Where's the Bernie Bump?

[Jimmy Higgins]

In both Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that nobody agrees are representative of the nation as a whole, Bernie won the most votes, and did so by winning the most votes from minorities, immigrants, union members, renters, and minimum wage workers. He is only going to do better in states that are not as white and affluent compared to these.

Mr Sanders did not win the most votes in Iowa.

In what way? We talking majority vote or that someone else had the plurality? Or are you talking about a different metric (SDEs)?

 

[Harry Bosch]

In both Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that nobody agrees are representative of the nation as a whole, Bernie won the most votes, and did so by winning the most votes from minorities, immigrants, union members, renters, and minimum wage workers. He is only going to do better in states that are not as white and affluent compared to these.

Mr Sanders did not win the most votes in Iowa.

In what way? We talking majority vote or that someone else had the plurality? Or are you talking about a different metric (SDEs)?

Well, to be fair, the results in Iowa are changing daily. The Iowa dems have screwed things up so bad that not sure that we should trust their final numbers. As an aside, I find it ironic that Bernie supporters thought that Bernie got screwed in 2016 despite the fact that he got far fewer votes than HRC; but Bernie should be declared the winner of Iowa because of more popular votes!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In what way? We talking majority vote or that someone else had the plurality? Or are you talking about a different metric (SDEs)?

Well, to be fair, the results in Iowa are changing daily. The Iowa dems have screwed things up so bad that not sure that we should trust their final numbers. As an aside, I find it ironic that Bernie supporters thought that Bernie got screwed in 2016 despite the fact that he got far fewer votes than HRC; but Bernie should be declared the winner of Iowa because of more popular votes!

They didn't report popular votes in 2016. The change this year was to include that, among three other metrics to be more open.

And before doing that, they paid some company to develop an app that was less secure that storing a gallon of water in a strainer. Creating a depressing irony that I'd feel more confident in the DNC if Iowa was a result of a conspiracy, instead of the more likely incompetency.

$60,000 to develop an app... which performed an action that could have been handled by a fucking preformatted email or if we got real complicated... an Excel Spreadsheet for about $5000 max!

 

[southernhybrid]

Bernie in the 2016 N.H. primary: a 60% win.
Bernie this week: 25.7%.
That burn is a fairly small sizzle. I agree with Mr. Penguin above: Emperor Trump would squat pretty hard on Bernie.

Where does this notion that Bernie can't win come from? According to all the polls I've seen, he seems to be leading Trump as handily as everyone else, so what's the basis of him being somehow unelectable? Are there various swing states he somehow sucks in or something?

He looks as viable as any other candidate to me:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

Anything is possible, I suppose. The problem with those polls is that they don't break down where these voters live, or at least I've never seen a poll that did that. Because we have the crazy electoral college thingy here in the US, someone like Trump could lose by 5 million votes and still win the election.

Plus, people have been changing their minds daily on who they will or might support. There are already fucking Trump signs in my neighborhood. Some have been up for over a year. Georgia is turning blue, but I don't see it turning bright blue. My state is about 40% minority. Over 30% are African American and they tend to be very pragmatic voters, plus the ones that I know personally aren't nearly as left as Sanders. Sanders wouldn't lose in the same way that McGovern did. I'm sure he would pick up the bluest states and maybe a few of the more moderate states, but it's hard for me to imagine him winning any or enough swing states, to win the election. We have an archaic system here. That I can give you.

Maybe if we go into a recession, or if more people start to realize how totally unhinged Trump really is, more people will be willing to vote for the Democratic nominee whoever he or she is. Trump is abusing his power even more since the impeachment. Perhaps more people will start paying attention to that and be concerned enough to vote blue not matter who. I just don't think we have enough information to predict the outcome of the election. And, if the damn Bernie bros don't stop being such assholes, it's not going to help Bernie.

 

[laughing dog]

In both Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that nobody agrees are representative of the nation as a whole, Bernie won the most votes, and did so by winning the most votes from minorities, immigrants, union members, renters, and minimum wage workers. He is only going to do better in states that are not as white and affluent compared to these.

Mr Sanders did not win the most votes in Iowa.

In what way? We talking majority vote or that someone else had the plurality? Or are you talking about a different metric (SDEs)?

sdes

 

[laughing dog]

I’m curious. Why is it that the electability of a Jewish candidate or a gay candidate is rarely questioned? And when it is, the questioner is soundly denounced as antisemetic or a homophobe while at the same time, the electability of female candidates is routinely and openly called into question—but those who question the electability of female candidates are not called out for misogyny?

I call bullshit. There is nobody in the Democrat race that is pushing a narrative of "women can't win". That is entirely a talking point that Klobuchar and Warren are pushing in order to try to identity politics themselves onto the ticket. Warren didn't go there until Clintoncrats infected her campaign staff. Coincidence? I don't think so..,.

You think wrong. The “electability of a woman” argument has routinely been surfacing since before the last Presidential campaign. It surfaces in the media and electorate much more frequently than the electability of a Jew or a gay man.

 

[fromderinside]

Eyup

 

[Toni]

I’m curious. Why is it that the electability of a Jewish candidate or a gay candidate is rarely questioned? And when it is, the questioner is soundly denounced as antisemetic or a homophobe while at the same time, the electability of female candidates is routinely and openly called into question—but those who question the electability of female candidates are not called out for misogyny?

The Jewish angle it was raised with Lieberman. And people are raising the gay angle with Buttigieg... even here.

Barely a whiff, as far as I have noticed.

 

[Toni]

I’m curious. Why is it that the electability of a Jewish candidate or a gay candidate is rarely questioned? And when it is, the questioner is soundly denounced as antisemetic or a homophobe while at the same time, the electability of female candidates is routinely and openly called into question—but those who question the electability of female candidates are not called out for misogyny?

I call bullshit. There is nobody in the Democrat race that is pushing a narrative of "women can't win". That is entirely a talking point that Klobuchar and Warren are pushing in order to try to identity politics themselves onto the ticket. Warren didn't go there until Clintoncrats infected her campaign staff. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I do think Trump may bring up the gay and jewish identities and try to galvanize homophobia and anti-semitism against those two candidates, just as they tried to raise racist sentiment against Obama. But just like Obama, these two both seem capable of cutting through that. Warren and Klobuchar can also cut through any anti-woman thing Trump may try to raise on them.

Interestingly enough, the fact that they may acknowledge that they are women in the course of discussing their policy plans—in detail—counts as ‘identity politics’ to you.

Well now that I think of it, that’s hardly interesting or surprising.

 

[fromderinside]

Re: Toni

I understand  Katherine Ryan's ass hole is among the four best.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, Lieberman was... oh gawd... 20 years ago?! *sigh* No one was marching the streets against it, but it did come up. I don't think it is raised much at all with Sanders.

But Buttigieg's gayness was raised at this web board and a Warren likely turn Klobuchar supporter I know brought it up to. Her brother is gay and is quite progressive, but worries about how others independents will react to it. A Muslim who is also for Klobuchar raised it as well. Personally, I keep forgetting the guy is gay and worry about his lack of anything bigger than small city experience.

Klobuchar and Warren are women... that is an inescapable truth. Jolly Penguin will likely take what little they say that references their gender and present it as identity politicking... that is an inescapable truth. What is also an inescapable truth is electing a woman President would mean something for this country. Heck, it took until 2016 to have a viably electable candidate in the General Election be a woman. People like Jolly Penguin consider such a reference as "identity politicking", I consider it progress... very very slow progress.

The idea that Klobuchar should be elected because "she is a woman" has hardly been on the minds of anyone here, nor has Klobuchar led with that.

 

[Toni]

Well, Lieberman was... oh gawd... 20 years ago?! *sigh* No one was marching the streets against it, but it did come up. I don't think it is raised much at all with Sanders.

But Buttigieg's gayness was raised at this web board and a Warren likely turn Klobuchar supporter I know brought it up to. Her brother is gay and is quite progressive, but worries about how others independents will react to it. A Muslim who is also for Klobuchar raised it as well. Personally, I keep forgetting the guy is gay and worry about his lack of anything bigger than small city experience.

Klobuchar and Warren are women... that is an inescapable truth. Jolly Penguin will likely take what little they say that references their gender and present it as identity politicking... that is an inescapable truth. What is also an inescapable truth is electing a woman President would mean something for this country. Heck, it took until 2016 to have a viably electable candidate in the General Election be a woman. People like Jolly Penguin consider such a reference as "identity politicking", I consider it progress... very very slow progress.

The idea that Klobuchar should be elected because "she is a woman" has hardly been on the minds of anyone here, nor has Klobuchar led with that.

Lieberman was on the ticket as VP in 2000.

Apparently JP cares a great deal about Klobuchar and Warren being women.

I do, as well. It’s about damn time we quit inventing excuses not to elect someone because they are female.

 

[blastula]

But he must be stopped from winning because he can't win.

If I were a young voter, I would very suspicious of whether Bernie is even going to be allowed to win this time, considering he got shanked in the ass by his own party in 2016. For someone who is 22 now, that disappointment was their first voting experience.

Sanders wasn't cheated. He lost because more voters chose Clinton.

 

[Politesse]

But he must be stopped from winning because he can't win.

If I were a young voter, I would very suspicious of whether Bernie is even going to be allowed to win this time, considering he got shanked in the ass by his own party in 2016. For someone who is 22 now, that disappointment was their first voting experience.

Sanders wasn't cheated. He lost because more voters chose Clinton.

Didn't say he was cheated. Said he was shanked.

 

[blastula]

Difference?

 

[Politesse]

Difference?

You can screw someone over without "cheating". It's not cheating to intentionally undermine a candidate for your party, that is 100%.legal to do.

 

[Toni]

Sanders wasn't cheated. He lost because more voters chose Clinton.

Didn't say he was cheated. Said he was shanked.

How so?

 

[Toni]

Difference?

You can screw someone over without "cheating". It's not cheating to intentionally undermine a candidate for your party, that is 100%.legal to do.

So kinda like what Bernie did to Hillary?

Only writing this because Sanders was not a member of the Democratic Party until he wanted the nomination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sanders wasn't cheated. He lost because more voters chose Clinton.

Didn't say he was cheated. Said he was shanked.

I didn't say it was unfair, I said he was stabbed. ???

Sanders was allowed to run in the Democrat primary... that ain't being "shanked" when he wasn't even a Democrat. And I voted for him in the Ohio Primary. He was allowed to do debates. Sanders outperformed in the primary even more than can be expressed. And in the end, didn't outperform the woman who's pretty much had been laying the groundwork for a Presidential run 15 years earlier, but still got a good deal of his platform onto the Party's (of which he still wasn't a member) platform.

So enough of the shank bullshit!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I’m curious. Why is it that the electability of a Jewish candidate or a gay candidate is rarely questioned? And when it is, the questioner is soundly denounced as antisemetic or a homophobe while at the same time, the electability of female candidates is routinely and openly called into question—but those who question the electability of female candidates are not called out for misogyny?

I call bullshit. There is nobody in the Democrat race that is pushing a narrative of "women can't win". That is entirely a talking point that Klobuchar and Warren are pushing in order to try to identity politics themselves onto the ticket. Warren didn't go there until Clintoncrats infected her campaign staff. Coincidence? I don't think so.

I do think Trump may bring up the gay and jewish identities and try to galvanize homophobia and anti-semitism against those two candidates, just as they tried to raise racist sentiment against Obama. But just like Obama, these two both seem capable of cutting through that. Warren and Klobuchar can also cut through any anti-woman thing Trump may try to raise on them.

Interestingly enough, the fact that they may acknowledge that they are women in the course of discussing their policy plans—in detail—counts as ‘identity politics’ to you.

Well now that I think of it, that’s hardly interesting or surprising.

Its also a total strawman by you. They are not merely ackowledging their gender in the course of discussing policy. They are attempting to play a victim card in order to attract votes, instead of talking policy. I don't care what their gender is. Nobody should when voting. It isn't a plus or a minus.

And Warren actually WAS initially all about policy; "I have a plan for that". Until she got tested on M4A, backed off of it a bit, and then brought the Clintoncrats into her campaign and suddenly she's all about "Bernie said a woman can't win" and lining up with Klobuchar pronouncing how they are women and that is somehow important. She only resorted to that when she was starting to lose. She will fall further because of it. Warren let these people infect her campaign and it is ruining her chances.