievances that were mentioned during the Democratic primary? Hillary Clinton's political record dating back to the 90s. Mainstream media and DNC favoritism during the primary. Donor funding going to corporate friendly candidates. Etc. All of this happened without the help of any foreign intervention. Clinton's record was enough to dampen the progressive support for her. The issue with the DNC again had nothing to do with any foreign entity, except that Clinton campaign/DNC collusion was exposed by one through legitimate emails they never expected to be released to the public. Instead of directing the anger brought by the content of those emails, it was instead directed at those who exposed them. I don't doubt Julian Assange and Wikileaks had ulterior motives to release them, if he wanted Trump to defeat Clinton, that's his own opinion. My argument is he would have never had the fodder to do so, according to your side, without DNC officials and Clinton campaign staffers colluding against progressives in the primary.

Essentially the argument boils down to "Wikileaks exposed corruption, the public disapproved of it, it turned off the progressive base towards Hillary Clinton, and that helped Donald trump defeat her in the general election.". For anyone to claim Hillary Clinton lost the election because progressives didn't vote for her, I would argue progressives didn't vote for her because they clearly saw that she cheated. And I'd also add that if they try to do it again with the DNC and another third way corporate Democrat like Biden, they have a very good chance of losing to Trump again because it will have the same effect within the progressive base, whereas if someone like Biden wins a race that's viewed as legitimate, most progressives will certainly vote for him, even though they disagree with most of his centrist political beliefs, and he has a good chance of defeating Trump in 2020.

and in 2008..was it still her turn back then?

bad obama! bad, bad obama!

 

[schuylaar]

Didn’t you say you’d prefer trump over Biden?

How is that in your best interests?

biden will lose.

 

[zeddd]

Anybody who buys into that argument has failed to adequately address this point; How can you attribute the result of the 2016 election to foreign interference? What about the legitimate political grievances that were mentioned during the Democratic primary? Hillary Clinton's political record dating back to the 90s. Mainstream media and DNC favoritism during the primary. Donor funding going to corporate friendly candidates. Etc. All of this happened without the help of any foreign intervention. Clinton's record was enough to dampen the progressive support for her. The issue with the DNC again had nothing to do with any foreign entity, except that Clinton campaign/DNC collusion was exposed by one through legitimate emails they never expected to be released to the public. Instead of directing the anger brought by the content of those emails, it was instead directed at those who exposed them. I don't doubt Julian Assange and Wikileaks had ulterior motives to release them, if he wanted Trump to defeat Clinton, that's his own opinion. My argument is he would have never had the fodder to do so, according to your side, without DNC officials and Clinton campaign staffers colluding against progressives in the primary.

Essentially the argument boils down to "Wikileaks exposed corruption, the public disapproved of it, it turned off the progressive base towards Hillary Clinton, and that helped Donald trump defeat her in the general election.". For anyone to claim Hillary Clinton lost the election because progressives didn't vote for her, I would argue progressives didn't vote for her because they clearly saw that she cheated. And I'd also add that if they try to do it again with the DNC and another third way corporate Democrat like Biden, they have a very good chance of losing to Trump again because it will have the same effect within the progressive base, whereas if someone like Biden wins a race that's viewed as legitimate, most progressives will certainly vote for him, even though they disagree with most of his centrist political beliefs, and he has a good chance of defeating Trump in 2020.

Vote Bernie get Trump

 

[Fogdog]

Anybody who buys into that argument has failed to adequately address this point; How can you attribute the result of the 2016 election to foreign interference? What about the legitimate political grievances that were mentioned during the Democratic primary? Hillary Clinton's political record dating back to the 90s. Mainstream media and DNC favoritism during the primary. Donor funding going to corporate friendly candidates. Etc. All of this happened without the help of any foreign intervention. Clinton's record was enough to dampen the progressive support for her. The issue with the DNC again had nothing to do with any foreign entity, except that Clinton campaign/DNC collusion was exposed by one through legitimate emails they never expected to be released to the public. Instead of directing the anger brought by the content of those emails, it was instead directed at those who exposed them. I don't doubt Julian Assange and Wikileaks had ulterior motives to release them, if he wanted Trump to defeat Clinton, that's his own opinion. My argument is he would have never had the fodder to do so, according to your side, without DNC officials and Clinton campaign staffers colluding against progressives in the primary.

Essentially the argument boils down to "Wikileaks exposed corruption, the public disapproved of it, it turned off the progressive base towards Hillary Clinton, and that helped Donald trump defeat her in the general election.". For anyone to claim Hillary Clinton lost the election because progressives didn't vote for her, I would argue progressives didn't vote for her because they clearly saw that she cheated. And I'd also add that if they try to do it again with the DNC and another third way corporate Democrat like Biden, they have a very good chance of losing to Trump again because it will have the same effect within the progressive base, whereas if someone like Biden wins a race that's viewed as legitimate, most progressives will certainly vote for him, even though they disagree with most of his centrist political beliefs, and he has a good chance of defeating Trump in 2020.

If you had bothered to sound out the words in my post, I'm attributing Trump's minority presidential win to racism and misogyny of Trump's voters. Regarding your claim that "Clinton's record was enough to dampen the progressive support for her.", as I said earlier, Sanders voters in the primary stayed true to the party in historically high numbers compared to other voters in a similar situation in past elections. Sanders so-called "Progressives" were mainly rational and 90% of them voted for the better candidate even though they didn't like her.

You reasonably ask how can we attribute the effect of 2016 foreign interference? To which, an honest person would say "we can't say how much of an effect it had". The same can be said about your entire list of complaints, many of which are imagined and not real. None of them are quantified. Most are denied for being false with good evidence is given for saying so, unlike your claims.

You still haven't answered a couple of questions I keep asking about your unproven or, better said, false claims of: Media favoritism, DNC take-over by Clinton's campaign, or my favorite, DNC undermining Bernie. As you know, Bernie lost the primary because he ONLY received majority vote from white men. He lost all the other voter groups of the Democratic party: women voters, black voters, hispanic voter, etc. If your theory were true, why weren't white men also affected in the same way? In order for your theory to be correct then you are also claiming that white men are more resistant to manipulation than everybody else.

Your theory fails on two ends. First, there is no evidence that nefarious actions you claim, many of which never happened, actually affected anything. Second, the theory that these action had an effect hinge on the already disproven theories of racism and misogyny that claim white men are superior. A better explanation is that Bernie's policies failed to convince much of the Democratic base to vote for him. His appeal was mostly to white men.

By repeating your theory of DNC collusion, you are agreeing with racists and misogynists and saying that white men are superior. Basically what you just said stinks to high heaven of the same motivations that brought us Trump.

 

[UncleBuck]

Anybody who buys into that argument has failed to adequately address this point; How can you attribute the result of the 2016 election to foreign interference? What about the legitimate political grievances that were mentioned during the Democratic primary? Hillary Clinton's political record dating back to the 90s. Mainstream media and DNC favoritism during the primary. Donor funding going to corporate friendly candidates. Etc. All of this happened without the help of any foreign intervention. Clinton's record was enough to dampen the progressive support for her. The issue with the DNC again had nothing to do with any foreign entity, except that Clinton campaign/DNC collusion was exposed by one through legitimate emails they never expected to be released to the public. Instead of directing the anger brought by the content of those emails, it was instead directed at those who exposed them. I don't doubt Julian Assange and Wikileaks had ulterior motives to release them, if he wanted Trump to defeat Clinton, that's his own opinion. My argument is he would have never had the fodder to do so, according to your side, without DNC officials and Clinton campaign staffers colluding against progressives in the primary.

Essentially the argument boils down to "Wikileaks exposed corruption, the public disapproved of it, it turned off the progressive base towards Hillary Clinton, and that helped Donald trump defeat her in the general election.". For anyone to claim Hillary Clinton lost the election because progressives didn't vote for her, I would argue progressives didn't vote for her because they clearly saw that she cheated. And I'd also add that if they try to do it again with the DNC and another third way corporate Democrat like Biden, they have a very good chance of losing to Trump again because it will have the same effect within the progressive base, whereas if someone like Biden wins a race that's viewed as legitimate, most progressives will certainly vote for him, even though they disagree with most of his centrist political beliefs, and he has a good chance of defeating Trump in 2020.

[wails of children in concentration camps grows louder]

Padaraper: fuckin’ hillary clinton

 

[Padawanbater2]

(1) How can you quantify the effect it had?

(2) I don't place blame on Hillary Clinton for Bill Clinton signing the bill that killed Glass-Steagall, for example. But her political record throughout her entire career in politics has been that of a conservative Democrat. Previous to entering politics, she was a 'Goldwater girl'. Her voting record while serving as a Senator from NY reflects that; she voted for the Iraq War, the biggest foreign policy blunder in modern American history. Imo, that alone is a disqualifier to be president. Beyond that, she didn't support gay marriage until 2013, she doesn't support universal healthcare, and she doesn't support enacting a living wage. Her credentials speak for themselves, no foreign interference required

(3) CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc. Cable news broadcasters who depend on selling ad space. Most mainstream media outlets carry an establishment political bias which is why they were overwhelmingly favorable to Clinton and opposed to Sanders

(4) I agree, which is why I support public funding of elections and enacting a 28th amendment that eliminates legal corruption from influencing our elections. Democratic party elites, and establishment sycophants refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the possibility of corruption influencing the Democratic party in the same way NRA money or defense contractor money influences the Republican party

(5) Again, no real way to quantify that, so all we're left with is speculation upon which no real conclusion can be drawn. Her voting record as Senator absolutely turned me off to voting for her

(6) The harm to Clinton's campaign wasn't brought by the exposure of the emails between the DNC and her campaign, it was the content of said emails that proved to many voters their vote didn't actually matter, and further fortified in the class action fraud lawsuit that followed by the DNCs own lawyer stating they could choose the Democratic nominee in a "smoke filled back room" if they wanted to and it would be completely legal

This had a dramatic effect on voter apathy at the polls, and I believe, led to a significant enough amount of people to just walk away from the election all together because they felt like they had no say in it anyway

(7) ?

(9) The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC was part of a fraud on American voters. Wikileaks simply exposed it. In no rational context does the idea of blaming the people who exposed government corruption exist. If it did, we wouldn't blame Nixon, we'd blame Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein for publishing Mark Felt's accounts of Watergate in WaPO, but we don't.

It's the responsibility of journalists to expose government corruption and hold politicians accountable. By giving 35 year sentences to heroic whistleblowers while those who commit the crimes they expose go unpunished, you help create a precedent that the 1st amendment can be subverted if the administration in charge can simply deem it a 'national security threat', and bury under the rug any evidence of their corruption