|
steinrokkan posted:Hillary's problem wasn't that she had name recognition per se, bud She was the second most disliked candidate in polling history - behind Trump. And - here's the thing - the more people saw of her, the more they disliked her. She had the worst kind of name recognition, the kind that people say "oh yeah I know that person - they stink!"
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Bernie can't run for president because Jotun are not citizens of America Devil and Mister Webster rules apply.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:She was the second most disliked candidate in polling history - behind Trump. Exactly, if she and Bernie had been identical except her name recognition had been better, she would have been a better candidate to run in the election. It's very disingenuous to claim Hillary was attacked for being famous without touching on the actually salient parts of the criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Lol arguing we need to run Bernie because of name recognition is literally some pro Hillary Anti Bernie 2016 primary rhetoric. The argument is that we need to run Bernie because he is good. The argument for running him over a hypothetical unknown person who is just as good is that Bernie has the advantage of name recognition and won't start the primary off at a humongous deficit with a corporate-controlled media trying to pretend he doesn't exist. This is a good argument, because the name recognition is an additional advantage for an already good candidate. The argument for running Hillary was that it didn't matter if she was good or bad, she had name recognition. This is a terrible argument because name recognition doesn't make up for being a loving terrible candidate, and the consequences were the US falling to cheeto fascism. Hope that clears everything up for you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Lol arguing we need to run Bernie because of name recognition is literally some pro Hillary Anti Bernie 2016 primary rhetoric. Bernie was and is better than Hillary. If someone better than Bernie runs, I'd vote for them (as would most everyone else posting about this I assume). Until then though, he has both the name recognition and the fact that he's better than anyone else people have thrown out going for him. Don't really know what parallel you're trying to make, unless you got someone you can think of who is better and also legally allowed to be the president.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Yeah I would dump Bernie for a candidate with better ideas in a heartbeat. This is what hillbots will never understand, they just assume everyone's politics is the same braindead personality cult as theirs is, so they think it's some kind of gotcha if I say "it's good Bernie is a household name" because they used that same argument to convince themselves Hillary's horrible platform and public corruption didn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I would dump Bernie for a candidate with better ideas in a heartbeat. Unless you have a candidate who has identical ideas, priorities and past record, which is essentially impossible, an alternative candidate is either going to be better or worse on policy/ideas, so you would either prefer them or not prefer them accordingly. Thus, by your own standards in this post, name recognition, age, and indeed all other factors, are irrelevant. I would suggest this is not a particularly good way to judge candidates. Certainly, the majority of the judgement should be based on policy, but it is not wrong to consider other factors like age, health, name recognition, general approval levels, past legislative history, and other factors. Reasonable people can disagree on the relative weights of those factors too, so we shouldn't treat it like some sort of puzzle where we catch someone in some sort of logical contradiction. It's reasonable to support Bernie over someone else with similar policies because of name recognition, while at the same time not supporting someone with greater name recognition if they have bad policies, for example. The current investment of the American left in the person of Bernie Sanders himself, though, is far more of a personality cult than Hillary ever had. I doubt you could find a single person who didn't think Hillary was eminently replaceable, even if they thought she was the best person in the primary (she wasn't) or the general (she was, by a long shot).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The current investment of the American left in the person of Bernie Sanders himself, though, is far more of a personality cult than Hillary ever had. Hahaha, oh my lord, this post is too funny in the wake of the centrist cult gathering at Ozyfest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The current investment of the American left in the person of Bernie Sanders himself, though, is far more of a personality cult than Hillary ever had. I doubt you could find a single person who didn't think Hillary was eminently replaceable, even if they thought she was the best person in the primary (she wasn't) or the general (she was, by a long shot). Nah this is just projection because cult of personality is all hillbots know and they assume everyone is like them. The fact that you can't name a single politician as good or better than Bernie that ""should"" have a following should tell you that the reason people like Bernie so much that he ranks as the most popular politician in America is because he is the best thing on offer and not because they all joined some kind of cult. Like at least if you had an answer when I asked you who is better then you could make the case that only cult-like behavior could explain people not flocking to the better person on the merits but you don't so you can't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah this is just projection because cult of personality is all hillbots know and they assume everyone is like them. Well, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comes to mind but she's too young to be president. Look at what happened to the NDP in Canada because they focused too much on the person of Jack Layton rather than policy stuff -- a quick shot up to the official opposition, and then an equally quick drop back into relative irrelevance as soon Layton died and/or a newer, shinier politician (Trudeau) came along. Y'all should be looking for who is going to be the next Bernie Sanders right now, whether or not he runs for president in 2020, because by the time he's no longer around, it'll be far too late. Nearly 40 years ago, Bernie became the mayor of a reasonably minor city. I'd bet very strongly that there is a mayor or some other reasonably obscure elected official who will be the next Bernie Sanders, and if we don't wait the whole 40 years to find them first, that can be a long and fruitful career in federal politics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Well, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez comes to mind but she's too young to be president. After reading this post, I think I'm willing to support the wall if we build it on the northern border. The counter argument is looking across the pond to Corbyn singlehandedly breathing life back into Labour. But this is the USPOL thread so maybe go away with your weird PM who's a neolib and likes to elbow women really hard. E: I mean, for Christ's sake, we've been saying over and over again that we are building a bench but on the national stage Bernie is what we have right now and we get a long navelgazey post that's both a lecture and a weird diatribe about Canadian politics that no one gives a poo poo about. Matt Zerella fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jul 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:After reading this post, I think I'm willing to support the wall if we build it on the northern border. Yes, you know why we got our neolib PM? Because the NDP wasn't focused enough on policy, and was focused too much on its well-liked former leader who got cancer and died. Corbyn also doesn't prove the point you think he does. He revitalized Labour because of the ideas he brought forward -- ideas that were clearly lacking within the party as it stood. Though he is the current leader of the party, those ideas, and the segment of the party he activated, won't vanish if/when he leaves. But, yes, it is an issue that he too must consider eventually -- how to make sure he ideas and ideals live on within the party even once his leadership is over. To Bernie's credit, I think he is, personally, absolutely making all the rights moves to do exactly that. The way he's campaigning for other politicians throughout the country, and visibly being associated with the next generation of progressives like Ocasio-Cortez, is excellent, and that's exactly what he needs to continue to do -- and I have no doubt he'll do it, because he realizes in a way that many of his fans do not, that it is his ideas that are important.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Corbyn also doesn't prove the point you think he does. He revitalized Labour because of the ideas he brought forward -- ideas that were clearly lacking within the party as it stood. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Y'all should be looking for who is going to be the next Bernie Sanders right now, whether or not he runs for president in 2020, because by the time he's no longer around, it'll be far too late. Yeah, we get it, Bernie's old and he won't be around forever. Show me a viable leftist candidate with a shot in 2020 and I'll switch to supporting them first and foremost. Oh, what's that? There are none because they've been systematically denied access to the party for the last thirty years? Well, gently caress. Guess we'll just have to go with who we got while we build up the bench (which is happening already - you also seem to not be picking up on that). Like, did you not listen to the Steny Hoyer tape? Or read a transcript? And that was in 2018. After Virginia, various special elections showing renewed viability of the left, etc. How do you think it was in 2011? 2003? Think you can take a guess?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Yeah, there would be an argument is there was another younger politician waiting in the wings but there isn't. You got to go with what you have, and none of the other front-runners are acceptable. Ocasio-Cortez might very well be a good candidate in 2028 though (I don't she think can quite make 2024).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I don't object to Bernie's oldness because I think people wouldn't vote for him, I object to it because I personally think anyone 70+ is not in ideal shape for the presidency. It's a demanding position, and the fact that y'all elected someone who's completely unqualified and unsuited to it on literally every level this time around doesn't make it a good idea. Bernie is currently the hardest-working man in politics. The dude literally sprints from one location to another on behalf of other candidates, while the rest of the Senate sits on their fat butts and counts their corporate-donor money. eg: Willa - Let me tell you about two different kinds of meetings that took place this past weekend. On Friday, along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, I went to Kansas and held rallies with two great progressive candidates who are running for Congress. In Wichita, according to local media reports, more than 4,000 people joined us at a rally with James Thompson. Then in Kansas City, at our rally for Brent Welder, the convention center was so crowded the staff had to remove a wall in the middle while the event was going on to let more people in. These were incredible crowds coming out in more than 100-degree weather to participate in our political revolution. And, yes, this was Kansas where Republicans control almost everything. There was quite a different event in Columbus, Ohio. Two hundred and fifty wealthy invited Democratic donors and Wall Street insiders came together at a gathering hosted by a real estate billionaire. Why were they there? The headline on an NBC News story tells it all: "Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it. Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement." What are they concerned about? That our ideas, such as Medicare for all, tuition-free public colleges and universities, a $15/hr minimum wage and progressive taxation are now mainstream positions. Make no mistake about it. The gathering in Columbus was not simply a social event. The corporate Democrats are plotting how to defeat progressives the only way they know how — with big money. But you’ve shown that, together, we can overcome their brand of pay-to-play politics. Brent Welder is one of those candidates the political and financial establishment wants to beat. But if we’re with him, he’s going to win: Can you split a $50 donation between Brent Welder’s campaign and my work campaigning for progressive candidates like Brent who will work with me to transform America? I would not ask if it was not so important. The big money interests should be scared. During the past two weekends, I have been traveling across the country and what I’ve seen has been remarkable. This weekend we were in Kansas. The previous weekend I was in Minnesota where we held two rallies for Congressman Keith Ellison who is running for Attorney General there. We packed “First Avenue” in Minneapolis where the crowd heard not only from myself and Keith but an inspiring speech by Ady Barkan. Diagnosed with ALS, Ady has dedicated the remainder of his life to fighting for Medicare for all and other progressive goals. It would be impossible to hear Ady and not be inspired. Later in Duluth, an area many in the national media would like to write off as “Trump Country,” we spoke to a packed auditorium of progressives hungry for changes. We then drove to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, where the next morning we held a rally with Senator Tammy Baldwin. Once again, in a conservative part of the state, the turnout was great. Tammy is one of the strong progressive members of the Senate. That is why the Koch Brothers are spending millions to try and defeat her. Later that day, we held a rally in the UAW hall in Janesville, Wisconsin with Randy Bryce, a union ironworker who is running a great grassroots campaign for Congress in the seat currently held by Speaker Paul Ryan. Wouldn't that be a great victory for Randy to win the seat currently held by the Republican Speaker? And, from what I saw in Janesville, he can do it. From Wisconsin, we flew to Pittsburgh where I addressed the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) national convention. While in Pittsburgh, I also held a rally with progressive John Fetterman, who won an upset victory in the Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor Democratic Primary. At the rally Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato, two young Democratic Socialists in Pittsburgh, talked about the recent landslide victories they won as they unseated two long-term, veteran incumbents. Their campaigns brought together hundreds of volunteers who knocked on doors to fuel the progressive victory. These are the type of campaigns we need to run if we are going to win. And right now one progressive, grassroots Democratic candidate needs your support. Can you split a $50 donation between Brent Welder’s campaign and my work campaigning for progressive candidates like Brent who will work with me to transform America? I would not ask if it was not so important. As Alexandria, Summer, and Sara have demonstrated, we can win seemingly impossible campaigns if we run on issues that speak to the needs of working people while harnessing the grassroots energy to drive our campaigns forward. There is a reason why the corporate Democrats are getting nervous. And that's because we are making real progress in transforming the party and the nation. Let's keep going forward. In solidarity, Bernie Sanders
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
PT6A posted:he realizes in a way that many of his fans do not, that it is his ideas that are important. Why do you think this about his fans. Is it not much more likely that his fans are his fans because they get how important his ideas are, rather than through some unaccountable coincidence a cult of personality just happened to form around this guy completely unrelated to the fact that he is the only national politician communicating these ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
I will not compromise on old fart bernie. Give me a young socialist candidate or give me death
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 05:14
|
|
|
Yes he may be very attractive, and he may have a beautiful voice, and he may be one of the most gifted rhetoriticians alive, but we cant allow ourselves to get caught up in his personality cult. It's the ideas that matter. Pass on the torch bernie
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 05:16
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Weird how pretty much everyone in this thread basically agrees with the thrust of your argument yet you're still waddling around this thread pretending you're Cassandra. You understand how political campaigns work, right? You don't enter with name recognition, you leave with it. Nobody knew who the hell Obama was, he certainly didn't have the name recognition of Hilldawg at the start and nobody thought he had a shot in hell. There's a reason bernie is running around campaigning hard for leftists. He's trying to make a movement that will outlast him and keep pushing. If someone's gonna find another good candidate to run in a bernie style way, it'll be him or someone in that network. 2020 is a long ways away. A lot of the big political figures we're talking about are 70+ and may not even survive to 2020. It's a valid concern to see leftists push all their chips in on someone that old when they should be out looking for the person who will replace him (like what a lot of leftists are doing right now, just not on these forums). It's really loving disheartening to see so many leftists fall into a cult of personality behind a guy who, by all accounts, doesn't want to be the head of one, and certainly isn't acting like one.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 05:51
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:You understand how political campaigns work, right? You don't enter with name recognition, you leave with it. Nobody knew who the hell Obama was, he certainly didn't have the name recognition of Hilldawg at the start and nobody thought he had a shot in hell. I get that you just started paying attention to politics this week and that's fine and understandable, but Obama gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and was being bandied about as a future presidential candidate in the press almost immediately quote:Immediately after the speech MSNBC host Chris Matthews admitted, "I have to tell you, a little chill in my legs right now. That is an amazing moment in history right there. It is surely an amazing moment. A keynoter like I have never heard." He added later in the night, "...I have seen the first black president there. And the reason I say that is because I think the immigrant experience combined with the African background, combined with the incredible education, combined with his beautiful speech, not every politician gets help with the speech, but that speech was a piece of work."
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:You understand how political campaigns work, right? You don't enter with name recognition, you leave with it. Nobody knew who the hell Obama was, he certainly didn't have the name recognition of Hilldawg at the start and nobody thought he had a shot in hell. Show me a leftist that even rises to the level of "gave a hell of a speech at the 2016 convention" other than Bernie. Every time this comes up I ask folks to give some loving names and they either fade out of the thread for a day or they post some weak bullshit like the mayor of Cincinnati or something, or like loving Biden. It's not like we're not open to ideas! Now's your chance! Let's hear it. Ardennes posted:Ocasio-Cortez might very well be a good candidate in 2028 though (I don't she think can quite make 2024).
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Lol arguing we need to run Bernie because of name recognition is literally some pro Hillary Anti Bernie 2016 primary rhetoric. no, pro-hillary rhetoric went "she's the most qualified candidate in history! who cares if her ideas suck she can win!" bernie's ideas do not suck though, and there isn't a person to his left that has a reasonable chance of winning at the moment. I'll jump ship if that turns out happening in 2020, and hopefully bernie does too. however, your suggestion that the problem with hillary in 2016 was name recognition is laughable as gently caress. if hillary in 2016 had heard bernie stumping for singlepayer and said "yeah let's do that" instead of sending her daughter out to lie and tell people that bernie wanted to steal their healthcare and let them die I'd probably not hate her today
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
"OK give me a candidate other than Bernie" "Ocasio-Cortez" (ineligible to run, entered the political limelight weeks ago)  leftist politics have been thoroughly beaten down in America, you can't have a bench if you haven't even been playing in the league
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 09:01
|
|
|
not a cult posted:"OK give me a candidate other than Bernie" They know this. It's concern trolling to get leftists to shut up and go away, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, there would be an argument is there was another younger politician waiting in the wings but there isn't. You got to go with what you have, and none of the other front-runners are acceptable. Cortez appeared yesterday, you have no idea whatsoever what politicians will be available in 2024 /28, or what will have happened with OC by then. not a cult posted:"OK give me a candidate other than Bernie" Pretty much. The importance of experience and stature has not diminished, if you are going to be serious about winning AND governing. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Jul 24, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
it's weird how whenever people talk about 2016 they forget bernie started as a protest candidate who didn't think he had a real shot. if he had a proper campaign in place to start with he likely captures the nomination. obama was a nobody back in 2008 and look what happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:obama was a nobody back in 2008 and look what happened.  No, he wasn't!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
he was known for a speech and was a freshman senator. bernie was a nobody to most people and had a much longer career. compared to a clinton he was a nobody.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:he was known for a speech and was a freshman senator. bernie was a nobody to most people and had a much longer career. compared to a clinton he was a nobody. Major media figures had been talking about an Obama presidential run for four years by the time 2008 rolled around and he had already secured the funding and donor list of major Democratic Party figures like Ted Kennedy. Bernie made old man speeches that nobody watched on C-Span and the media blacked out his shoestring protest campaign because his ideas made corporate America uncomfortable. If you think the next leftist campaign is going to look like Obama where the media slobbers on him for four years and half the establishment lines up behind him before the primaries, you're a silly person. Any leftist challenger in 2020 is going to have to fight against both parties and all of corporate America just to get people to hear her name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
Bernie was largely unknown to the public, but when he appeared, he was still a Senator with decades of experience and credibility that propped him up as a serious contender. If Bernie and Obama are your best arguments for running a North Dakota dog catcher for national office, then you are not helping your cause.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
I hate to be a broken record, but the only comparable thing to Sanders in 2016 and how that turned out with at least some shot at real and hopeful momentum is the 2008 primary with Kucinich and Gravel---especially the latter. Between the lot of them, the full arc of the Democratic party in the post-Bush era is laid bare for all to see their rot. Counting on random people to pop up to timely avail come 2020 and beyond in spite of the Dem apparatus at large is tantamount to some Deus Ex Machina poo poo on par with Innovation~ solving climate change with One Neat Trick. Sanders is about all there is and he exists in spite of tremendous efforts made for there to be a complete shut out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
I think the problem in this conversation is a lot of people have butthurt from the 2016 primary such that even though they can't argue against Bernie's ideas and maybe even prefer them, they have this image in their head of a stoned out Bernie Bro or whatever who only voted for the man because he was hip and cool, and not for smart person reasons like agreeing with his ideas. And those bros stole the presidency from Hillary because it was Her Turn but they wouldn't vote for anyone but Bernie-san (and this image persists even though the data doesn't bear it out at all). So for whatever emotional reason they just really really don't want him elected even if they would agree with his platform were someone else saying it. Which would be fine, if they could come up with a superior candidate but they can't, so far when asked they floated...a (fantabulously awesome) woman who just won her first election ever and won't even be constitutionally eligible in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
ExiledTinkerer posted:I hate to be a broken record, but the only comparable thing to Sanders in 2016 and how that turned out with at least some shot at real and hopeful momentum is the 2008 primary with Kucinich and Gravel---especially the latter. Between the lot of them, the full arc of the Democratic party in the post-Bush era is laid bare for all to see their rot.  THE EXITS ARE CLEARLY MARKED
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think the problem in this conversation is a lot of people have butthurt from the 2016 primary such that even though they can't argue against Bernie's ideas and maybe even prefer them, they have this image in their head of a stoned out Bernie Bro or whatever who only voted for the man because he was hip and cool, and not for smart person reasons like agreeing with his ideas. And those bros stole the presidency from Hillary because it was Her Turn but they wouldn't vote for anyone but Bernie-san (and this image persists even though the data doesn't bear it out at all). I call this Samantha Bee Syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
Also let's recall that the 2016 convention, the perfect time to put a young bench of up-and-coming future politicians in front of a national audience like Obama got, the speakers were...a bunch of Republican billionaires and generals, some millionaire celebrities, oh and the keynote was at least a Democrat...a septuagenarian senator who doesn't want to be president. But yea it's the left's fault that there's no bench with national recognition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
You are acting like they didn't let the up-and-coming dreamboat Joe "Spudface" Kennedy present the SOTU response.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Bernie was largely unknown to the public, but when he appeared, he was still a Senator with decades of experience and credibility that propped him up as a serious contender.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:Literally all politicians are largely unknown to the public, and when Sanders was granted access to the stage, objectively, people didn't care about his decades of experience and credibility, because the nomination was handed to the person with 1.3 Senate terms under her belt. Like I agree that experience and credibility should matter, but any idiot can read the history of the last 3 years and see that it doesn't. See also: freshman senator Barack Obama reality TV star Donald Trump
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:You are acting like they didn't let the up-and-coming dreamboat Joe "Spudface" Kennedy present the SOTU response. isn't the SOTU response sort of a cursed position that only goes to back benchers? I never understood why it wasn't taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 15:37
|
|
