I appreciate you being honest about your perspective. I remember when Barack was running and I was just a teen, and I was really excited about that and felt empowered. It was somebody I felt I could relate to. I do see where you're coming from.
At the same time though, if such a candidate went on to espouse policies that ran contrary to what you could relate to, endorsed an agenda that felt disconnected from the struggles you face, would you continue your support for that candidate? How many people would be willing to still vote for a politician if confronted with those circumstances?
Hell no, because I don't run on identity politics. This isn't about
me personally though, right?
For instance would you vote for Ben Carson ? If not, then why is that? He has endured hardship and outright racism as a black man who grew up poor at an earlier time in history then most of us here at PC did.
lol Ben Carson is a joke to the highest degree and it's interesting that he was put in charge of HUD simply because he was raised in the projects and nothing else.
But this question is assuming that I personally run on nothing but identity politics, which again is false. I apologize if throughout this discussion I created that impression, but I'd argue actual policy substance matter just as much to me. If identity politics were all that people ran on, then Ben Carson wouldn't be seen a joke now, right?
What I am getting at, is even allowing that people have a hidden agenda, at some point, perhaps not here, but eventually that line is going to be drawn. Where we draw that line you would have to tell me me. I'm honestly asking if there is a limit to what you are personally willing to put up with in the name of identity?
I honestly think this is a question the general electorate needs to ask themselves more often. Where
do we draw the line? I mean, you see white privileged people vote for Trump in the elections. Do you think it's truly because they genuinely believed Trump had their best interests, or is it because they felt Trump related to them, or both?
How much of a person's voting decision relies purely on identity and not policy? Trump in the primaries ran as a "fuck the government, fuck the system" candidate that resonated with folks who felt that the government has let them down. Is that identity or policy, or somewhere in the middle?
How much overt racism and hardship Bernie has experienced is something I honestly don't know, and something that can get very subjective and a critcism used against any white person. However even if somebody talks like us, or looks like us, and has had experiences like ours, what if we have reason to believe that said person is working against our interest?
The mindset of a more informed voter knows that there's more than just what's there at a surface level.
Unfortunately, if only this is the mindset the general electorate played upon, then we most certainly wouldn't have Trump to this day. A man with virtually zero policy substance doing nothing but yelling and screaming about "draining the swamp". I argue he's a perfect example of channeling the average white rural worker, but I could be wrong here. The general point being is that Trump is a walking example of identity politics in action because for some reason, even if you were in the poor working class, you saw yourself in Trump because he wasn't another DC puppet promising you the best life ever, he made sure under no uncertain terms that he was going to upend the system as we know it. It was
this rhetoric that spoke to them, regardless of what kind of policy he really had (which of course, as we know, is none whatsoever).
Now, as we know, it's Trump's very voters that are being hurt the most by his decisions. The tariffs, the government shutdown... all of it affects most people who voted for him. It's quite the example of the very situation you describe. For as much as one would disagree with Clinton, she ran on pure policy, but that was not enough for the average person. Sometimes it feels like she was
too much policy and talking more jargon that would just go over the average American's head. There was no draw there.
But again, that's kind of the risk you take in American politics. If someone walks like you, dresses like you, shares similar experiences that you do, and started echoing your very beliefs regardless of whether or not they would act upon them, how
would you know whether or not to really trust them? I mean, aside from debates (which probably doesn't move the needle a whole lot if most people have made up their minds anyway), how can you possibly know what kind of decisions a politician is going to make until they're behind the Oval Office desk?
I mean, sure. Anyone with half a brain could see that Trump was duping his own voters. But if you were a steelworker or someone who has worked in the factories for years and years upon end who felt that the government did not have your back, who else do they turn to?
This is not defending them, by the way. What I'm getting at is that the question you pose is moreso getting into the mind of the average voter, if that makes sense. If we voted with pure
policy in mind, with zero regard to identity whatsoever, Clinton would likely be president right now. If we voted with identity politics
and policy in mind, Bernie would be president right now (because he's far more relatable than Clinton). Trump is what happened with the electoral college sided with him moreso on identity more than anything.
This is just my personal opinion, but I think if the media had covered Bernie and Hillary in a fair and balanced way then it would not have mattered how much more "authentic" she sounded when speaking about race then Bernie, her actual history and policies on race would have become too alienating.
I think this would be a worthwhile read on that very subject! In short, I'll agree that there is.... quite the mess when it comes to how the media covers politics overall.
Even Clinton supporters felt that she was given undue negative media attention. Remember when James Comey came out and practically said that Clinton was an idiot for using a private email server? That
tanked her polls for a good while. I mean, there was no
criminal wrongdoing, but should the story have followed Clinton as much as it had? What about the whole Benghazi situation? Despite the fact that she cleared of wrongdoing multiple times, this seemed to be a huge skeleton in her closet that most people just would not let go.
It's... a hard question to ask on how "fair" media reporting would go. Is fair media reporting just the media reporting on what we
want them to cover, versus what they
should cover? The media is far from innocent when it comes to politics and there's a lot that can be learned from 2016, but whether or not the media is covering a given candidate fairly will always be an issue of hot debate among any candidate's supporters simply because they feel the media isn't placing their candidate on a more equal ground among others.
Even if the media were truly being fair, and a given candidate was still doing poorly simply because they're a terrible candidate, would one truly still fault them (the media, that is) even then?
I'll try to avoid too much whataboutism, but the reason I compare him with Hillary is because she is who he was running against. You raised a perfectly reasonable concern if Bernie could get minorities to vote for him, citing that Hillary carried the minority vote previously. Now this is just my opinion, but I believe many picked Hillary over Bernie not because he doesn't have anything to offer minorities, was a hated candidate and can't earn their vote, but because when they voted for Hillary they thought they were voting for someone she was not, someone the media misrepresented. You say that you knew all about the Clintons, but do you think most people know that Hillary is taking her foreign policy advice from Henry Kissinger, who ripped apart Cambodia and led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and catastrophic death tolls in Asia? Or that Hillary armed child soldiers in the Sudan? I don't think they do. Maybe I am an optimist, but I think we as Americans are better than that.
I'm pretty sure one time
she outright admitted she respected Henry Kissinger. Whether this was some sort of play towards centrist Republicans or a some grand show of bipartisanship, who knows (or maybe she's just really that naive or whatever). If the American people shrugged their shoulders at that much and still got her to the general election despite that, then apparently it's not that big of a gaff, probably because most people who aren't super into politics and history know who Henry Kissinger even
is.
One of the reasons I prefer to talk in substantive terms of policy is because who looks authentic and stiff and whatnot is something that can really fall into the grey, murky area of subjectivity. How you voted on the bill and who your donors include are things I can objectively see and quantify.
This is absolutely true! The problem with this is that being the President is about being as much of an effective communicator as it is being an effective policymaker. It's an interesting observation I've noticed that during the 2016 primaries, you really can't be too much one over the other. If you're too much policy, then while you may have a record to reflect back on and that may be quantifiable, if you fail at communicating that message, then then you aren't getting very far.
In the same vein, if all you have is communication with very little substance (a narrative which has basically haunted Sanders for pretty much his whole campaign), then you aren't getting far, either.
Not that Trump has had much of either. But his strategy towards the campaign was more.... making a play towards pretty much the entire spectrum. The centrists, the moderates, the far right, pretty much if one wasn't remotely liberal they saw themselves in him and believed he was communicating more to them regardless of any void where policy substance would normally be.
I am not saying that there is never any awkwardness or gaff with Bernie, but I think that can be said potentially of any person who is from a different culture than our own. Hillary also made mistakes to say the least, but my point is the media did not give it the same focus. When she screamed down the girl on camera who asked her a question about her environmental policies it made a blip in the news. Had Bernie done the same thing then his campaign would have ended that day, the media would have hounded him over it nonstop, and rightfully so-- that is their job. But with Hillary they did not do their job because they had a real conflict of interest. We don't have Woodward and Bernstein anymore. We have paid-off fat cats who don't like to ask the hardball questions.
It's going to be interesting how trust in the media and the media's overage overall is going to play into the 2020 elections.
I do completely agree that there does seem to be more of tip in the scale in the favour of Clinton as far as media coverage goes, but simultaneously the media has dinged Clinton a fair bit, too. They rightfully covered the deplorables situation (regardless of your opinion on actual Trump supporters, that's not something she should've said which hurt her standing quite a bit),
and that utter gaff about putting coal miners out of business is a huge ouch.
I dunno, I think we can both probably agree that 2016 is just not a normal election cycle, needless to say. You'd think Clinton's trips and falls would've costed her the campaign as well, but it didn't. You'd think as soon as James Comey announced that Clinton was irresponsible for handling her emails and even the months prior when she was being investigated for the such, any normal candidate would've just thrown up the white flag then and there. But she didn't. While her overwhelming baggage did end up costing her the presidency, it's we the voters who decide which issue sinks a candidate and which doesn't.
I mean, Trump's pussy-grabbing comment certainly didn't do favours for his media coverage but look where we're at now, I guess.
In the debates Bernie talked about getting officers into the neighborhood working within the community before any problems occurred, developing good relationships with the local people they are supposed to be representing. If you have ever had a friendly D.A.R.E officer for instance come to your school as a kid then think along those lines. He wanted to diversify the police academies and always have officers that could be representative of the areas they served, letting African-American and Latino police come to neighborhoods where there were high minority populations and help diminish the fear of racism. He called for new training programs that would have been designed and monitored by civil rights organizations, even everyday people in the community like you and me would have been allowed to contribute reform ideas. He also endorsed a federal mandate so that all police nation-wide had to wear the body cam.
But see, while this is a respectable plan on paper, I feel like as we've seen so far, the police can be
part of the problem. Body cams or not, what typically happens is that an officer shoots a black individual under the guise of "self-defense" (which is bullshit like 99% of the time) and then they get put on "administrative leave" while the police department "investigates". And then the story is dropped like that. As soon as the police department is out of the hot chair, nothing really happens. Now, whether police brutality wouldn't happen
at all under Bernie (it certainly wouldn't happen
as much, but the issue requires more than just "racial bias training") is a hard question to answer, but putting police officers in neighbourhoods high in poverty is a double-edged sword.
After all, how can you trust the people who have sworn to protect and serve when those same people can act on racial biases as well, and punish you for it with little to no consequence? Diversifying definitely helps, no doubt about that. But how can you truly restore trust between police and the public so that they know that the police have their safety in mind without fear of being shot in what could've been an easily avoidable situation?
One of the things I personally really liked that Bernie said on behalf of Latinos specifically had to do with Hounduran refugees. I'm afraid I do have to do a little whataboutism just to give the context of what he is talking about. Under Hillary's state department the US backed a coup of the democratically-elected leader of Honduras. In the chaos that ensued children fled to the USA. Hillary said to send the kids back into the danger zone, but Bernie on the same debate stage said to Jorge Ramos that he was on the side of saving the children and letting them stay. Bernie was the one fighting for the Hispanic children, and he looked pretty impassioned about it to me.
I wanted to see, out of plain curiosity, if there was more context behind the Honduras comment or whether or not Clinton truly just said to "send them back" and that was the end of that.
But it seems
that doesn't paint the truth of the entire story.
Clinton made a couple of points in that last answer. It is not as simple as saying "send them back," but that was certainly an outcome she supported in some cases.
To be precise, she said they should be sent back if the government can identify responsible adults to care for them. She allowed that it might not be possible to send all of them to their home country.
But she indicated a preference.
"I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families," Clinton said.
It should be noted that at the time, the administration actively pursued a policy to dissuade children and teenagers in Central America from attempting the trip in the first place. The government had open letters printed in local newspapers and paid for advertizing that dispelled any myth that these young people would be allowed to stay if they could get across the border. In July 2014, the White House signaled that it would seek funds to expedite the return of most of the children stopped at the American border.
It's kind of weird and interesting how Clinton's positions kind of change shape with the political climate as a whole. I suppose this is mostly why blame isn't placed on her so much.
Heck, she was even against gay marriage. But because during those times it was "normal" to have those beliefs, not many people blinked much of an eye.
Personally I wish politicians would have more of a consistent record instead of flip-flopping for the sake of votes, but that's just me.
Ok, lets unpack this from a strategic standpoint. What was the outcome of Hillary helping Obama after he defeated her?
He fundraised to help her pay off her campaign debts. I know this because my family voted Obama and we got the emails from his campaign to donate to help Hillary for helping him. Next Hillary becomes his secretary of state, the most powerful position pretty much after him. Her resume is boosted whereas previously she essentially rode on her husband's coat tails. As secretary Hillary is not only able to shape policy, raise up her friends and the contacts from her husband's administration by bringing them into the cabinet, stay in the political spotlight for another 4-8 years (something that was not otherwise guaranteed her) and receive a lot of money from speaker fees with her new found status. Then when she is ready to run for president in 2016 she was cheerleaded by Obama and received the endorsements from essentially his entire administration.
Now this author is not blind. They can't be in the field in of politics and so oblivious to the political advantages to standing with Obama, and yet they are trying to frame this as a demonstration of devotion to the black community and personal friendship with Obama. This is a predatory thing they have written for us to read honestly, and exactly the kind of manipulation by the mainstream media that I have criticized. Even if there is an old lady in Florida who doesn't know any better, these so-called journalists aren't anywhere close to that naive. The sneakiest face of the media is perhaps shown in the parts of the story they omit.
Granted, I'll definitely give you this -- I definitely didn't like how the article itself reeked of dodging obvious biases -- but I also think it's equally foolish to ignore or otherwise not acknowledge the
impressions that Hillary Clinton gave off by standing with Obama, which was my whole point. Better on you since the wool wasn't pulled over your eyes for who she may truly be, but for many people, they saw someone who stood with them in the same vein she stood with Obama, because, you know, identity politics.
Yes, that is part of it. She is the more conservative candidate for an older voter, but how much of a hammering can that firewall take under strong criticism and scrutiny? I think it is possible that Bernie or another liberal candidate could crack through it in a primary that was not actively being manipulated by the DNC and media, where more information about both candidates was distributed.
I dunno Sam, while I do genuinely believe much in the same manner as yourself that there are biases in favour towards Clinton (I mean literally anyone can see that much), I don't entirely agree with you that she would suffer mass defections if all of the skeletons in her closet were to be let loose. We know this because mostly everything that can possibly be exposed about Clinton (including the "superpredators" comment, which isn't hard to dig up), has already been exposed. She's been in politics for decades after all, it's not particularly difficult to see her most embarrassing moments in the public eye. So to say that the media that's been protecting her the whole entire primary doesn't make a whole lot of sense, or really doesn't really add up to me when the media has been on Clinton's case for months over things like her emails among pretty much ever other gaff she ever made in the campaign.
I agree that the DNC and the media are
part of the problem, yes. The other part of the problem is that because Clinton has been in the political spotlight for years and have been controversial for just about as many... there's just
so much information to process when it comes to her. One week the media would be on about some dumb comment about her Pokemon GOing to the polls, the next week it'd be about calling Trump's base deplorables, the week after it's putting coal miners out of a job, I mean... you have to admit that all the dirt that could possibly be dug up on Clinton has already been dug up. Another liberal candidate wouldn't have made a difference. Switching up the DNC leadership at the beginning wouldn't have made a difference because during the campaign I'd argue we've been more than familiar enough with Clinton's shady past and it didn't really ding her much during the primaries aside from the email scandal.
Yes, Hillary did have a huge advantage. But it makes me wonder if this would be ironclad in another primary? I don't think the rigged primary from 2016 is an indicator of Bernie's optimal performance with minorities. As mentioned in the Common Dreams article I linked in my last post, Bernie actually won more Hispanic voters in Nevada than Hillary did. It was not clear that he could not break through to minoroties. Then the Clinton campaign started actively playing the race card.
With all due respect Sam, when Clinton demolished Bernie in Florida where the state is
about a quarter Hispanic, I find it difficult to believe that there's some sort of "hidden hispanic Bernie vote" going on, which borders on tinfoil hat material. In fact,
they backed her 68-32 if you want to believe exit polling.
Hell, Arizona is 30% Hispanic, and Clinton won over Sanders by over
15 points. I'd argue there's a much bigger picture here than the "race card" that was played.
Yes, identity politics can play a significant part. But it not a wise use of our political power to pledge our support to a candidate just because we identify with them, and not hold their feet to the fire. If we ask only for someone who seems appealing and nothing else, then that is what we will receive, nothing. This is now a discussion beyond Bernie Sanders. Other voting blocks ask what you are going to do for them. I.e How will you generate job growth? What will you do for our schools? Will you support Israel? Will you withdraw from this war? What is your healthcare plan? What are you going to do about the contaminated water in our city?
They're not going to care what your cabinet looks like. Why in the world should we be content with symbolism? Are we not individuals who can rise above our identities?
As an answer to that question, if that was so easy, Trump wouldn't be in the oval office. He's the very symbolism of not really just racist and bigoted America, but rather the symbol of your rural farmer or blue-collar worker who saw Trump as a relatable outsider that was going to flip the system upside down. Identity can have a hell of a lot of influence. Hopefully we've learned to pay more attention to actual policy-substance in the next election.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should be better than to just rely on identity with our voting power. But when people see a candidate and go "I see myself in them", it's all too easy to get lost in the ideal of being more relatable than being made of substance. I think we can both agree that's one of the bigger problems with politics as a whole in the current age, right?
Would this have been something that outraged anyone had it not been introduced through the lens of an attack from the media? It could have been presented as a historic moment that a former civil rights activist was speaking alongside the first black woman to give the State of the Union. It wasn't.
Before I get into the meat of this, I want to make perfectly clear that the following is not intended as some sort of defense to the media whatsoever. I am of the full belief that the American media is
faaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrr from perfect whatsoever (and that is putting it in the nicest terms I can). With that hopefully in mind...
I do feel like there has to come a point where you look at coverage of a given situation, and you start to ask yourself the real truth of what's going on. I feel like the hardest pill for people to swallow is when it's concerning negative coverage against a candidate that they side with. It's all too easy to fault the media, claim that the media has some sort of hidden agenda (whether or not it's true is a WHOOOLEEEEEE different topic--heck, different thread even!), and that the candidate that's been presented in the media is different from the candidate -- hell, the humanistic individual -- that we see in person when we volunteer for campaigns or participate in rallies. Sometimes we have to wonder if whether or not media criticism of the candidates or individuals that we support actually have some merit in them.
In short, I feel like the most difficult thing for all of us to do is to challenge our own believes and preconceived notions. If we don't do that, then we will forever live in the black and white and we will never grow and learn as individuals. That being said...
The Stacy Abrams SOTU situation merits Bernie some actual genuine criticism, even if not to the degree the media characterized it as. Sure, you could see it as that he's a civil rights activist that's trying to spread a positive message, and I'm happy that you do. But the more I think about it, the more I find it hard to ignore how poorly-timed that kind of message was. Giving Bernie every single benefit of a doubt possible, it's hard to not take a step back and think of ways that he could've approached this much differently. Instead of saying tl;dr "I think stacy abrams is cool but ok guys i have a message of myself that I plan to deliver
at the same time", he could've just given a tweet-speech
after Stacy's SOTU basically piggybacking on everything he said (did he? I'm genuinely not sure if he did. I'd go look at his Twitter account of this moment but it's probably buried in some other tweets) He could've released a statement through one of his reps that undoubtedly would've made it into the media and got some attention afterwards. It's just... with the separate avenues that are possible, it's odd that he would choose that one in particular, y'know?
Where was the media when Bernie came to help the fiery-speaking Andrew Gillum win his primary? It was Bernie's support that helped a young black man become his party's nominee. Bernie's endorsement shored up his credentials as a progressive.
The media is selective about what stories they tell you, and how to tell them.
Again, Gillum had supported Hillary in Florida. Bernie had no allegiance to him, yet he chose to help him. Unlike Hillary's decision to campaign for Obama, which offered significant political rewards. What was in it for Bernie, other than an attempt unite the democratic party?
I feel like this would have much more of a significant impact had Gillum actually won the governorship. Unfortunately, despite most polls that show Gillum as ahead of DeSantis, DeSantis ultimately got the victory. Narrowly, but still.
There is a legitimate concern here in that Bernie.... he's not always this figure of endearing support everywhere he goes. I'll agree that he's a
massively popular politician regardless of how you slice it.
I mean, polls do support that, after all, but it's hard to ignore the division that he has caused in the primaries as a result of his actions. The very pittance of the "Bernie Bros" against Hillary Supporters will forever be a stain not just on Hillary, but on Bernie as well, being the symbol of that very movement.
The very same people that walked out when Hillary got the Democratic nomination, Bernie will be remembered for being the cause of that, even if indirectly.
This is all to say that he isn't quite the figure of Democratic unity because his very appearances brings about memories of those times.
This is important. You say that regardless of whether I personally believe in Bernie or not, he's engaging in tone deaf behavior that is hurting the perception that minorities have of him and looks insincere. I say, no, like hell he is. This is the media working to turn people of color against their own agenda. It is a continuation of attempts to shape public opinion, as we saw in the primary. Are we going to keep getting played? That is ultimately up to us whether or not we want to keep playing this game.
Are you constantly going to paint the media as an enemy, or are you going to challenge the beliefs that you hold and consider that media criticism may have some merit?
I don't think anyone should believe whatever stuff comes from the mainstream media. If you're of the belief that there are two sides to every story, then surely it is worth considering the perspective of
reputable (key word here) journalists that put news on the headlines that go against beliefs that we hold strongly.
I don't think it's far out of left field to believe that Bernie
can be tone-deaf when it comes to communicating about racial issues. Whether one would accept that or not I suppose is up to the person, but Bernie isn't an individual free of flaws.
You have said that you are not defending Hillary Clinton and my posts have too much whataboutism in regards to her, but while I keep trying to snap my fingers and point out that we're being robbed by the politicians we support, you give me journalists that keep talking about something inconsequential like Stacy's speech, while things that actually effect whether we live or die fall by wayside. The media is trying to distract you.
My country of Puerto Rico has been ravaged by two hurricanes. Several thousand are dead. Because Puerto Rico is not a state, it barely gets any help from the federal government.
The country is $130 billion in debt. You know the government shutdown that just happened where government workers went without pay for a month?
That's a sliver of what Puerto Rico goes through. Where is Bernie?
You snap your fingers and you paint the picture that Bernie is some sort of angel sent from the skies, but he is not. He is a politician much like any other, therefore he is flawed like any other. Sure, he may be more honest and genuine than most, but he's a politician at the bottom of it all, really only wanting to stay in the spotlight when it's convenient for him. He says strong, inspiring words and not taking a whole lot of action. I don't care if the Democrats are in the minority in the Senate, symbolism speaks
volumes. If he cared about people like me, he would fight day in and day out in the Senate trying to save my country from being wiped out of existence. Hell, Nancy Pelosi unveiled HR1 despite it not having a hell of a chance of passing in the Senate. It's a political statement, but it's a statement to show that at least someone's doing
something.
But he has not. So as far as I'm concerned, putting the media completely aside, actions speak louder than words. His lack of action(s) speaks a ton of words. Words that I don't want to hear coming from someone who has been promising some socialist utopia where everyone can go to college for free and work at a decent wage and there'd be no one in poverty.
When he actually makes continuous visits to my country and does more than just say words, then I'll reconsider my stance. Until then, his actions are rather self-evident for me.
Is this really all about helping people of color, or do these columnists have agendas. The reason I say what about this or that, is we because we keep ending up discussing issues that have no sort of basis in policy as a result of these articles, such as Hillary's husband hiring some black people or if Stacy Abrams should have spoken alone. These are symbols that simply make you feel good, to pacify us and keep us from thinking about any real systemic racism perpetrated in the policies of our lawmakers. I'm not saying that putting a black person in or going to visit a community church isn't a nice thing, but it is so small when put in full perspective of what is happening in the world.
The bigger point being is that even if you or me are being driven by policy, there are others who are driven by identity/relatability. That is just the way things are, and the cruel truth is that it won't change. You have biases as well. I have biases. When looking at the perspective of the media and trying to determine the truth of a given subject matter, it's difficult to separate the truth from our own biases.
Bill Clinton's actions in hiring a bunch of black people as part of his cabinet is a feel-goodsy thing, I totally agree! But it's that sentimental feeling that resonates with people. People like stuff that makes them feel good. Brownie points are totally a thing, probably much to both of our chagrin.
Most of us are rightfully horrified about the inaction of managenent in Flint Michigan and the water crisis that hurt poor black people. Then we turn around and go out and vote for Hillary who lifted the ban on a known carcinogen and poisoned our waters in New York? Our sole rationale being that she was able to speak to us in a way that sounded more sincere. Now you have to know this is nuts. This isn't even about Bernie, its about when are we going to wake the heck up already?
Of course I know it's nuts. Being an effective communicator matters, though. For all the faults one could place in Trump, it's hard to deny that the one talent he had during the campaign was his ability to speak to everyone and no one at the same time, therefore causing most people to believe that Trump actually aligned with their beliefs whether it was true or not.
If you sound like you know what you're talking about, then people will assume you know what you're talking about. That's why a lot of people voted for Hillary (that wasn't my rationale though; I figured she would be more bipartisan than Bernie could). Being a policy-driven individual, most figured that she would have policy that would solve most issues in the world, including Flint.
Obviously afterwards that turned out not to be the case as I don't believe Clinton has made a return to Flint after her failed campaign (whereas Bernie has), but the point being is that when people make these grandiose speeches to try to connect to the masses, it's important to differentiate actual substance from... bluntly speaking, a bunch of nothing but political speak.
Will we wise up in 2020? Or are we going to go out for Kamala in drove because she sounds more "relatable" as she prosecuted a homeless woman, laughed about locking up poor parents and kids for truancy and fought to keep innocent people in jail for cheap labor when evidence came to light that their cases needed to be overturned?
Kamala Harris argued against gender reassignment surgery for transgender inmates during her time as California's Attorney General in 2015. Trust me when I say that I damn well
hope we wise up. Sure, she may have had a staunchly pro-LGBT record ever since, but is it genuine or all for show, much like Tulsi Gabbard's apology for being homophobic?
I understand what you are saying that even though in a perfect world there would be no identity politics, the reality is that people do vote this way. I get it. But at what point does the responsibility change hands from the politician to feel engaging to us, to becoming our own responsibility to do some gosh darn research and look at what kind of policy a man or woman has, and if they have a true record or not? I am not even talking about Bernie specifically now, and him being the better candidate or worse candidate, this could truly be about anyone. If we keep voting like this, and asking for a politician just to stroke our sense of identity and nothing more with the right words, then we are going to have crooked lawmakers forever in the USA. As severe as it is to say, we would get the policies and presidents that we deserved as a result.
This is true. For as long as we vote with nothing but identity in mind, people can speak all sorts of flowery things to us and we'd be none the wiser as to their true intentions. I think (or rather, I hope) the 2016 election has taught the American voting populace an invaluable lesson when it comes to being skeptical about pretty much
any candidate and not taking them at face-value. But rather, do your own research and vote for the candidate that you feel would really progress this country instead of holding it back.
I don't see being right or left as having anything to do with your personal character. If you or anyone else here falls on the left or right end of the political spectrum it doesn't really matter to me. So don't take it like that. I have friends on both sides, that is all that I meant. I was trying to be more inclusive. Because you voted for Hillary n the primary and not just the general, yes, I did think you were endorsing at least some of her positions over Bernie's. Hillary runs to the right of Bernie on the economy.
When you said that what Bernie wanted was unrealistic, that is a more conservative arguement, like the "How are you going to pay for this?" question. So see where I am coming from.
You have said yourself Hillary is an enormously sketchy individual and that you knew she didn't have all of your interests at heart, and even called her record god awful, and yet knowing all of this you voted for her as your first choice in the primary.
The main reason I was able to get from reading your posts is that you felt she was more relatable when talking about race. I had assumed that there had to be other reasons like different political leaning, and not only the way she spoke. But please clarify if I was mistaken. Is the sense that she was more relatable the primary reason you voted for her? Was there nothing else?
It's not so much that I endorsed Hillary's positions as much as I figured that, as I mentioned before, in my ideal world, she would be far more bipartisan than Bernie would be, which, at the time anyway, was more important to me in a candidate. Sure, Republicans hate the crap out of her, but she's centrist enough to not totally put off moderates who would otherwise balk at someone as far left as Bernie.
My vote was in the hopes that the government would
function like an actual government again. Whether that would actually happen we will never know though, I suppose. My vote had nothing to do about race; getting Tim Kaine to speak fluent Spanish didn't make me go "oh snap, I should totally vote for Hillary", after all. Because I've observed during the past eight years how Republicans have thwarted attempt after attempt by Obama to do much of literally anything, my mindset at the time was that I wanted someone that wasn't too far left enough to work with them so shit can finally get done but also not right enough to basically be a DINO.
That was my reasoning.
Fair enough, polls can change and it depends on what poll you are looking at. However, even though Hillary often had a lead over Trump the margin was not always comfortable. I'm not going to bombard you with links because it is 2019 now, and you make a good point about how reliable a poll actually is. But just so you see where I'm coming from and why when I felt Bernie had a better chance in the general.
I felt the gap between Bernie and Trump gave me more room to breathe than with Hillary. It was not uncommon to see his lead over Trump double hers. But take this as you will, with a grain in salt if needed.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...kbuster-poll-sanders-destroys-trump-by-13?amp
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
One of the things that also concerned me is that Hillary has an interesting history with polling trends. What happens to her consistently is what ultimately happened with Trump, her opponent will make up large ground quickly. I would be happy to add links if you would prefer me to verify it, but I won't force this data on you.
The year before Hillary's senate run Quinnipiac showed Hillary 56% Rick Lazio 23% but by election day Lazio nearly doubled his numbers and came in at 43% while she was at 55.2. In autumn 2007 the Washington Post ABC News poll put Hillary at 53% for the presidency, when Obama was only 20% and the rest in history. Bernie started off at only 2% in the polls.
Hilllary is a very famous person with a record-- a really bad one. I would argue that there is not a lot of room for growth among her supporters. While her opponents can rise significantly in support, Hillary tends to retain the support she had or lose it. She has never suddenly gained ground dramatically. She needs humongous leads to win.
This is a good point, actually. Clinton being such a recognizable name basically means you either like her or you hate her, there is no in-between and it's unlikely that people are going to change their minds on the matter. That's just how it is. Clinton just doesn't have a lot of breathing room; either she's preaching to the choir or preaching to people who have their ears plugged. In that sense, because of how polarizing she is, it's easy for an opponent to take advantage of that.
Hillary looked to me like someone who was in danger of losing, especially when you consider she was under FBI investigation at the the time. However people would say to me that Hillary is the only one who could beat Trump. I think they said it because the pundits on TV kept saying it. They said it even before Trump became the nominee. Hillary was often shown outright losing when the matchup was against other Republicans like Rubio or Cruz, whereas Bernie polled better than her not only agsinst Trump in the general but against many republicans.
Yeah, TV pundits kept calling it for Clinton because no one took Trump seriously. No one taking Trump's chances seriously (even the NYT had Clinton at like a 99.9% chance of winning? 538 had Trump at about a 30% chance which was far more realistic) and overinflating Clinton's due to punditry and pushing narrative definitely plays a part in where we are today.
You asked why more conservative people in the population would go for a socialist. And that is an excellent question. It would seem illogical, wouldn't it? Yet Bernie consistently had landslide wins among independent voters. He was taking 70% of their votes and more. This is one of the reasons Bernie would do very well in open-primaries where anyone could vote, compared to primaries that were closed to only democrats, and this is perhaps a better indicator of his performance in the general
I'd argue more that he has more appeal with independents because he himself is an independent.
There could also be more than one particular cause, as Nate Silver points out. It could very well be that the independents that support Bernie simply dislike partisan politics and Bernie relates to them that way and vice-versa.
I think more minorities would have supported Bernie as opposed to Trump in the general. Most democrats would also I imagine follow suit for party loyalty. Then Bernie had the young vote, independents, the progresive vote and even some centrists and conservatives. That could have been a very strong coalition to take Trump down like Obama's mandate in 2008. Also Bernie would have no scandals whereas Hillary and Trump both did.
I dunno. If Bernie's supporters walked out of the DNC when Hillary was confirmed for the nomination, that suggests to me that most of her supporters would end up staying home in the same vein that some of Bernie's supporters ended up voting third party because of their disgust for Clinton.
However, let's say he lost the congress and senate. As you said of Hillary, his presidency would at least have no transgender and muslim bans, no Berlin wall or military marshalling along the border. He could have done no worse than anyone else, and at least you would have a man fighting and trying to pass economic reform. Wheras Hillary was not going to seriously attempt this.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh I dunno. I wouldn't assume as much re: Clinton not doing anything.
Not saying she definitely would. I moreso think it's
way too easy to see Clinton with such partisan goggles that jumping to conclusions about what she would or wouldn't do is kind of pointless.
I'm not attacking you. We are friends, at least as I see you Angie. Because it is a long, heavy conversation and I was trying to keep it light and playful. I do like you, this ain't personal, its politics. I admire your tenacity and hope it does not come across as anything other than that.
My apologies. I suppose I misinterpreted because it came off as a bit dismissive, but I really just misunderstood.
I didn't say anything about Bernie Sanders personal experiences and how he communicates in this part of my post. What I said was that voter suppression affected millions of people in 2016. You tiptoe around that a lot. Your argument is based on the belief that Bernie is not a good primary candidate, and Hillary did so much better than he did ultimately when the votes were in. Understand that my arguement is two-pronged.
I actually don't tiptoe. If I don't comment on a particular point, I either acknowledge it as being true to some degree as I have nothing further to add. However, I do not believe arguing voter suppression is very fruitful if
only because that issue rests within each state's legislature to fix (and whether or not they have the intention of ever really fixing it).
Yes, I believe that Bernie is a much better candidate for minorities than Hillary is. Did Hillary win their vote ultimately? Yes. I have secondary debate within this post about whether or not she deserved that vote, and question how strong that suppprt actually was, and if these are winnable votes for Bernie. I personally think it was because the Clinton campaign and media ran a racially-charged smear campaign against Bernie that had nothing to do with the way he communicated, his record or policy. I think Bernie in another primary could overcome this now that she is gone.
Much like Clinton's baggage will follow her for as long as she will be around in the public eye, the perception that Sanders is racially disconnected will haunt him as well, especially if he's going to be sharing the same stage with people like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris. The black and minority vote aren't going to simply flock to him because Hillary isn't running anymore; I think that's rather naive thinking will all due respect.
Maybe they will. Maybe they won't because they see him as a reminder of what 2016 was and they don't want a reminder of 2016. We'll see.
However, what I'm going to repeat is that while yes, you do need minorities to vote for you. Understand that the primary against Bernie was flodded with voter supression. Whether these were African-American people, Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, young, old, left, right, there is copious documentation of voter suppression to outright election fraud from literally the beginning of the primary with the Iowa caucus to the end in California. Angie, you ultimately don't know who was given a provision ballot that was uncountend, whose name was purged off of the voting rolls, who was not recorded in the caucas and who was barred from the entering the polling station, and how much of an impact this may or may not have had on the final results.
You're right, I don't. You probably don't either. Would those votes have really made a difference in the long run considering the margin(s) that Clinton has won? I doubt it. I mean... let's be honest Sam, while it's absolutely true that there are PLENTY of flaws within how votes were likely counted, is it truly enough to overcome a 20 point deficit (which is more or less what Bernie lost by in the south in states with a heavy African-American population)? For that to be the case, you're arguing the majority of voting machines in pretty much almost every southern state was compromised, in which a complete do-over would be necessary. While it's likely true that some were, and it's easier to make that argument in the case of small-margin wins, double digit wins are kind of hard to challenge.
Whenever you say that Hillary won the vote, and won it by a large margin, and that Bernie failed to get his message through, there will always be a shadow cast over that victory. Did she really win? If she did then how much by? This was a closer race then you seem to believe it is. And we honestly can never know whether Hillary would have still won had the democratic party taken their greedy thumbs off of the scale and just let the chips fall where they may have. You responded to a way I talked to you that you didn't like, but never the content. That you never addressed. You seem to think that this is just about me saying Hillary is a bad candidate, and Bernie being more sincere in my opinion. No, it isn't just that. Yes, that is what I believe. But what I also want to know how many people were denied their right to vote, and never will know that. This is the part of the argument you have stepped over more than once. And if you continue to say that no matter what Hillary is she won the primary from Bernie, I am going to continue to remind you that this is a tainted victory.
Going to repeat myself here:
I actually don't tiptoe. If I don't comment on a particular point, I either acknowledge it as being true to some degree as I have nothing further to add.
However, to say that Bernie would've won had the DNC scandal never happened is being a bit assumptive. You'd have to just about eliminate the (super)delegate system entirely for probably any real difference to be made. And who knows if a difference would be made anyway? Think about this: What if everyone voted that could vote with zero issues and Hillary still won the nomination despite that? Would you still say it's a tainted victory? Or would you concede that it would be legitimate?
I feel like you're operating under the assumption that Hillary's supporters couldn't possibly exist, here. They do, and real people exist that have voted for her. Bernie losing in a primary doesn't necessary mean he was robbed, it could mean more people voted for Hillary than for Bernie. Therefore, the system works how it's designed to work.
A loss is a loss. Hillary lost against Bernie in nearly every caucus/northern state iirc, was she robbed of a win, or was a legitimate race? While I appreciate that you look at it through the perspective of Bernie being a victim (and it can very well be true), the fact that he
did win states against Hillary period meant that the system, to some degree, even if flawed, worked how it's supposed to.
I'm going to add the comment below that made me think this is what you were saying.
You mention raising the minimum wage might be fine for Elizabeth Warren or AOC who are backbone progressives, but overall he is isolating, and only a young person who probably wouldn't turn out to vote would go for ideas like this, and that cost him the primary. It seemed like you were saying that what Bernie advocated was not what real democrats would support. If that is not what you are saying though, please do elaborate.
The biggest difference between AOC, Warren and Sanders is that while AOC and Warren adopt the very policies that Sanders push to be the platform of the Democratic party, AOC and Warren (well... comparatively speaking for Warren, anyway), are seen as
faaaaaarrrr less controversial characters and more unifying characters among democrats than Bernie. The problem here is that Bernie
is an independent, not a democrat. For as long as he's an independent, people will see him as that, even if he champions for democratic socialist ideals and causes. It's this reason that non-progressives will feel like he's using the democratic platform for his own gain and won't turn out for him because of that.
Of course actual democrats support things like raising the minimum wage, free tuition (or at the very least, FAR cheaper tuition), Medicare for All, etc. But just as you didn't take it seriously coming from Hillary when she finally (somewhat) adopted similar positions to Bernie when she won the nomination, so too, will non-progressives not take it seriously (or at least, not anymore) coming from Bernie.
