KenKaniff
Well-Known Member
On a little bit lighter of a note, I saw Bernie Sanders' speech writer on TV last night. That has to be the best job. "Hey Bernie, just go out there and do that speech you've been doing the last 5 years".
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
Five years? It goes back to the 80's lol
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
“But this time thank Soccer Mommy for the music.”
tvham
Well-Known Member
wingclipper
Well-Known Member
Hey, Alabama executed another person today. Great to be in the top 5 globally for capital punishment behind China, Iran, Saudia Arabia and Iraq.
Keep the government out of my health care but deciding executions? No questions asked.
Keep the government out of my health care but deciding executions? No questions asked.
I don't know how many of you are on Twitter or follow Michael Harriot, but he has good insight here:
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
Yeah- I mean this is sort of what I was alluding to. I only venture onto Twitter for basketball or Elizabeth Bruenig related reasons and intentionally avoid the blatant politics side of things. Prefer my conversations longwinded and civil.
But as somebody who spends a ton of time with actual, real life supporters of various stripes and has been to three different caucus processes-- you just don't see the supposed viciousness that the media talks about. As I think I mentioned elsewhere, Bernie cavnvassers were celebrating with Pete supporters over Biden's non-viability at our caucus site in Iowa. That's one example of many.
Granted, I can think of one particular Bernie supporter who I'm friends with on Facebook due to her being LA based. And I know the shit she posts on Facebook racks up likes and drives me up a wall. I also know she has a huge Twitter following. But so do many toxic Clinton supporters.
Also...
Phenomenal. Everyone should read. One of the MAJOR critiques I have of Sanders campaign this go-round is that he reportedly didn't reach out to Clyburn. Really frames Bernie's biggest mistakes as crystal clear. He made huge inroads with BLM because they are inherently anti-establishment. Took meetings with them for the past 4 years and let them give input on his policies. But BLM is made up of young people and because of that is more niche and anchored to a less reliable voting block. To not reach out to somebody like James (even if he thought there was no way it was happening) is inexcusible from a tactic standpoint.
Last edited:
Okay, but the whole "Bernie bro" thing is an online phenomenon. I don't think anyone is saying these people (mostly, but not exclusively dudes) are so bold in person. It's the endless sea lioning, disingenuous portrayals of other candidates positions, and crying "centrist" at every person who doesn't support their candidate online that is driving people away.
I regularly see white male Bernie supporters camping out in the mentions of black women activists who prefer other candidates, calling them liars and centrists and Wall Street apologists. I've been witnessing it since 2016. Or I see guys relentlessly commenting on Facebook posts, evangelizing the gospel of Bernie and refusing to back off after polite requests to take it elsewhere.
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
And that is not okay. Whatsoever. The examples of “centrist” accusations and misrepresenting of positions makes sense. It’s something I’ve fought back against on Facebook. But that second paragraph disturbs me for a plethora of reasons. They are (lonely) idiots with no lives or mentally unstable or even, possibly, even plants who aren’t even really supporters.
Again, Twitter is an exceptionally toxic place. Listen to Nina Turner or AOC talk about what they experience in that realm. Or any other well known voice on Twitter.
I guess I just find it frustrating that Twitter is allowed to color an entire coalition especially one as racially diverse and full of female supporters (and for the record, the one toxic supporter I referenced above is a Latina female). Especially when I know first hand that the campaign itself went through extensive lengths (to the detriment of its ground game) to vet it’s hires and (to the benefit of its ground game) train its staff to avoid talking about other candidates.
When you are as dependent on organic organizing and (the actual phrase is alluding me) do-it-yourself collaboration (chalk it up events, phone banking parties, ext) there are also going to be loose cannons. Organizations like Black Lives Matters are plagued by the same thing. And much like BLM, the media then hyper focuses on it as a convenient way to demonize the larger whole.
It’s not like Bernie hasn’t spoken out about this multiple times. He even referred to the calls for Warren to drop out yesterday as disgusting. I don’t agree with that take but it’s also probably the stance he should take considering the circumstances. This is not like Trump where that behavior is tolerated or encouraged at rallies either.
Politico did an awesome price where the writer talks about being incredibly moved by an opening speaker who has everyone hold hands and squeeze if something was started was true ala “I have a job” and then it slowly worked towards like truly tough shit like “I grew up with one parent” or “I sometime went without a meal growing up” and then into even borderline traumatic events to help everyone think about the different environments we come from and build empathy.
I guess it’s just so far from the side of the “movement” that I know that it’s tough to grasp. Hell, Ground Game LA which was founded by women in their mid 20’s after the 2016 campaign functions as an activist space where white men are encouraged to “shrink” and let the women lead the meetings because so often within the public realm that is not the case. And all of those people led the charge for him here in LA.
I’ll leave it at that because I don’t want it to feel like I’m trying to invalidate your concerns.
Last edited:
BjorgenFjorgen
Well-Known Member
Sanders supporters are far from the only ones to ever be aggressive online; they're just the only ones given a derogatory nickname. But if you believe anyone who cites that as the main reason why they can't support him, you're out of your mind. They were never going to. If someone prioritizes online civility over voting to give poor people health care and stopping the forever wars, they're telling on themselves.
Is it a good outreach strategy? Obviously no. But the man himself has told them to stop or to get out of his movement firmly. They are not his staff or surrogates He's been sometimes frustratingly polite and civil. People are mad as hell and they have every reason to be. Focusing on "Bernie bros" over politics is this year's version of "but her emails...". It's a bad diversion to keep people away from substantive talk about substantive policy; it's preferring "the negative peace which is the absence of tension to the positive peace which is the presence of justice." Don't fall for it.
Is it a good outreach strategy? Obviously no. But the man himself has told them to stop or to get out of his movement firmly. They are not his staff or surrogates He's been sometimes frustratingly polite and civil. People are mad as hell and they have every reason to be. Focusing on "Bernie bros" over politics is this year's version of "but her emails...". It's a bad diversion to keep people away from substantive talk about substantive policy; it's preferring "the negative peace which is the absence of tension to the positive peace which is the presence of justice." Don't fall for it.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
Everytime you invoke the diverse movement language you invalidate the concerns. It’s not my experience so it’s not real or it’s not my experience so it’s fringe etc etc That because there are women in that diverse movement there isn’t a vocal misogynistic contingent.
Many many many months back you and others dismissed the bullying and misogyny by Bernie supporters as a media or DNC conspiracy. You did again in recent posts and you are still suggesting they’re “planted.”
This dismissal and denial is one of the major failures of the campaign
The other as @GritNGlitter pointed out is not reaching out to bring a “diversity” of voters on board. Assuming that the multicultural young voters that were already on board were enough to get through the primaries and then other liberal voters would “hold their nose” just as Bernie supporters did in 2016 and vote for him this time around.
This shit was botched...
I voted for Sanders. I support social well being economics and I bought into the idea that Bernie had enough “base” to be able to move some of these policies forward. I felt like Bernie had a better chance so I voted for him over Warren even tho I saw this constant denial of the toxicity by the campaign that I knew was making it difficult for people to get on board.
The campaign seemingly never tried to understand important voting blocks who traditionally show-up to vote and all of the acknowledgement of “failure” after losing on Super Tues is too little too late. Warren voters were shamed as inauthentic morons. Pete supporters were shamed as racially unaware hacks. Centrists supporters were shamed as corporate hacks. A coalition was not built.
The situation is a shame. The failures of the Sanders campaign are shameful and incompetent. We are all losing and for me I want the Sanders campaign to own the failure not say we failed and simultaneously blame other people or circumstances for their own undoing.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
I think this would be absolutely true if there wasn’t another progressive candidate available to vote for.
I think you’re also ignoring that the people that needed convincing, and obviously many do, were not going to engage in a conversation with people who would imply they’re stupid when no one was engaging their community and political leaders. Most people don’t vote on policy. Most people vote on emotion and feeling. If people voted on policy and understood policy Republicans would not be the majority in the Senate or be the majority of state representatives. People voted for Bush because he felt like they could get a beer with him.
When over the last four years did Bernie go on cable news or write an Op Ed that loudly and clearly told those toxic people to hit the road and simultaneously made his case to moderate voters?
This was exactly what happened in the UK. The Corbyn campaign equally talked down to its electorate and failed understand the concerns of traditional labour voters in working class post-industrial areas. The result? The so called impregnable red wall fell. The arrogance in that campaign was astounding. Anyone who wants a socially and economically just representation has to back campaigns that don’t dismiss their opponents or the electorate as idiots.
Ed Selley
Active Member
Again, I'm cautious of applying the feedback from the different political machinery of the UK to the US but this has almost literally just finished being tested to destruction here. For a considerable phase of the last parliament, supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, in part responding to external pressure but also in part because they had control of the trainset for the first time in decades, embarked on a sort of crusade of ideological purity across social media. One line that was uttered a few times was that if people weren't happy with Jeremy, they should "Fuck off and join the Tories."
What has become clear is that this line, despite not actually being repeated very often, gained traction and permanence in the minds of people and also people that weren't active really active on social media beyond an inexplicable fondness for Minion memes. It stuck and it resonated. It underpinned a perception that it was their way or the highway. Faced with that choice, many places took the highway. In the Election just gone, the Labour party lost seats in places they have held for up to a century. Of course there were other factors but in the electoral post mortem, it is extraordinary how far social media spats and behavior penetrate beyond core users.
Hah @Joe Mac, greatish minds and all that.
Yeah, I’m originally from that part of England and although I’m only back two or three times a year now I knew what was going to happen to labour if they agreed to a general election as early as this time last year. People who feel that they have been left behind are angry, and not all of it is rational, but you’ve got to at least try to engage with them on their terms, and not just dismiss them if they don’t fully 100% agree to your narrow worldview conceived in a very different set of circumstances.
BjorgenFjorgen
Well-Known Member
There was for a time but there is no longer another progressive candidate to vote for. I don't disagree that most people don't vote for policy per se but on personality and other traits they think they can perceive. But I think the number of swayable Democratic primary voters who hadn't already made up their minds *and* are on Twitter is a lot lower than it's made out to be. Again, I'm not saying I think being aggressive and mean on the internet to supporters of other candidates is a good idea. The expectation that Bernie more than any other candidate should write an op-ed to denounce them or go on MSNBC, where his even addressing it would lead to two hours straight of "his supporters are toxic; he just can't win". More voters watch that shit than are on Twitter. Then that stays in the news cycle another few days until he's asked about it again, and it doesn't go away despite his being very clear about it.
Also he's made his case very plain to moderate voters, I would say. He's been clear that his campaign's goals are to increase the quality of life for people of all social classes, races, educations, etc. To tackle inequality, health care that leaves out the most vulnerable and still takes more money from your pocket than universal would, climate change, and neverending war. More than any other candidate it's been exceedingly clear what they're fighting for. If a moderate can see that message and not support it, what is he supposed to do? How much bigger does a tent get? Does he invite the person who brought the swastika flag to his rally last night, too?
Campaigns are not their most vocal, obnoxious supporters.
Sure. That is very unfortunate. I think people everywhere are learning as they go in the new world of elections in the Internet age. I certainly agree that I don't think acerbic wit or sarcasm, like perhaps the "If you don't like Corbyn you can fuck off and join the Tories" quip you mentioned, is constructive in terms of outreach. As mentioned earlier, I think the "Bernie bro" narrative is very easy for some people and certain media to latch onto and make it a story, especially in the absence of actual dirt or substantive criticism of the candidate or policy itself. I understand that this happens. It's frustrating. It's especially frustrating when, for example, Biden himself responds to a man asking about immigration with "You should go vote for Trump" before he's even done asking it. That's actively shooting down someone looking to improve a certain area of life or politics because they don't fall immediately into the camp the candidate is already in and he's not going to entertain listening or changing his mind. But that's not in the news cycle for four years. Decisions are made as to what's in the news and after a while it becomes "fact" to a lot of people, especially those who maybe don't have the time or energy to dig much deeper.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
Simultaneously saying that the media created thing and thing doesn’t really exist and then blaming thing for your own failure to properly address thing is talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Narratives have always mattered more than policy when it comes to voting
and how anyone in the US can look at the UK and the propaganda of Brexit, the associated motivations to return to some fantastical past the never really existed or maybe existed for some, and say “not us” is beyond me
Narratives have always mattered more than policy when it comes to voting
and how anyone in the US can look at the UK and the propaganda of Brexit, the associated motivations to return to some fantastical past the never really existed or maybe existed for some, and say “not us” is beyond me
BjorgenFjorgen
Well-Known Member
?
1) never denied that it existed, just said that it's exaggerated; 2) said Bernie has addressed it multiple times. What am I missing here?
Saying that any movement trying to increase people's quality of life is "trying to return to a past that never really existed" is also bizarre. Who else was saying to "make America great again" other than Trump? Economic inequality didn't used to be as extreme as it is now. Climate change didn't used to be as extreme. How would you like him to address that? Any promise of a better future is doomed to fail or somehow hypocritical? Might as well give up then! That must be why I'm so depressed all the time!
jaycee
Well-Known Member
That my post wasn't in response to you or I would've quoted you directly. Sorry I was on the bus and I didn't read or see your response to Ed and Joe and Me before it posted. I type slow. Particularly on the bus.
I wasn't referencing the Sanders campaign I was making the connection between the return to the good ol days motivations of some UK voters and those same motivations here in the US from various political camps including both red and blue voters.
dhodo
Well-Known Member
I appreciate his perspective, but have to say, this thread is a bit of a head scratcher for me. He starts by laying out a lot of great reasons that southern African Americans have to completely distrust the government, which I would argue is certainly not limited to Republicans. I think these are great arguments for why voter turnout is dismally low here.
However, then he says that what "surprised the fuck out of him," that she said, is the same two tired, flawed arguments against M4A that every Republican has been parroting for years. He also lays all that information out there and then dissapointingly concludes the whole thing by saying the only reason they vote for Biden, since he hasn't done anything for them either, is that he is a Democrat. This doesn't provide any insight in to why they went with him over the other Democrats running. I have heard a lot of people say they are voting for Biden because of Obama, so I think the fact that he brought it up just to brush it off is disingenuous. Certainly it is a valid point that it isn't just African Americans who feel that way, but he didn't seem to be making that.
His point about Bernie not trying, or at least failing to win over the most trusted African American members of the Democratic establishment is a great one though. Perhaps this was a flaw of the other candidates as well, I'm not sure anyone had a chance of winning them over when Biden was in the race. He certainly has the strong advantage there.
Just to be clear, I am not even remotely close to a Bernie Bro. I'm not trying to disagree with his points to say that anyone should have voted for Bernie. He is not the candidate I would have preferred overall. Honestly I have a hard time getting excited about any of them. I'm mostly sharing these feelings about that thread because I wanted to gain more and much deeper insight than I feel like it provided.
Last edited: