|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Jaxyon posted:Bernie was never going to win that primary. Even he was surprised by how well he did. That was the never the goal of him running. Oh, I didn't realize he never intended to win. That makes it all OK. Thanks.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Bernie was never going to win that primary. Even he was surprised by how well he did. That was the never the goal of him running. He persisted, she resisted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm not. I've answered this. No you have not. "win the black vote" isn't a plan, its the result of a plan. The article does not actually advocate any concrete thing, and you can't use it as a surrogate for your own thoughts. What are your thoughts, about the situation put forth in that article? What would you like the plan to be? What do you actually think? There is a plan right now and it's working, but we agree it can be better, you'll notice I'm straight repeating myself why didn't i just copypaste? idk. Four times. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I love how even the article writer had to preface his article with a "I don't hate Bernie" because people will literally not shut up about him if you criticize him in the slightest. He had to preface it that way because he made an incredibly intellectually dishonest argument argument. There are many criticisms of Bernie that can be made. A ton of people on the left have made them. The "Bernie is a closet racist who can't win minority vote" is simply not intellectually honest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:"People like me" tell me more about people like me. I mean the only way I could disagree with Bernie would be to be calling him a white supremacist and loving the hell out of Hillary right? Idiots. Specifically, an idiot that doesn't realize that people can press the '?" at the bottom of their post and read every post they've made in a thread. Count how many times race comes up in your defense of Hillary (and to smear any politician that could pull the party to the left) https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3816838&userid=217436
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I love how even the article writer had to preface his article with a "I don't hate Bernie" because people will literally not shut up about him if you criticize him in the slightest. Well they realized they have to lie now, because their audience realizes that he is on their side.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:No you have not. "win the black vote" isn't a plan, its the result of a plan. The article does not actually advocate any concrete thing, and you can't use it as a surrogate for your own thoughts. What are your thoughts, about the situation put forth in that article? What would you like the plan to be? What do you actually think? There is a plan right now and it's working. Four times. Article said, campaign in the south, extensively. I said, don't speak to people in terms that are construed as colorblind, talk to people about their lives and their community. Stop using the classic white leftist "fix class and we fix race" in front of black folks. Save it for the white people. Talk to black folks and black women in terms that matter to their life instead of generalities. I don't disagree that he has/had better substance than Hillary on policy, he absolutely does. She's a moderate-conservative, he's a social democrat. The issue is the connection. I may not have all the answers, but I saw time and time again, especially back when BLM was interrupting his rallies, that he talks in generalities about black people unless forced, and I don't know that has changed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:He had to preface it that way because he made an incredibly intellectually dishonest argument argument. This is like a babby's first race discussion if any discussion about whether a candidate (any candidate) is speaking enough to the concerns of minority voters devolves into "are you calling candidate X (or his supporters) a RACIST?! The worst thing you can call someone in America?!!" Get this: admitting there's a way to do better outreach is a sign of strength, not weakness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Article said, campaign in the south, extensively. Which parts of the South? Working class areas, or wealthy, white, educated areas? Because if the Ossoff campaign is any indication, the Clintonistas seem dead-set on pursuing the latter communities, and ignoring the former. quote:I said, don't speak to people in terms that are construed as colorblind, talk to people about their lives and their community. Wait a second, when has Sanders used that type of language recently? And do you have any other suggestions, beyond campaigning extensively in the South and not talking like a "colorblind" leftist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Idiots. Uh oh I talked poo poo about Tulsi guess I hate all leftists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm not. I've answered this. Since your only concern is to condemn economic equality, while promoting politicians with extensive histories of discriminatory and actively harmful policies - what else are you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Get this: admitting there's a way to do better outreach is a sign of strength, not weakness. If that were the theme of the article, and if it had more profound suggestions for Sanders than it does, I would agree. But that's not what the article is going for. The article is saying the same thing that conservative Democrats have been bleating for over a year: "Don't vote for Sanders; he won't win the black vote." Which is less than helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Bernie was never going to win that primary. Even he was surprised by how well he did. That was the never the goal of him running. Good news, the 2016 primaries are a matter of the past! The 2020 primaries will be a different thing. Once again, I assume you would have recommended Reagan to save himself the embarrassment of running in 1980 after losing to Ford in 1976.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:This is like a babby's first race discussion if any discussion about whether a candidate (any candidate) is speaking enough to the concerns of minority voters devolves into "are you calling candidate X (or his supporters) a RACIST?! The worst thing you can call someone in America?!!" This tends to happen whenever you criticize Bernie online. I was a major Bernie supporter up until he lost he primary, then I, like him, shifted to Clinton because gently caress Trump. I think that Bernie wasn't going to win the primary because he had image issues, and trouble getting black votes at the time, and he hasn't necessarily changed much, though his image has done very well not losing to trump. But I also don't think he should be a legit candidate for 2020. Not that there are any really good options for the Dems right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Uh oh I talked poo poo about Tulsi guess I hate all leftists. Well, it's kinda funny how you're pushing the false narrative of 'bernie only cares about white people and only white people are bernie fans' while simultaneously carrying water for Clinton in nearly post and claiming that you voted for Bernie in the primary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:This is like a babby's first race discussion if any discussion about whether a candidate (any candidate) is speaking enough to the concerns of minority voters devolves into "are you calling candidate X (or his supporters) a RACIST?! The worst thing you can call someone in America?!!" That is not at all what is going on. What is actually happening is "You are calling candidate X racist against all evidence, to serve your own interest, with a callous disregard for actual preferences of minority voters, and in doing so you betray your own beliefs"
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:But I also don't think he should be a legit candidate for 2020. Not that there are any really good options for the Dems right now. This is the dumbest logic I've ever seen. We have the most popular politician in America available and you don't want him to run.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:A favorability poll doesn't mean he's going to do well against a specific candidate. He didn't vs Hillary, and that's reality. Now you're just crossing into "but can you literally prove that he'll do better in the future using a crystal ball" territory. Ultimately the burden falls on you to prove your point in this case (since you're making the positive claim that Sanders would perform unusual poorly compared with some other random Democrat in the primary*), and the only evidence against Sanders comes from a time prior to him having wide recognition. Also, it could very easily be argued that Clinton had a unique advantage with black voters due to the perception of the Clintons being strong in that area, so it doesn't make sense to assume the issue was due to a flaw on Sanders' part so much as Clinton benefiting from the reputation of Bill's presidency ("first black president" and all that). This certainly isn't to say that Sanders didn't make flaws with respect to courting the black community, but I don't think he did anything particularly wrong when compared with Clinton specifically. *I'm assuming you're just talking about the primary, because your argument absolutely doesn't work when discussing the general election. Jaxyon posted:I think that Bernie wasn't going to win the primary because he had image issues It is infinitely more likely that he lost due to not having anywhere near the name recognition of Clinton (along the the positive association with the 90's she gained through her connection to Bill).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Bernie's age is an issue but there are no longer any rules against who can be president
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Where does the article call Sanders a racist? I don't think I read the same thing you did. The basic theme is 1) skepticism of his appeal to black voters which is related to 2) a messaging problem. The "are you calling us racist" card is an old conservative canard that is used to shut down any nuanced discussion, and it's a bad look on this thread of mostly white guys because people who aren't Internet White Dudes also want candidates who speak to their concerns. Having a cool platform is not enough. The message needs to connect.Majorian posted:If that were the theme of the article, and if it had more profound suggestions for Sanders than it does, I would agree. But that's not what the article is going for. The article is saying the same thing that conservative Democrats have been bleating for over a year: "Don't vote for Sanders; he won't win the black vote." Which is less than helpful. Well, they gave a solid example of him not being able to answer a question about race except on class grounds. He wouldn't have needed to change any part of his platform even to speak to the lady's concern.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Right, I meant to replace "calling candidate x a racist" with "asking questions about a candidate based on empirically false premises, despite being well aware of said falsehoods"
steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Is there a politician more popular with black women than Bernie?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:it's a bad look on this thread of mostly white guys because people who aren't Internet White Dudes also want candidates who speak to their concerns I'd argue stuff like this is a worse look.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Where does the article call Sanders a racist? I don't think I read the same thing you did. The issue here is that people defending the article seem to act like they're haggling; as if the fact that it's not calling him racist means that it's above critique. Quite a few people now have given source-based criticisms now, which have been ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:it's a bad look on this thread of mostly white guys because people who aren't Internet White Dudes also want candidates who speak to their concerns - Why does Bernie Sanders have higher popularity among black people, women and black women than any other politician if he doesn't - Who speaks to their concern, how does speaking to one's concerns manifest through concrete actions not undertaken by the Sanders campaign or Sanders himself, and why do the voters not prefer these people speaking to their concerns over a man who ostensibly ignores their concerns?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Well, it's kinda funny how you're pushing the false narrative of 'bernie only cares about white people and only white people are bernie fans' But I'm not saying that. Bernie was active in civil rights in the 60's, and is demonstrably better on issues that would help black people. He just doesn't translate it well. quote:while simultaneously carrying water for Clinton in nearly post and claiming that you voted for Bernie in the primary. I think Hillary had a bunch of things going against her, including sexism and internalized Clinton hate from people who've been hearing it for years. She's not a good person, but wasn't a spectacularly bad one as Democrats go. I'd have preferred Bernie by quite a bit, but I think a lot of Clinton hate is overblown anger at her for losing to Trump. I also don't know how effective Bernie would have been in office, but at least he'd have been starting from a lefter position instead of a compromised moderate one. His goal in the primaries was to push Clinton to the left, which he did, and I'm sure he was as surprised by how well he did as many people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The issue here is that people defending the article seem to act like they're haggling; as if the fact that it's not calling him racist means that it's above critique. Quite a few people now have given source-based criticisms now, which have been ignored. I've specifically addressed his current favorability, which is the only source-based counter to the article. A lot of the response has just been ad-homing. The article isn't above critique. But neither is Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
tell me more about your opinions on race discussions, Trump voter call me charliesteinrokkan posted:Right, I meant to replace "calling candidate x a racist" with "asking questions about a candidate based on empirically false premises, despite being well aware of said falsehoods" Well there is a huge difference between those two things, but what is empirically false? Nothing. It's a prediction that seems to mostly be about how he could do in the primaries based upon how he did in past primaries. Add in the subjective nature of what makes someone "a front runner" 3 yrs out and none of that is in empirical territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:But I'm not saying that. Bernie was active in civil rights in the 60's, and is demonstrably better on issues that would help black people. He just doesn't translate it well. Those are sensible opinions, but I don't understand how you go from that to the idea that the most popular political movement in America should be discarded in the future because it over-performs expectations, like performing well is a bad thing? Like you said Sanders and his supporters should just accept whatever the party deigns to be the appropriate representation of their interests.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:tell me more about your opinions on race discussions, Trump voter call me charlie at least he didn't vote for a slaveowner
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Talk to black folks and black women in terms that matter to their life instead of generalities. Or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rMVNC5l4IM
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Those are sensible opinions, but I don't understand how you go from that to the idea that the most popular political movement in America should be discarded in the future because it over-performs expectations, like performing well is a bad thing? Like you said Sanders and his supporters should just accept whatever the party deigns to be the appropriate representation of their interests. No, I said Sanders should back whomever is a good candidate in 2020. Not run himself. I don't think it's a good idea for a 78yo guy to run even if he's lab-created combination of Eugene Debs and Malcolm X
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:How about a robust suite of social programs for the affordability of education/healthcare, access to credit, wages, daycare, pre-school, maternity leave, vacation time, private prison, drug and law enforcement reform IN YOUR COMMUNITY there I fixed it
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:No, I said Sanders should back whomever is a good candidate in 2020. Not run himself. I don't think it's a good idea for a 78yo guy to run even if he's lab-created combination of Eugene Debs and Malcolm X
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:No, I said Sanders should back whomever is a good candidate in 2020. Not run himself. I don't think it's a good idea for a 78yo guy to run even if he's lab-created combination of Eugene Debs and Malcolm X What's the problem with him being 78 exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:there I fixed it How is that not a vague generality?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What's the problem with him being 78 exactly? we've had two mush brained presidents in less than fifty years. i love bernie but we do want to roll the dice on #3
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
realistically though it probably has to be bernie because theres no one he could pick as a surrogate and not overshadow to a hilarious degree on the campaign
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What's the problem with him being 78 exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:- Why does Bernie Sanders have higher popularity among black people, women and black women than any other politician if he doesn't He now has high name recognition and no one running against him. Of course he will do better than a bunch of unknowns and someone (Clinton) who is now known as a loser. But we know for a fact he did not have higher popularity during the primary, and this article is focused on primaries. Cherry-picking data and spinning is easy. That's why every rear end in a top hat of every ideology with an opinion feels so great making predictions. Circumstances change. John McCain used to be the most popular politician in the US, hth. On the second question, speaking to someone's concerns is a matter of messaging. So don't sidestep a racial justice question with just saying it's a matter of class, to use the concrete example from the article.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:31
|
|