Trump is scared of Bernie, circa leaked 2018 recording

[ZiprHead]

Economic Anxiety Didn’t Make People Vote Trump, Racism Did

Wait, I thought it was Russian bots that made people vote for Trump (along with Brexit, Boris Johnson and Canada and stuff).

Are you being purposely obtuse? Much of the content Russia used was racial in nature.

 

[Toni]

It’s pretty rich that you accuse anyone of playing identity politics.

Mumbles is already on the record supporting identity politics. I am definitely on the record rejecting it.

Reject it? It’s your entire brand.

 

[Derec]

It’s pretty rich that you accuse anyone of playing identity politics.

Mumbles is already on the record supporting identity politics. I am definitely on the record rejecting it.

Yet you use it so often.

I criticize and reject it.

 

[Derec]

Reject it? It’s your entire brand.

Quite the opposite. For example, I think college admissions, employment and government contracts should be given without taking into account race or gender one way or another. Identity politics leftists like you think employment, contract and college admission decisions should take race and gender into account.

 

[Toni]

Yet you use it so often.

I criticize and reject it.

Except that you take white/male as the norm, the standard. We are all familiar with your posting history and the frequency with which you use unflattering nicknames for female and non-white males who make the news in any context and how you use the familiar names for women and brown people rather than their family names as is customarily appropriate for those you don’t know or respect.

Honestly the way you talk about certain groups of people rivals Trump. I’m not saying this to insult you but because you seem genuinely unaware of how your choice of words comes across. Honestly, you destroy any valid point you might have with what seems to be pretty explicit sexism and racism.

 

[Elixir]

Reject it? It’s your entire brand.

Quite the opposite. For example, I think college admissions, employment and government contracts should be given without taking into account race or gender one way or another. Identity politics leftists like you think employment, contract and college admission decisions should take race and gender into account.

"leftists like you"

My whole shelf of irony meters just exploded.

 

[Derec]

Except that you take white/male as the norm, the standard.

No I do not.

We are all familiar with your posting history and the frequency with which you use unflattering nicknames for female and non-white males

I use nicknames when the person lends themselves to one, regardless of race and gender.

who make the news in any context and how you use the familiar names for women and brown people rather than their family names as is customarily appropriate for those you don’t know or respect.

Bullshit. I use the name most evocative or that is a better identifier because the last name is too common or shared with somebody else.
So I use "Hillary" because "Clinton" evokes Bill, first of his name. I also use Bernie. I use Warren because "Elizabeth" is both longer and very generic.
But you only complain when I use first names of non-whites or females. That says more about your total immersion in identity politics, and not anything about me.

Honestly the way you talk about certain groups of people rivals Trump. I’m not saying this to insult you but because you seem genuinely unaware of how your choice of words comes across. Honestly, you destroy any valid point you might have with what seems to be pretty explicit sexism and racism.

Again bullshit. I use same words regardless of race and gender. I should not have to walk on proverbial eggshells when I refer to somebody who is female or non-white.
If I can Say Bernie I should be equally be able to say Hillary. Or Trayvon for that matter.
If insulting nicknames for white male Trump are politically correct, then insulting nicknames for female and/or non-white politicians should be as acceptable.

Anything else is rank double standard. But who am I kidding. Weaponizing double standards is one of the chief pillars of identity politics!

 

[Derec]

"leftists like you"

My whole shelf of irony meters just exploded.

Your irony meters were defective anyway, so no big loss.
Toni is a leftist, no irony there.

 

[Toni]

"leftists like you"

My whole shelf of irony meters just exploded.

Your irony meters were defective anyway, so no big loss.
Toni is a leftist, no irony there.

Only in the sense that I’m not a right wing nut job. I’m a little to the left of the US center which is pretty far right for much of the rest of the world.

 

[Toni]

No I do not.

I use nicknames when the person lends themselves to one, regardless of race and gender.

who make the news in any context and how you use the familiar names for women and brown people rather than their family names as is customarily appropriate for those you don’t know or respect.

Bullshit. I use the name most evocative or that is a better identifier because the last name is too common or shared with somebody else.
So I use "Hillary" because "Clinton" evokes Bill, first of his name. I also use Bernie. I use Warren because "Elizabeth" is both longer and very generic.
But you only complain when I use first names of non-whites or females. That says more about your total immersion in identity politics, and not anything about me.

Honestly the way you talk about certain groups of people rivals Trump. I’m not saying this to insult you but because you seem genuinely unaware of how your choice of words comes across. Honestly, you destroy any valid point you might have with what seems to be pretty explicit sexism and racism.

Again bullshit. I use same words regardless of race and gender. I should not have to walk on proverbial eggshells when I refer to somebody who is female or non-white.
If I can Say Bernie I should be equally be able to say Hillary. Or Trayvon for that matter.
If insulting nicknames for white male Trump are politically correct, then insulting nicknames for female and/or non-white politicians should be as acceptable.

Anything else is rank double standard. But who am I kidding. Weaponizing double standards is one of the chief pillars of identity politics!

I’m really not thinking of politicians but of ordinary citizens. We know your posting history, Derec. I’ve called you out on this aspect of your posts many times.

 

[Derec]

I’m really not thinking of politicians but of ordinary citizens. We know your posting history, Derec. I’ve called you out on this aspect of your posts many times.

And as I already told you, it's your perception bias.
For example the reason I said "Trayvon" and not "Martin" is that "Martin" is much more common and usually a first name anyway. "Trayvon" is a much better one-word identifier in an informal forum like this. Michael Brown was just as black as St. Trayvon, but I never used "Michael" with him because that name is just too common. My choice of what identifier to use had nothing to do with race. It's just that you are hypersensitive on race and gender and see racism and sexism everywhere.


To get back to the 2020 field, Hillary is a far better identifier than "Clinton" which primarily refers to the only president we've had with that last name and not to Hillary...

 

[Toni]

I’m really not thinking of politicians but of ordinary citizens. We know your posting history, Derec. I’ve called you out on this aspect of your posts many times.

And as I already told you, it's your perception bias.
For example the reason I said "Trayvon" and not "Martin" is that "Martin" is much more common and usually a first name anyway. "Trayvon" is a much better one-word identifier in an informal forum like this. Michael Brown was just as black as St. Trayvon, but I never used "Michael" with him because that name is just too common. My choice of what identifier to use had nothing to do with race. It's just that you are hypersensitive on race and gender and see racism and sexism everywhere.
View attachment 25856

To get back to the 2020 field, Hillary is a far better identifier than "Clinton" which primarily refers to the only president we've had with that last name and not to Hillary...

OK, the next time I see you post about the white male victim of police brutality and use his first name, I will apologize.

 

[Deepak]

I think that's an unfortunate misunderstanding of Trump's base, and one that Clinton made as well with her "basket of deplorables" comment. Dismissing them as hopeless, inveterate xenophobes that cannot be appealed to by any means is how we lose this race. Certainly, the xenophobes all vote for Trump. But not all Trump voters are xenophobes.

Well, no, there are also people who show up and vote party line, and people who actually think that he was a successful businessman as well. I don't see how Bernie the Socialist would win over either group - one simply won't listen, and the other plainly prefer capitalism.

Genuine question - how was Clinton planning to win over these people? She and Bill were already centrist Dems, so short of her planning to make appearances in her Reagan '84 T shirt (which Bernie somehow prevented) were you under the impression that she picked up any voters from either group?

With all the prognostication happening here, I'm sort of reminded of the last election where so many Dems were convinced the Fundagelicals hated Trump, but... well the rest is history. And as a matter of historical accuracy - considering Clinton being a right-wing-radio chew toy for the better part of the last 30 years, do you either group actually was less likely to vote Trump with Clinton running rather Sanders? And at this point, Clinton talk is blasé. Do you think those groups will really be more likely to vote for any of the Democratic field than Sanders? The way I hear the argument, it's that Sanders has so many things that are objectionable to many groups of people - but from a strategic perspective it doesn't matter how many different reasons someone has for finding you objectionable. See, the thing about people who think Sanders is a socialist NY Jew who consorts with sodomites and baby-killers is that they thought the same about Clinton, and they do about anyone with a (D) next to their name. Which is to say, attrition won't really be a big driver in this election, because anyone who is strongly for either parties' planks is pretty committed to the party - namely because both parties have effectively optimized for those factors.

The one factor that, unlike guns or abortion or the environment or sex education or queer rights or minority rights or education or immigration or health care, isn't sorted along party lines is income. See the thing is that while Dems have much stronger support in the bottom of the distribution, it just barely skews higher for Reps at the top of the curve https://www.statista.com/statistics/940427/2018-midterm-election-exit-polls-votes-by-income/ and moreover, voter participation is much higher at the top of the curve. But the thing is that, while the rich Ds tend to the Capitalist faction, and the Rs Industrialist, neither group is really an antipodal political force, nor could really expect to get much crossover voting from the other side. Wealthy NY liberals will not be voting for Trump, mainly on the basis of all those other issues, should Sander get the nomination. Nor the wealthy Georgian Reps for Biden or Buttigieg or Warren.

The real strategic question is would a Sanders run could suppress the votes of wealthy liberals, and could it pick up the votes of non-voting non-conservatives, and what the relative value of each vote is. Frankly, wealthy liberal votes aren't particularly valuable because they tend to live in places which could absorb a reduction in turnout but they don't tend to live in battleground states. This is where Sanders actually has the most opportunity - represents VT, isn't an Ivy League dickhead, doesn't have a Wall St background, isn't a lawyer, and doesn't seem focus grouped. Anyone else in the Dems' field will simply be a repeat of last election, even if they technically have higher appeal to the anti-Socialist anti-Semite demographic.

It ain't 1992 anymore, and the New Democrats ain't new. Reaganomics is dead and the Reagan wave has receded to the abyssal depths of the Republican party. I think a large part of Obama's appeal was the amount of FUD the Republicans created and his freshness on the field - contemporary billing being that he was the most liberalist candidate to ever liberalize.

 

[Derec]

OK, the next time I see you post about the white male victim of police brutality and use his first name, I will apologize.

Deal. Now we just have to wait for such a unicorn thread.

 

[fromderinside]

Hey Derec, my first name is Roland, son of Hiram, grandson of Clinton. White enough names for you? All these individuals were victims railroad thievery where their lands were brutally taken from them for RR profit resulting in them nearly losing everything. Never too late to start a thread about sins of New York fathers.

 

[Mumbles]

I think that's an unfortunate misunderstanding of Trump's base, and one that Clinton made as well with her "basket of deplorables" comment. Dismissing them as hopeless, inveterate xenophobes that cannot be appealed to by any means is how we lose this race. Certainly, the xenophobes all vote for Trump. But not all Trump voters are xenophobes.

Well, no, there are also people who show up and vote party line, and people who actually think that he was a successful businessman as well. I don't see how Bernie the Socialist would win over either group - one simply won't listen, and the other plainly prefer capitalism.

Genuine question - how was Clinton planning to win over these people? She and Bill were already centrist Dems, so short of her planning to make appearances in her Reagan '84 T shirt (which Bernie somehow prevented) were you under the impression that she picked up any voters from either group?

I don't think she bothered trying, nor should she have. People who think that Trump's business history would all but guarantee a successful presidency are wrong both on his history (he's an unmitigated failure who banks on his name, his tv show, and laundering money for various criminal organizations), and on the nature of the US presidency (it's not, in any way, "like a business", it's supposed to serve the common welfare of the American people) What I saw was Hillary Clinton embracing the base - speaking directly to those groups that Trump showed clear hatred of, discussing how to help move health care reform forward, revitalizing impoverished areas like inner cities and small towns that had been hollowed out, rebuilding infrastructure, and reforming immigration including a fast track to citizenship for DACA recipients - and all with detailed plans that she could also summarize easily, without just saying "I'm gonna rebuild our roads!" and leaving it there.

Oh, and pointing out the dangers of allowing these Trump and McConnell to pick judges.

With all the prognostication happening here, I'm sort of reminded of the last election where so many Dems were convinced the Fundagelicals hated Trump, but... well the rest is history.

Anyone who said this didn't know the history of the white evangelical movement. They aren't actually concerned with what Jesus said, and never have been. ETA: also note that both Mormons of all races, and religious nonwhite but for our purposes black Evangelicals in particular, strongly rejected Trump.

And as a matter of historical accuracy - considering Clinton being a right-wing-radio chew toy for the better part of the last 30 years, do you either group actually was less likely to vote Trump with Clinton running rather Sanders? And at this point, Clinton talk is blasé. Do you think those groups will really be more likely to vote for any of the Democratic field than Sanders?

I don't see any democrat who can appeal to either group without their own base running away screaming. And by the way, I'm not the one who keeps bringing Hillary Clinton up, it's those dems that clench their teeth with anger every time she shows up to discuss anything - mostly Sanders fans who only prove her point by their enraged reaction to the mere mention of her.

The real strategic question is would a Sanders run could suppress the votes of wealthy liberals, and could it pick up the votes of non-voting non-conservatives, and what the relative value of each vote is. Frankly, wealthy liberal votes aren't particularly valuable because they tend to live in places which could absorb a reduction in turnout but they don't tend to live in battleground states. This is where Sanders actually has the most opportunity - represents VT, isn't an Ivy League dickhead, doesn't have a Wall St background, isn't a lawyer, and doesn't seem focus grouped. Anyone else in the Dems' field will simply be a repeat of last election, even if they technically have higher appeal to the anti-Socialist anti-Semite demographic.

A repeat of the last election, minus a last-second surprise from a credible FBI director, is a guaranteed win for the dems, so I find this a remarkably unpersuasive argument.

It ain't 1992 anymore, and the New Democrats ain't new. Reaganomics is dead and the Reagan wave has receded to the abyssal depths of the Republican party. I think a large part of Obama's appeal was the amount of FUD the Republicans created and his freshness on the field - contemporary billing being that he was the most liberalist candidate to ever liberalize.

Well, Obama never promised to be some super liberal president, and, as with Clinton, he laid out what he wished to accomplish, repeatedly and in as much detail as the voter wanted. If people simply refused to listen, what was he supposed to do about it? And I know people refused to listen, because I remember all the "progressives" who sat at home for the next 6 years, whining "Obama said he'd get out of Afghanistan! He said he'd give us single-payer!" Neither of these were correct. The truth is, he had a highly successful first two years, considering the mindless GOP opposition and the additional problem of a near great depression (which he and the dems averted, with no help from the GOP at all)

Honestly, I kind of want Sanders to win, just to see what these folks say in 2022 when most of his campaign promises are unfulfilled. Will these people sit it out again, showing themselves to be babies? Will they admit they were wrong in the 2010s when they sat out every election and let the GOP do their damndest to enshrine white supremacy? Or will they show up, and pretend that they're being consistent, which...leads to questions about their own views on race and gender? We've already seen them weep over Kavanaugh, even though they were warned about it, and screamed "I won't be blackmailed!" at every warning.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think that's an unfortunate misunderstanding of Trump's base, and one that Clinton made as well with her "basket of deplorables" comment. Dismissing them as hopeless, inveterate xenophobes that cannot be appealed to by any means is how we lose this race. Certainly, the xenophobes all vote for Trump. But not all Trump voters are xenophobes.

Well, no, there are also people who show up and vote party line, and people who actually think that he was a successful businessman as well. I don't see how Bernie the Socialist would win over either group - one simply won't listen, and the other plainly prefer capitalism.

Genuine question - how was Clinton planning to win over these people? She and Bill were already centrist Dems, so short of her planning to make appearances in her Reagan '84 T shirt (which Bernie somehow prevented) were you under the impression that she picked up any voters from either group?

With all the prognostication happening here, I'm sort of reminded of the last election where so many Dems were convinced the Fundagelicals hated Trump, but... well the rest is history. And as a matter of historical accuracy - considering Clinton being a right-wing-radio chew toy for the better part of the last 30 years, do you either group actually was less likely to vote Trump with Clinton running rather Sanders? And at this point, Clinton talk is blasé. Do you think those groups will really be more likely to vote for any of the Democratic field than Sanders? The way I hear the argument, it's that Sanders has so many things that are objectionable to many groups of people - but from a strategic perspective it doesn't matter how many different reasons someone has for finding you objectionable. See, the thing about people who think Sanders is a socialist NY Jew who consorts with sodomites and baby-killers is that they thought the same about Clinton, and they do about anyone with a (D) next to their name. Which is to say, attrition won't really be a big driver in this election, because anyone who is strongly for either parties' planks is pretty committed to the party - namely because both parties have effectively optimized for those factors.

The one factor that, unlike guns or abortion or the environment or sex education or queer rights or minority rights or education or immigration or health care, isn't sorted along party lines is income. See the thing is that while Dems have much stronger support in the bottom of the distribution, it just barely skews higher for Reps at the top of the curve https://www.statista.com/statistics/940427/2018-midterm-election-exit-polls-votes-by-income/ and moreover, voter participation is much higher at the top of the curve. But the thing is that, while the rich Ds tend to the Capitalist faction, and the Rs Industrialist, neither group is really an antipodal political force, nor could really expect to get much crossover voting from the other side. Wealthy NY liberals will not be voting for Trump, mainly on the basis of all those other issues, should Sander get the nomination. Nor the wealthy Georgian Reps for Biden or Buttigieg or Warren.

The real strategic question is would a Sanders run could suppress the votes of wealthy liberals, and could it pick up the votes of non-voting non-conservatives, and what the relative value of each vote is. Frankly, wealthy liberal votes aren't particularly valuable because they tend to live in places which could absorb a reduction in turnout but they don't tend to live in battleground states. This is where Sanders actually has the most opportunity - represents VT, isn't an Ivy League dickhead, doesn't have a Wall St background, isn't a lawyer, and doesn't seem focus grouped. Anyone else in the Dems' field will simply be a repeat of last election, even if they technically have higher appeal to the anti-Socialist anti-Semite demographic.

It ain't 1992 anymore, and the New Democrats ain't new. Reaganomics is dead and the Reagan wave has receded to the abyssal depths of the Republican party. I think a large part of Obama's appeal was the amount of FUD the Republicans created and his freshness on the field - contemporary billing being that he was the most liberalist candidate to ever liberalize.

Quoted in full because it deserves to be. Excellent post.

Another thing often overlooked is that Bernie actually (no doubt to the shock and horror of many Republicans) has more cross over appeal to many of the voters who voted for Trump than most of the other Dem candidates do. So does Yang. Even with what most would characterize a far left policies.

Why? Because for many it isn't about right vs left, but about anti-authoritarianism and populism. Remember how different candidate Trump was from President Trump. He promised to drain the swamp etc. And he was seen as a giant middle finger to the establishment. And whereas Trump was a false populist, Bernie is the real thing.

Similar story with Yang, who is pointing at many of the same issues Trump did, except instead of blaming immigrants he points to automation.

 

[Elixir]

"leftists like you"

My whole shelf of irony meters just exploded.

Your irony meters were defective anyway, so no big loss.

You must stay pretty busy, what with having to diagnose all those problems with other people's irony meters.
Oh, right - you don't. You just declare them defective when you short them out.
At least it keeps you insulated from your own shortcomings - no matter how obvious to others...

 

[laughing dog]

To get back to the 2020 field, Hillary is a far better identifier than "Clinton" which primarily refers to the only president we've had with that last name and not to Hillary...

Anyone who really wanted to use a clear identifie would use Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

[Toni]

OK, the next time I see you post about the white male victim of police brutality and use his first name, I will apologize.

Deal. Now we just have to wait for such a unicorn thread.

Indeed.