Btsvinylfarm
Active Member
It's disingenuous to say Bernie has a name recognition issue. He's one of the biggest names in politics. Who and where are the people that don't know who he is?
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
jaycee
Well-Known Member
Would totally get on board with that campaign
Ed Selley
Active Member
Should anyone wish to have a look at a controlled test run of this (entirely correct) statement, they're welcome to look at the activities of the Labour Party in the UK leading up to the General Election we had late last year. Spoiler; the current Government of the UK is not a Labour one.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
People know who Bernie is but what was being said was that people associate him with Communism and Authoritarian regimes first and his policy ideals second. That's a negative name recognition issue, and it's totally fair to say that Biden is more recognized than Bernie, particularly in African American communities and with Union Voters.
Btsvinylfarm
Active Member
Biden's bet on SC looks more and more genius as this goes along.
Now it's VP time. One Michelle Obama, please.
Hmm, I didn't know Bernie was still being associated with Communism. I thought they have moved passed that and have moved on to Extremist and socialist.
But yeah, people thought just that. Bernie was an Extremist, a Kook.
One thing I don't get is people never describe Bernie sanders as having experience. Not once have I heard that. Yet he's been in the Senate for what, around 30 years?
Apparently only the face of the establishment career politician can have experience.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
This has always been the case, which is partially why the idea that Sanders was/is actually exciting young people was so enticing... but traditions hold true. America has a voter rights and engagement issue that isn't new.
The security guard at the front desk this morning literally told me he was happy "that commie didn't win last night" and he was "thanking God" he didn't have to vote for Bloomberg
dbarila
Well-Known Member
100% this. That's why I use examples from my in laws and parents because they're Democrats and more closely to the demographic of the average voter. I try to see things from their viewpoint as opposed to me who me who reads the news all day at work.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
I think strong is an overstatement. A slim majority 54% disagreed with the result.
Fewer Americans Think Impeachment Will Hurt Trump’s Reelection Chances
The impeachment trial is over. And with the exception of Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, who voted to convict President Trump on one charge, the president has been…
fivethirtyeight.com
and the way Americans viewed the trial was very partisan.
dbarila
Well-Known Member
You're up against people who still believe Obama is a Muslim. You're never going to convince them Bernie isn't a Communist.
bettim84
Well-Known Member
Personally I'm not sure how much of a "spoiler" Warren is. Bernie is not necessarily the second choice for Warren supporters (my five-second internet research shows that as of late January Bernie seemed to be the second choice of a plurality of Warren supporters; I'm not sure that holds up now that Pete and Amy have dropped out).
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
This statement hides a lot. Nixon never went to trial. Clinton was well, not a matter of international affairs, and Andrew Johnson happened around the Civil War, hardly analogous to present day politics. He also narrowly failed to get a 2/3 majority to remove him. what is that in absolute value in Civil War era senate seats versus proportional measurement?
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
The cold hard truth related to Sanders--
1) White working class voters who supported him in 2016 before turning to Trump out of anti-establishment desperation are largely sticking with Trump
2) Upper middle class suburbanites have had their stocks recover and don't want to rattle anything. They are completely detached from the economic realities facing people under 40.
3) A lot of Clinton supporters blamed him and his supporters for Trump wining in 2016. And the media didn't help matters.
4) Data shows that 75% of voters are only concerned with beating Trump. Not much else. The remaining 25% is mostly made up of people my age.
5) Warren knee-capped Sanders with her accusation that he said a woman can’t win. It caused her base to dig in and made it unlikely suburbanite women would ever get behind hm. Yes, she played spoiler in as many as 4 states last night, and prevented a positive narrative with Bloomberg droppping out.... but the beginning of the end were those comments.
6) MOST importantly, the under 38 (millennial cut-off) crowd is apathetic as fuck after 2016 (+ Obama for those who were paying attention). We did not turn up at the rates needed.
My past two days were spent at local community colleges. I got a lot of "it's rigged anyways" or "they'll never let him win" comments.Those sort of remarks were non-existent in 2016. And I fully admit that I didn't spend nearly as much time canvassing for Sanders this go-round specifically because of the sense that the DNC would prevent him at all costs anyways.
I'll go to my grave believing Sanders would have beaten Trump in 2016. Now we have to hope that Biden (whose brain sometimes appear to have been replaced with mashed potatoes and who is directly responsible for our generation's problems) can inspire the turnout required to beat Trump.
I have A LOT of resentments towards Boomers, the majority of whom (let's be clear, there are *some* good ones) seem incapable of thinking of anybody other than themselves or their kin. But if our generation had turned out at a reasonable rate, it wouldn't have mattered regardless of Warren's decision to stay in the race.
1) White working class voters who supported him in 2016 before turning to Trump out of anti-establishment desperation are largely sticking with Trump
2) Upper middle class suburbanites have had their stocks recover and don't want to rattle anything. They are completely detached from the economic realities facing people under 40.
3) A lot of Clinton supporters blamed him and his supporters for Trump wining in 2016. And the media didn't help matters.
4) Data shows that 75% of voters are only concerned with beating Trump. Not much else. The remaining 25% is mostly made up of people my age.
5) Warren knee-capped Sanders with her accusation that he said a woman can’t win. It caused her base to dig in and made it unlikely suburbanite women would ever get behind hm. Yes, she played spoiler in as many as 4 states last night, and prevented a positive narrative with Bloomberg droppping out.... but the beginning of the end were those comments.
6) MOST importantly, the under 38 (millennial cut-off) crowd is apathetic as fuck after 2016 (+ Obama for those who were paying attention). We did not turn up at the rates needed.
My past two days were spent at local community colleges. I got a lot of "it's rigged anyways" or "they'll never let him win" comments.Those sort of remarks were non-existent in 2016. And I fully admit that I didn't spend nearly as much time canvassing for Sanders this go-round specifically because of the sense that the DNC would prevent him at all costs anyways.
I'll go to my grave believing Sanders would have beaten Trump in 2016. Now we have to hope that Biden (whose brain sometimes appear to have been replaced with mashed potatoes and who is directly responsible for our generation's problems) can inspire the turnout required to beat Trump.
I have A LOT of resentments towards Boomers, the majority of whom (let's be clear, there are *some* good ones) seem incapable of thinking of anybody other than themselves or their kin. But if our generation had turned out at a reasonable rate, it wouldn't have mattered regardless of Warren's decision to stay in the race.
Last edited:
BjorgenFjorgen
Well-Known Member
Of course it concerns me. I think a lot of the below from @wokeupnew is true. In the dramatic, made-for-TV death spiral of American politics since 2016, I think it's true that a lot of people (especially older voters) are yearning for "the Obama years" because a lot of things seemed normal and fine for them then. Most 45+ voters will always prefer the candidate who isn't made out to be a bogeyman who's going to raise their taxes, even if Biden is name recognition. You can talk about low youth turnout but even if it were higher, there are a lot more people in the 45-whatever bracket than there are in the 18-45 bracket. He has little to no policy and he has a history of being on the opposite side of progressive causes. The problem is that all of the issues that caused Trump and the last several years existed during the Obama years and won't go away with a Biden nomination or presidency. Obama-to-Trump voters won't come back for Biden; he's not angry, and we should all be very angry! Not that I think Dems should be trying to recruit them, necessarily, but if they don't identify some of the fundamental issues behind what ails America, and run someone who understands those issues, they're going to get crushed! What concerns me most of all is that in terms of issues like climate change, we can't wait four or eight more years to act. But hey, Biden loves trains; maybe he'll get high-speed continental rail built.
Btsvinylfarm
Active Member
I think you're vastly underestimating the implications that 54% of the American public disagreed with letting the President keep his job.I think strong is an overstatement. A slim majority 54% disagreed with the result.
Fewer Americans Think Impeachment Will Hurt Trump’s Reelection Chances
The impeachment trial is over. And with the exception of Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, who voted to convict President Trump on one charge, the president has been…
Put it into electoral context. If 54% of voters voted against Trump in November (to remove him), the Democratic challenge would be earning the largest share of the popular vote since 1984 (even Obama in '08 only got 52.9%).
Now obviously that isn't how it will shake out, and popular vote doesn't matter (though at 54%, you probably win the EC anyways), but it's still hugely significant.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
Significant in absolute measurement, but not proportional. Proportional changes the balance of power. It's only significant if it changes the balance of power.
There is also the thing where most republicans would think trump should be removed from office would still vote for him, because Trump is still better than any democrat. Trump is the lesser evil to them.
Phaneronic
Well-Known Member
And then, trust me I've tried, they level the same accusation at you, that you're not meeting them halfway and would never vote for a Republican, when you try and tell them the scale on which Trump and his cadre sucks.
EDIT: Oh, and all the people who voted to acquit on the articles of impeachment because they feared getting chewed up by Fox n' Friends, and, heaven forbid, lose re-election.
What we need is, all of us, is to start loving the people around us, be prepared to be wrong and still keep up the good fight, but how the fuck do you make that happen?
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
Did anybody see that it took all of 15 seconds into Biden’s speech last night for him to confuse his wife for his sister (while staring right at her).
#Winning
#Winning
BjorgenFjorgen
Well-Known Member
The two-party system sure is a structural cancer, that's for sure.