BjorgenFjorgen
Well-Known Member
From my perspective people criticize Silver now because he went from trying to illustrate data to becoming a very bad pundit.
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
I'd argue it's THE reason.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
Honestly I only listen to his podcast and read the occasional article if I'm particularly interested. I listened to the citations needed podcast where they criticized him, and found it lacking.
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
'Staggering' New Data Shows Income of Top 1% Has Grown 100 Times Faster Than Bottom 50% Since 1970
"The bulk of a generation of economic growth has been captured and concentrated in a few hands, and many people have barely seen any of it."
www.commondreams.org
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
So I'm gonna try and be as articulate as I can to your layered comment.
A) I listened to the Daily piece (The Candidates: Bernie Sanders) that you reference while driving around LA today. I actually thought it was a very well done piece. But I'm also not sure why the only aspect of it that stuck with you is when Sanders bristled at the Sanderistas being brought up. I've said many times that I agree that Sanders is sometimes too defensive around the media. Particularly in this election cycle. That said, much of it derives from a desire to avoid gotcha questions that generate headlines. Warren does the same thing ALL THE TIME. Particularly as it pertains to healthcare. Do I think the moderator's have a point that he could frame it through the the lens of now versus then or attempted to give a nuanced answer? Sure. But both you and @Indymisanthrope just brought up how critical thinking is lacking in this day and age. So I don't mind Sander's framing of it via as a symbolic rebuttal to Ronald and the politics of that time.
B) Peter Doa was a consultant / advisor for Clinton last go round who is fully on team Bernie this go-round because his takeaway from 2016 was that neoliberal policies have failed us. He has said on Twitter that he has seen the full book of opposition research that exists on Sanders and that nothing within would be problematic during a general election in his eyes. In other words, this and the Russia honeymoon stuff is as bad as it gets and I simply don't think it's that big of a deal in the current era. Not nearly as big of a deal as Hunter Biden. Not as big of a deal as the fact that Pete is a straight up no-go for a lot of progressives due to his fundraising and has real issues with older blacks due to his homosexuality (which would absolutely depress turnout among certain minority groups). Probably not as big of a deal as the fact that Warren misrepresented her ethnicity for decades either (even though that's not something I give a shit about).
C) To me, the big takeaway from the Daily piece should be the blueprint that Sanders used to overthrow the establishment in Burlington. To give you background on myself-- My mom grew up in rural Arkansas during the 50's and 60's. Her father would disappear for days at a time up to St. Louis in order to help organize activists during the civil rights movement. When he retired and moved the family to Denver, he became a lobbyist for the arts and for drug and alcohol counseling. The SCFD culture tax (which was just renewed last year) was his brain child and he helped orchestrate its passing. Denver has had some of the best Zoos, museums and parks in the entire country ever since. The point of this is not to brag about my family, but this: In his later years (he died at 73), my grandfather was crippled by arthritis, 3 bouts with skin cancer and sculiosis (sp?). When my dad asked his father-in-law why he continued to dedicate so much of his time to activism despite the amount of pain he was in- my grandfather replied something along the lines of "the minute we become passive within the process, is the minute the government stops working for us".
Somebody a couple of comments ago mentioned their belief that money in politics is the reason our political system is so fucked up. And it's certainly a very large part of it. But the other part of it is that so few people are actively engaged in the process. This country has become an oligarchy and the ONLY way we change that is by utilizing a mass movement that organizes the left and puts them to work fighting back against our government. That means running for office, protesting, founding political organizations on the ground level that fight for issues both local and national, empowering workers and unions, exc. Sanders is the ONLY person running who consistently talks about that. And he doesn't just talk. He walks the walk. And the organizations that came out of his 2016 campaign are continuing to make an impact.
Obama came out of community organizing. He understood it's power which is why he ran such an effective campaign in 2008. Yet the minute he had been elected, he completely abandoned that grassroots infrastructure. It was the predictable outcome when you consider that 20 of his 25 cabinet positions were chosen by Citigroup. But the reality is that Obama is the one who set all of this in motion- whether that means the anger on the far left or the election of Donald Trump. Pushing the TPP, bailing out the banks and then not jailing the white collar criminals who broke the law and wrecked lives, foreclosing on 9 million homes (most of which wound up in the hands of real estate tycoons or the banks when it came to big cities), expanding the power of the president in ways that Trump is now exploiting, mass surveillance... it's not what Obama didn't get done- but what he did (or attempted) to get done that drove people under 35 to the far left and white working class voters to Trump while setting an environment where half of the country wants to burn the status quo the the ground.
And yes, I am part of that group. And yes my " vitriol" towards people like Diane Feinstein, Hillary and Chuck Shumer is VERY real. But no, that vitriol is not about people who don't support Sanders. I've said many times that I would gladly vote for Warren (though her waffling on M4A has removed the gladly from that statement). It is, however, sometimes aimed at people who continue to support corporate tools like Pete and Biden. Because those people are a part of the problem and in a post-Trump world my patience has worn thin. But we are also on the internet in a group that is merely shooting the shit. That disdain is usually masked in my real day to day- and has to be in instances where I am canvassing or working with those people on common causes (like a city counsel race or homelessness advocacy). After all- those people may be a huge part of the problem but that doesn't make them inherently bad people.
D) As to why I believe Bernie would win... We've already had this conversation in depth.
I worked on his campaign in three separate states in 2016. Other than the time I was in LA, it was all spent in rural areas. Without a voter registration list. I was knocking on EVERY door because that's how Bernie does it. And in that time I quickly realized that the socialist label didn't matter for 2 reasons. 1) Regardless of ideology, disillusioned voters trusted him and found him authentic. 2) Even if they didn't agree with all of his policies, they believed that he would fight for them and the American people. Partially because of his track record and partially because he was waging a war on money in politics and was funded by the people.
Bernie went on to absolutely TRASH Clinton among independent and newly registered voters. He often dominated her in rural areas (for the record, this is a guy has managed to win 25% of the vote in Vermont year over year)... In fact, his entire campaign was predicated around turning out rural areas. Whether that be the Western Slope of CO (which carried him to victory), Northern Nevada (which was very close) or Michigan (also a victory). The places where he lost big were either in the south or were closed primaries (often with early registration deadlines).
Which brings me to what has ALWAYS been Bernie's biggest problem- the type of voter who views being a Democrat as a huge part of their identity. The type of person who loathes Sanders because criticizing the DNC amounts to an attack on their soul and blames him for Clinton's loss. Do you really think that person is going to stay home if Bernie is the nominee and Trump is the alternative? I sure don't. I think they'd accept his nomination and unite to be rid of Trump. Same time, I don't think that's necessarily true for portions of Bernie's coalition- the disillusioned, working class, independent leaning, millennial portions of his coalition that want the system torched are far more fickle. I think most of them would get behind Warren, but Pete or Biden is a more complicated scenario. Of note though, is that those demographics are well represented in key mid-west and rust belt swing states. In other words, typical DNC voter + strong under 40 turnout + strong independent support + strong Latino support + new voter turnout = clear path to victory.
Will there be people who get red baited? Sure- but those people are likely to be the Fox News watching type anyways. Meanwhile, there are people like my cousin (or my roommates father) who have registered as a Democrat for the first time in their life in order to vote for Bernie.
The question is there are enough of them to make up for all the DNC die-hards, people who have crossed him off due to age or who are worried his electability (again) to get Bernie out the primary this time. And there may not be. Especially because the media thing is NOT a conspiracy. And that reality is a function of the elite protecting the status quo, plain and simple.
Last edited:
jaycee
Well-Known Member
Where Bernie fucked-up in that interview wasn't the only thing that stuck with me, and I'm not sure why you chose to frame it like that. I asked about it because, as I stated, I think it could be a problem for him come general election time.
I specifically asked about the vitriol directed at the media - not about the Bernie vs the rest of the political world thing you describe.
I won't ask again. I wasn't looking for more campaign advocacy... I don't know what I expected.
I continue to think your takes about the part of the country I live in are waaaaaay of base. I guess we'll see.
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
"So as a sociologist, or at least someone who works with sociological data, why do you believe (I think) that Bernie has a greater advantage over any other blue candidate in defeating Trump who will have a base of 30% of the electorate? There's another 70% out there and the Bernie campaign is trying (as Trump did) to tap into non-traditional voter markets - perhaps wisely, but WHY not as an advocate but as a sociologist do you see Bernie as having the best chance."
That is what I was responding to. I added the portion about movement building because it was the focus of the podcast / interview you specifically brought up. The thing was an examination of the ways in which mayor Bernie overcame a government that was determined to obstruct him by working to organize and empower his community.
The media side of it was wrapped into @Indymisanthrope's comment so I was going to tackle it in that response (tomorrow). Because it's a complex issues that I have complicated feelings about. But the short of it is to say that the media did this to themselves, and there have been many steps along the way. The is not just about Sanders but about the way that they cover (or fail to cover) issues like foreign policy, climate change and health care. It's about Ron Paul (which was the first time I remember noticing it), Yang, and Gabbard or anyone whose message pushes back against the status quo. It's about the push for Iraq, the ways in which Google's search engine buries good essays on the causes of the recession while pushing think tank publications to the top of the pile, the fact that climate change deniers are still given a platform to ham it up as merchants of doubt. It's about the fact that important issues go uncovered while sensationalist nonsense of little consequence it given hours and hours of coverage if it drives up ratings. It's about the the vast majority of our media is owned by like 5 outlets and PBS and NPR. It's about manufacturing consent.
I have no problem with Sanders alluding to that even if I wish he were better at not bristling at certain questions. It is not close to the same thing that Trump is doing with his "fake news" (if it isn't his news) narrative and his attacks on individual journalists.
And by the way, because I think this is part of what @Indymisanthrope is alluding to... that is not to say that there aren't good journalists at institutions that I have deep problems with or that those places don't also do very good work at times. But it is to say that far too much over the (older) left simply nods their head to whatever MSNBC or the NYT is feeding them (while they shake their fists at Fox without seeing the hypocrisy). Similarly, the hypocrisy is thick when that same crowd labels Greenwald or Tabbai as a Russian asset while praising somebody like David Brooks, Anderson (Vanderbilt) Cooper or Rachel Maddow.
Last edited:
jaycee
Well-Known Member
That's all well and good and is not new information about "the media" or the blindness of the blue and red team members. I fail to see how Bernie and his campaign staff threatening to leave and interview and effectively cutting it short because they didn't want to explain his support for a leftists rebel group that was 'less bad' than the people the Reagan administration was propping-up isn't deeply hypocritical of his campaign's ideals. Particularly when the interview was being conducted in an incredibly friendly setting.
That approach does nothing to expose the conspiracy that you are describing (because it literally wasn't discussed) and only persuades potential voters to doubt his authenticity. It also creates an easy attack ad for opponents come general election time. The conspiracy theories, regardless of their accuracy, are probably not going to do the campaign any good. It comes across to people as another "fake news" even if it is factual. It makes Bernie look less competent than he is.
All of the non-status quo politicians you mention are still free-market capitalists. Personally I feel that is still very status quo. You mentioned Obama earlier too (Another free market believer), but I thought it was interesting that you put the blame for the bank bailout and recession on him and his administrations approach. I have no doubt that different decisions should have been made, but the bank bailout was occurring before he ever took office and certainly the collapse of the housing and securities scam was well underway.
If you are representing the lens through which the Sanders campaign views recent history... btw there is a clear recent history bias by the social-democracy movement that is ignoring so much of what has occurred throughout America's past and past social movements... then I fear what will happen in a general election with Bernie as the candidate.
I think appearances matter, particularly in politics, and for Bernie maybe more-so than other candidates. He is going to need all of the positive optics he can get. The establishments that you have described are not about laying down their weapons and raising the flag of the opposition.
Maybe the conspiracy propaganda will work for the Sanders campaign as it did for Trump. I don't know but it's all a deeply troubling approach to me.
I'm not trying to say there is something wrong with Bernie. I think I'm trying to say that there are some big blind-spots from the campaign and from the man himself, and I think they could cause him trouble in the general.
Last edited:
jaycee
Well-Known Member
This is worth listening to... or watching.
www.talibkweli.com
Peoples Party Podcast with Talib Kweli: Phillip Agnew « Talib Kweli
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
The fact that your refer to it as "conspiracy propaganda" makes it difficult for me to take anything else you say seriously even though the larger points are worth discussing.
The media blackout / attempts to undermine his campaign at every turn were real in 2016 and they are real now. And the other people I mentioned in Tusli and Ron were given the same treatment because they were a threat to the military industrial complex even if they are still free market capitalists (which for the record, Tulsi is not an advocate the free market).
I've also already acknowledged that I think Bernie could have handled this particular interaction better. I also agree that the powers that be will continue to fight his nomination post-primary.
Where we deeply disagree is where you imply people like me "are ignoring so much of what has occurred throughout America's past".
Nobody is ignoring that. We are arguing that 40 years of neoliberal policy has been so disastrous that paradigms are beginning to shift. As seen in the fact that Trump is out president-- a reality that was easily predictable to those of us who were on the ground talking to average Americans and knew the winds of 2016 were deeply anti-establishment. The repeated attacks from the right that called Obama a socialist have also muted the word's impact.
Again, Bernie's 2020 base is predominately made up of deeply angry working class, lower middle class and latino voters this go round. People who work for Amazon or Wallmart, teachers, union members and the such. A lot of the college educated whites in the 40-60 age who understand democratic socialism and backed him in 16' are currently behind Warren or Pete, but would easily flip back.
Meanwhile, study after recent study shows that people under 38 prefer socialism to capitalism. A recent one found 70% of people under 38 are more likely to vote for a socialist leaning candidate. There is a substantial portion of the left that is done voting for any politician that takes money from corporate sources.
So while it's a complicated situation, what you really seem to be asserting is that there arena large number of people who backed Clinton and would refuse to vote for Bernie even though they've spent the past four years up in arms over Trump...
Bernie isn't likely likely to be the nominee either way because people like you are dead set in their belief he isn't electable. While others simply want a return to normalcy (as if that will solve anything). But I'll go to my grave certain that he would have won in 2016. Just asI'm certain that the polling that repeatedly shows him up on Trump is no fluke. Especially because Bernie almost always did better than the polling in 2016 (see Michigan or Iowa or Neveda or New Hampshire for examples) for much the same reason that Trump did... polls rely heavily on calling people who the system deems likely (i.e. consistent) voters.
Last edited:
jaycee
Well-Known Member
This is frankly a dumb take.
Just because I'm not thrilled about everything Bernie says and does, and I'm wiling to point out what I see as flaws in the campaign and the candidate, doesn't imply that I think he isn't electable.
What you just demonstrated is one of the main problems with the Bernie "coalition"
It isn't really a coalition when you approach dissenting opinions as you have.
It's not "about us" if it isn't about all of us.... I hope that Bernie thinks differently than you do.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
I think you are misrepresenting yourself here. I believe you have repeatedly said he isn’t electable because he won’t carry the rural working class.
He is saying he does and the reason he won’t win the nomination is more likely it’s because Dems have this idea that he won’t be electable.
The blockage is in the primary not the general election.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
I don't know where you're getting that. @DownIsTheNewUp has put forth that narrative. I haven't said he isn't electable at any point and I don't think anything I've said should've been interpreted that way. I don't think anyone here has said he isn't electable.
I have implied that the general statements made about how different groups, whatever classification has been used to describe how popular Bernie is and why people support him probably does not capture the issues and fears of people in my area. I've implied that many of the assumptions about what people who aren't being captured in polling data think and want are likely incorrect.
I've pointed out that there are flaws in the campaign and candidate imo
I've said that the way Bernie handled himself in that NYT interview is something that could cause him trouble with and without his own party in the general.
I've also said that the conspiracies against Bernie (true or not) are not a talking point that the average voter wants to hear or is interested in.
I've also said I'd happily vote for him.
I have not said he isn't electable. just read the words - don't add meaning between the lines
Last edited:
jaycee
Well-Known Member
Sorry to quote this again
I am seriously confused where the idea came from when I didn’t even mention”the rural working class”
I don’t really know what that is and if I assumed anything about that group’s voting preferences it would be for Trump
For the record, I live in a city (If you count anything that isn’t LA,Chicago, and NY) as a city) so the comments I’ve made about my part of the country not beingwell represented in the talking points and polling data are about that.
The non-coastal areas of the US are not monolithic in any sense of the word, yet whenever it gets brought up it seems to fit snuggly into the larger assumptions being made.
I have been genuine and sincere in my questions and critique. It’s kind of fucked up to say I am misrepresenting myself or assume otherwise.
I’ve said my piece and @DownIsTheNewUp has said his. We don’t need to rehash it and I’ll be sure not to ask any questions of the Bernie campaign again.
Dtknuckles
Well-Known Member
I’m not gonna look back, but maybe I got that idea from you saying that people are uncomfortable with the socialism label.
jaycee
Well-Known Member
I did say that, and maybe I should've been more explicit, who I was referring to. I guess I was referring to everybody. I don't think the average person is comfortable with that label. Maybe the average person of a certain age or the average person of a certain political affiliation is.
I'm only speaking from my personal experience. I'm surround by moderate left leaning people and some more conservative folks during most of my day. These people think rationally but very conservatively and do not like to make large leaps even those leaps make sense from a data, facts, or political policy perspective. I think the average person (where I'm at) fears change and prefers to keep things going with the status quo.
The dumb thing here is that I fundamentally agree with the Sanders campaign and what they think are the important actionable agenda items.... I just don't think that the guy is infallible and I don't think the campaign sales pitch or avoidance of things that could result in the people around me being distracted (not voting for) the purpose of all of this is (to bring people together and upset the status quo).
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
Not to be glib, and not directed at you personally, but...then what? Same goes for if Hillary had won.
In both cases, Paul Ryan would still have been Speaker. He might still be today, because there's a good chance you wouldn't have had the same 2018 wave that overtook the House. Less inspiration for the new class of representatives to run, and maybe less enthusiasm to elect the ones who would have run anyway. Possibly no AOC, no Ilhan Omar, no Pelosi back in the Speaker's position. Jeff Sessions still in the Senate (and therefore no special election where Doug Jones beats Roy Moore), no appetite to unseat Martha McSally in AZ, etc.* A Democratic president being painted by a Republican-led Congress as ineffectual because they would kill any legislative proposals that would make good on campaign promises. Difficulty getting Cabinet nominees with credentials any more leftist than Van Jones confirmed. Concerted efforts by Mitch McConnell to block anything, but especially SCOTUS nominees, possibly up to and including a withdrawal of the Merrick Garland nomination.
I think we all know that our problem isn't that Trump won in 2016. That was just the symptom that has ultimately exposed just how thoroughly rotten the party that has embraced him has become. Unfortunately, that also means that one person being elected instead of Trump wasn't going to save us. Things might not have gotten *as bad* and I don't want to diminish the real, significant damage that Trump and his people have done. But at the same time, we might not now have the class of supercharged progressives on a mission that we have today. Because it's going to take them, and a lot more of them, to effect the sorts of changes that Bernie promises. The presidency is a powerful executive office, but it's only as powerful as the people who are willing and able to implement that office's orders. If Bernie won in 2016, I don't know that I'd actually be any better off today than I would have been had Hillary won. And that's not an indictment of him, but of the composition of the rest of our political class, including the absolute intransigence of the opposing party.
*Of course, you might also have the opposite effect in some cases: maybe Claire McCaskill doesn't lose to Josh Hawley in MO, maybe Joe Donnelly holds out against Mike Braun's Trumpism in IN, and maybe without Trump stumping for him, Ted Cruz loses to Beto in TX. Speculative history gets pretty speculative I guess.
Definitely. "It's too soon" or "We're not ready" is a common refrain; recognition that a goal is needed/inevitable, but resistance to rapid adoption that might make me uncomfortable or worse, hang me out to dry.
Last edited:
Indymisanthrope
Well-Known Member
Should also say that I duly note that *any* SCOTUS nomination by a Sanders/Clinton presidency would be better than Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, irrespective of whether Garland's nomination was ultimately withdrawn. Also, we wouldn't all be as terrified at the prospect of losing RBG every time she experiences another health issue. I don't want my comment above to read as if it's fine that Trump won because we'll all be better off in the long run by any stretch. That is definitely not my feeling, nor do I think it's assured in any sense.
Why Time picking Greta Thunberg will drive Donald Trump crazy | CNN Politics
On Wednesday morning, Time magazine announced that teen climate activist Greta Thunberg was its person of the year.
www.cnn.com
Oh, I can get behind Times Person of the year any day. Also, why does the headline have to be "Why Time picking Greta Thunberg will drive Donald Trump crazy".
Why does everything have to be about Trump
DownIsTheNewUp
Well-Known Member
Yes you have said you would vote for him in a general. You have also expressed doubt over his electability numerous times in this thread. Which is very common. It was the #1 reason I came across for people's support of Clinton in 2016 (experience being #2). This go-round, his age (understandably) is the #1 reason I come across for somebody not supporting him. Blaming him for Clinton's loss or electability is #2.
That is all I was saying.
And on that note:
Joe Biden is underwater with voters earning less than $75,000 a year, who overwhelmingly prefer Bernie Sanders
The former vice president has very high net satisfaction, however, among voters reporting incomes of $75,000 and above.
www.businessinsider.com
@Indymisanthrope your point is well taken. I'll try and respond when I'm not on my way out the door to work.