Yes, that would be false. We could both "accuse" each other of anything. Wouldn't make any of it true simply because we say it.I might as well accuse you of helping trump as much as any MAGA maniac - similarly false.
Well, I'm sorry, but the facts are the facts. No one is calling anyone garbage. That's just silly.Ya, Bernie supporters, not 'real' Democrats. Bernie, not a 'real' Democrat.
Garbage.
We agree.Of course. Just as we supported Hillary - far more than Hillary supporters supported Obama or would have supported Bernie. Not because of 'party loyalty', but because basically any Democrat is FAR better than any Republican, and party power matters enormously.
Leftards gave us Bush-43 in 2020. The rest is history.The only thing I got out of your post is that we need more Kirsten Sinemas and less Nina Turners.
Also, please tell me what is behind the gate the Dems are protecting. Seems to me like it's healthcare, a higher minimum wage, a sustainable green infrastructure, voting rights, etc.
Yes, Corporate Dems + Republicans, protect us from Nina Turner...
I think many of the party elders are becoming upset that socialists are running on a DNC ticket. They don't always fall in line and treat some traditional Democratic principles as something that needs to be canceled and criticized. Democrats have a rift growing within their party just like the RNC has with some of the heavy Trump supporters. Hillary Clinton and her ilk are obviously going to be the most annoyed by it. The socialists, alt-left, and unions are obviously going to be in favor of it.Don't know anything about either of these candidates...since I'm not a party animal...but it appears that some people...people with a lot of money and influence...don't think Turner is the right kind of Democrat.
So it goes...
So now Clinton gave "the signal", huh? Is that true, or is that your opinion?
That may be true. We all know the Clintons were a different kind of Democrat. I was certainly never in the Clinton camp of the party, myself. But, most of us tolerated them more than enthusiastically supported them. But from what I've seen and read, this is more about political payback for Turner being such a vocal critic of Clinton (and refusing to endorse her as the Democratic nominee against Trump) in 2016.
And, from what I've read, Turner is still outraising Brown.
This is true, but lacks some contest.
For example, it's also true that a very sizable minority faction (12-15%) of Bernie supporters abandoned the Democratic Party in 2016 and voted for Trump.....which AGAIN raises questions about how EXACTLY you guys define "Progressive". In FACT, there would be no Trump presidency if 216,000 BERNIE BROS hadn't switch parties to vote for Trump in Michigan, Pen and Wisconsin in the 2016 election.
So please, spare us all the high-handed "Progressive" talk, please.
.....I'm not anti-progressive at all. I'm just questioning if "progressive" is truly what you are. You're not a progressive. You're something else....anti-Captialist.....Socialist.....etc. Who knows. That's fine. But Progressive doesn't mean "as far left on every issue as possible". You don't get to redefine words to suit your needs.
Really? That's funny, because I've seen plenty of scathing condemnation aimed at them both. And rightly so.
But I won't suggest you are being "disingenuous".
And the FACT is that the last polling I saw noted that 15% of Sanders supporters were planning to vote for Trump after Biden secured the Democratic nomination.
Kinda hard to rationalize that if (as you insist) Sanders people are the standard bearers for "Progressive" ideals, huh?
We'll see. As I said at the very beginning, either would be an excellent Democratic congresswoman, imo.
Both are on the same basic page on issues like race/racism, social justice, criminal justice/police reform, education, environment, government's role in society, etc. etc. Neither is a conservative/moderate Dem (i.e. Manchin, Sinema, etc).
Turner's refusal to endorse her own party's nominee in the past, is certainly fair game as well. You can't do that and then turn around for party support when it's your turn....and NOT expect it to be an issue.
From what I have been able to gather, they are not much different on the issues. This is a classic intra-party contest and the winner is going to be a good, solid Dem caucus member.
I'm just wondering what this "warcry" was all about. Seems to me that this thread is more a case of a Bernie supporter taking it to the extreme.
After all, it's not like both candidates didn't ask for endorsement from all the same people. Turner would have gladly accepted support from Clinton and Clyburn, if offered. The fact that she didn't get it is just politics. I'm sure she'll get plenty of party endorsements before all is said and done. As she should. As I said previously, I consider Turner to be one of the true rising starts on the left. She's brilliant and talented, and tough.
But the Bernie people need to stop whining and threatening to burn down the house every time they don't get their way. I'm with them on most issues, and that's just based upon where we are as a society right now. But where they lose me, completely, is when they go from "We're Democrats too!".....to....."F-those Democrats, I'm not voting for anyone!".....when/if their candidate loses a primary.
I'm for the Democrats, period, because (right now) they are the ONLY viable option to save American democracy. The Bernie Bros don't seem to get that....or care. Real "progressives" wouldn't leave the party and vote for Trump under ANY scenario.
And yet, about 15% of Sanders supporters did just that.
Discredits me? Seriously? Discredits me...with whom? And why would I care? I've got 5000 posts over 4 years on this board. My views are pretty clear.
So that's just nonsense. You don't give me credibility, and you certainly can't take it away. Come on, now.
If you want to ask me questions about my positions or ideology, just ask. I'm not shy and I'm not evasive. No need for that stuff between us, Craig.
That said, "Bernie Bros" is a term that many Sanders supporters (and I know because I've worked and organized with many, including family members) embrace.
It's not derogatory;and it's not just "bros" btw.
Sanders' support was actually slightly more female than male in 2020.
The point is that Sanders' supporters tend to be less reliable Democratic voters than others on the progressive/left.
That's a fact and it's a source of concern with the party.
It does no more harm than when Bernie supporters attack other Dems in the party.
All intra-party divisions and squabbles tend to approach that fine line between constructive and destructive disagreement/criticism.
The difference is that some (NOT ALL) Bernie supporters are only supportive of "Bernie" candidates, not the Democratic Party as a whole. And in that way, THEY do more harm than good, at times. And the 2016 presidential race (when 220,000 of them switched and voted for Trump in Mich, Pa, and Wisc)....is the preeminent example of that.
Democrats need to support Democratic nominees, Period. Not conditionally.
These are not the time for 3rd party votes, protest votes and/or votes (or non-votes) of conscience.
Yes, that would be false. We could both "accuse" each other of anything. Wouldn't make any of it true simply because we say it.
In my case, however, it's a objective reality that 220K Bernie supporters voted for Trump in MICH, PA, AND WISC in 2016...and that gave Trump the electoral victory. That 220K was twice Trump's total margin in those thee states, alone.
So when I say that Bernie supporters have done more harm than good, at times....I stand on very solid ground. it's a FACT (not an opinion) that they did. That's how much they hated Hillary Clinton, I guess.
And, as a Democrat, I am completely justified in my disgust with that. Trump would not have become POTUS if a large minority faction of Sanders' supporters truly considered themselves to be part of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY in 2016. That's just a fact.
However, if you seriously suggested that I am "helping Trump as much as any MAGA maniac".....simply by stated the FACTS about Sanders' voters in 2016......that would be just baselessly, absurdly false.
And, fwiw, about 16% of Clinton supporters voted for McCain in 2008. Of course, there were much different dynamics in play, obviously.
I'm not sure why you guys keep bring Clinton into this, though.
I think you have it wrong and you 're making a lot of assumptions.Corporate-backed politicians are generally not progressive, since they obey corporate funding and are not focused on the citizens who elect them.
Why do you think the corporate establishment prefers Shontel? Because she has a dollar sign on her. She can be bought. She is a vehicle for the highest bidder.
Turner was the known candidate in the race. She's a national name, based on her appearance and interviews over the last 10 years. She's a star, for sure. Of course the contest will tighten if an opponent gets the funds to run ads, etc.Wasn't Nina Turner like 30-50 points ahead of every other candidate before Hillary Clinton coalesced corporate funding around Shontel?
Not necessarily. I'm certainly no "corporate Dem", myself. There's more to the party than just Bernie supporters and "corporate Dems".You mean the corporate wing of the Democratic party, which I'll grant you is the majority.
Trump was able to "claim" that "title", because the news media promoted it and because the Clinton campaign did a very poor job of refuting it.However, it's corrupt bribery class of the Democratic establishment that propelled Trump to victory in 2016. Of all people, he was able to claim the title of an uncorrupted/unbought politician and sell it to millions of voters.
Examples, please.There's one candidate which fights for the people and one which fights for corporations, as long as they're paying.
Shontel and the corporate machine that backs her have attacked Nina Turner RELENTLESSLY with lies and smears.
Anyone who looks at Shontel and Nina Turner as equal choices is not my ally.
Yes, Turner is still outraising Brown, thank god, but that doesn't in any way obviate the fact that Brown was starving for funds and prominence and basically stood no chance until Clinton butted in which signaled the faucets to turn. That is the factual time line and is easily verified.So now Clinton gave "the signal", huh? Is that true, or is that your opinion?
That may be true. We all know the Clintons were a different kind of Democrat. I was certainly never in the Clinton camp of the party, myself. But, most of us tolerated them more than enthusiastically supported them. But from what I've seen and read, this is more about political payback for Turner being such a vocal critic of Clinton (and refusing to endorse her as the Democratic nominee against Trump) in 2016.
And, from what I've read, Turner is still outraising Brown.
Again, Sanders' people overwhelming turned out for Biden and Dem candidates, so kindly shove off with this nonsense. Moreover, Clinton PUMAs in 2008 were more disloyal than Sanders supporters in 2016, but because Obama was a vastly superior candidate he won anyways. It should also be noted that the majority of Sanders Dem defectors in 2016 did not have a liberal leaning in a first place, and thus didn't really owe any kind of allegiance to the Dem party; their motive seems to be more anti-corruption/anti-establishment than progressivism or left wing policy specifically.This is true, but lacks some contest...
...And, if the Bernie wing of the party holds true to form, we will likely see a lot of them NOT VOTING for Democratic candidates who defeated Bernie Bro candidates in primary races for 2022.
I'm not saying there hasn't been any, but it has been trivial and muted compared to the constant tiresome allegations of disunity and divisiveness arrayed against the left, while MSM voices try to make up excuses and carry water for Sinema and Manchin (while almost never coming to the defense of say AOC or Sanders when they're at odds with their party).Really? That's funny, because I've seen plenty of scathing condemnation aimed at them both. And rightly so.
I don't know what trash poll you saw, but it clearly didn't align with reality. Even if true and accurate, which I doubt, it probably represented reactive anger rather than anything meaningful....I'm not anti-progressive at all. I'm just questioning if "progressive" is truly what you are. You're not a progressive. You're something else....anti-Captialist.....Socialist.....etc. Who knows. That's fine. But Progressive doesn't mean "as far left on every issue as possible". You don't get to redefine words to suit your needs...
...Kinda hard to rationalize that if (as you insist) Sanders people are the standard bearers for "Progressive" ideals, huh?
Again there are massive and substantive differences in policy that matter which I articulated before, nevermind the people who support Shontel, and who Shontel embraces the support of which casts her legitimacy and sincerity into serious doubt. She is clearly and openly the pro-corporate candidate in this race. I have no interest in someone who evidently revels in corporate cash and GOP funds, and who is currently faced with a serious ethics probe.We'll see. As I said at the very beginning, either would be an excellent Democratic congresswoman, imo. Both are on the same basic page on issues like race/racism, social justice, criminal justice/police reform, education, environment, government's role in society, etc. etc. Neither is a conservative/moderate Dem (i.e. Manchin, Sinema, etc). That's the most important thing.
Are you saying that Dems (or those on "the left") who oppose any those polices are not progressives? Who made up that rule?
Besides that, let's take your first issue (Medicare for All). Jim Clyburn is FOR it, and yet he supports Nina Turner's opponent in that primary race. Does that make Clyburn a "progressive" (in your opinion), or something else?
All I came to say is that Jim Clyburn has taken more money from the pharmaceutical industry than anyone else in congress and endorsed a white man who said he doesn’t care about black issues over a black progressive. In the words of Pascal Robert
"Jim Clyburn is the epitome of...the Black mis-leadership class...This is the same guy who's talking abt 'I don't know no Black Socialist' w a statute of WEB Du Bois behind him"
He’s a tap dancing mouth piece for right wing democrats. That is all.
And if "something else", please give me a term/label that you'd use.
Otherwise, I personally support the idea of student debt cancellation and decriminalization of MJ. And while I don't know the position of Turner or Brown on those particular issues, I know that Jim Clyburn supports both, and he's a rock solid liberal.
You and I have different interpretations of the term "progressive". Although I 100% support radical campaign finance reform (I believe all campaigns should be publicly funded after the primaries), I think "progressive" is much more than simply the "money in politics" issue. And not every progressive agrees on every issue. For example, it's easy to say "Housing is a Human Right"...but how do you create a workable state/federal policy around that ideal within a capitalist economy?
Like most Americans, I believe, whole-heartedly, that a mixed economy (i.e. Regulated Capitalism) is the best form of economy. The debate among patriotic Americans is with respect to HOW much regulation is appropriate, from issue to issue.
But from what I've seen and read, this is more about political payback for Turner being such a vocal critic of Clinton (and refusing to endorse her as the Democratic nominee against Trump) in 2016.
And, from what I've read, Turner is still outraising Brown.
For example, it's also true that a very sizable minority faction (12-15%) of Bernie supporters abandoned the Democratic Party in 2016 and voted for Trump.....which AGAIN raises questions about how EXACTLY you guys define "Progressive". In FACT, there would be no Trump presidency if 216,000 BERNIE BROS hadn't switch parties to vote for Trump in Michigan, Pen and Wisconsin in the 2016 election.
And, if the Bernie wing of the party holds true to form, we will likely see a lot of them NOT VOTING for Democratic candidates who defeated Bernie Bro candidates in primary races for 2022.
Well their you go. Pass HR-1 and get the vulgar money out of politics.Don't know anything about either of these candidates...since I'm not a party animal...but it appears that some people...people with a lot of money and influence...don't think Turner is the right kind of Democrat.
So it goes...
So when I say that Bernie supporters have done more harm than good, at times....I stand on very solid ground. it's a FACT (not an opinion) that they did.
However, if you seriously suggested that I am "helping Trump as much as any MAGA maniac"
Well, I'm sorry, but the facts are the facts. No one is calling anyone garbage. That's just silly.
I wish I could agree with you, here. But the FACTS show that Bernie supporters are less committed to the party than other candidates' supporters.
And, fwiw, about 16% of Clinton supporters voted for McCain in 2008. Of course, there were much different dynamics in play, obviously.
I'm not sure why you guys keep bring Clinton into this, though.
HR1 won't get money out of politics.Well their you go. Pass HR-1 and get the vulgar money out of politics.
It's not "it should be up to the people"...it IS up to the people. But if the people allow their congressmen to work for the wealthy instead of for them, then there is no one to blame except the people.Do you think it should be up to the people or wealthy oil and gas special interests lobbyists who should decide an election?
Personally, I think the people should decide. I too know nothing of either candidate. But in todays atmosphere, big money decides our politics. It ain't right.
From what I have been able to gather, they are not much different on the issues. This is a classic intra-party contest and the winner is going to be a good, solid Dem caucus member.
The fact that she didn't get it is just politics.
But the Bernie people need to stop whining and threatening to burn down the house every time they don't get their way. I'm with them on most issues
I'm for the Democrats, period, because (right now) they are the ONLY viable option to save American democracy. The Bernie Bros don't seem to get that....or care.
Real "progressives" wouldn't leave the party and vote for Trump under ANY scenario. And yet, about 15% of Sanders supporters did just that.
Discredits me? Seriously?
If you want to ask me questions about my positions or ideology, just ask. I'm not shy and I'm not evasive. No need for that stuff between us, Craig.
That said, "Bernie Bros" is a term that many Sanders supporters (and I know because I've worked and organized with many, including family members) embrace. It's not derogatory; and it's not just "bros" btw. Sanders' support was actually slightly more female than male in 2020. You don't have to like it, or agree with it, but it's neither fake, nor "propaganda".
The point is that Sanders' supporters tend to be less reliable Democratic voters than others on the progressive/left. That's a fact and it's a source of concern with the party.
It does no more harm than when Bernie supporters attack other Dems in the party. All intra-party divisions and squabbles tend to approach that fine line between constructive and destructive disagreement/criticism.
The difference is that some (NOT ALL) Bernie supporters are only supportive of "Bernie" candidates, not the Democratic Party as a whole.
Not sure what any of the above (or the graph) has to do with anything I said. Perhaps you could elaborate?So I guess Ohioans can go **** themselves then I guess, since the polls showed a 35-point lead for Turner before the Clintons and right-wing corporate carpetbaggers got involved:
Not entirely true, but still...good for Nina. She does get funding from out of state, and not all for "the people".From THE PEOPLE OF OHIO, not Clinton's mega corporations and wall street billionaire businessman power elites.
You mean "educated folk", I take it?The fact you and your ilk
Pretty dumb comment. "Likely inflated"....how? According to whom? The data is the data. Data doesn't lie.will obsess over a likely inflated slim minority of Bernie supporters
before the right-wing extremists who stormed our capital,
the police officers who execute black people in cold blood and racist neo-nazis like charlottesville racists and the rest of Trump's base says a LOOOOOOOOOOOOT more about your kind than you'd probably think it does.
Stupid comment. I'm challenging him (and now you) to define "progressive", because it's increasingly clear that some of you are confused.Yet that is exactly what you are doing here, disingenuously asserting that he/they are not are "real progressive" while simultaneously shitting on socialism and other traditionally-progressive values...
More irrational emotional nonsense."Leave Sinema and Manchin alone but I get to make shit up to believe about Bernie supporters"
Nope. But your opinion really doesn't matter in this instance. So...Yet you did.
So....you're another Bernie supporter, I take it. Big shock.And he won anyway, so what is the point of this self-righteous crusade against the "eViLbErNiEbRoS"
This is just silly. Since when did that (M4M4A) become the measure of "true" progressiveness?I actually don't trust Bernie or the Squad or even Nina really (I think she got a vocal support at least from the likes of Joel Osteen, and none of these two-faced politicians made even a WHISPER of support for the M4M4A, so I could give a **** less at this point,
There you go again with the simple-minded conspiracy theory b.s.your people rig all the elections against your base with gigantic mega corporations and right-wing Republican associates.
Is that what you socialist/fake progressive/fake liberal types think of all intelligent, rational, educated liberals?You're so full of shit.
You don't know either candidate, do you? If anything, Turner is slightly to the left of Brown. But their policy differences are largely semantic.I just... I don't even know where to start with such naivete. If anything, Nina Turner is the ****ing MODERATE here.
How far up right-wing assholes can your head get?
Translation: You're irrational and a bit of an ideologue.Translation: **** the poor
The fact that you think the centre of the country is the extreme makes you the extremist here buddy. There is the rest of the planet outside of the United States who we all look like a seething mass of racists, imperialists, warmongers and ultra-capitalist nihilists too. It is important to think about other people besides yourself for a change.
Everyone here besides idiotic far-right trump supporters sees right through you dude you're not fooling anyone.
Were you TRYING to prove my point with this, or what? Again, REAL PROGRESSIVES wouldn't be "pushed out". REAL PROGRESSIVES understand the elections are about choices, not fantasies. You and your ilk are clearly not REAL progressives. You are (I guess) leftwing extremists, who are (I'm quite sure) more trouble than you are worth.THEN STOP TRYING TO PUSH THEM OUT OF IT BY DOING:
Facts are "fearmongering b.s.", huh?^THIS FEARMONGERING BULLSHIT
Another strange non-sequitur from you, but apparently another case of you pretending to speak for others.If your views have been disproven, which they have many atime from across the political spectrum, you don't get to dictate whether or not they have been disproven. Kick and scream all you want it doesn't change the facts or reality on the ground outside of your partisan echo-chambers...
No argument that Clinton has endorsed Brown. I'm just not sure why it matters. That's politics. If Turner could have gotten Clinton's endorsement, she'd take it in a heartbeat.Yes, Turner is still outraising Brown, thank god, but that doesn't in any way obviate the fact that Brown was starving for funds and prominence and basically stood no chance until Clinton butted in which signaled the faucets to turn. That is the factual time line and is easily verified.
Again, Sanders' people LITERALLY handed the electoral victory to Trump by giving him those 3 midwestern states. I'm not sure why you refuse to address that reality.Again, Sanders' people overwhelming turned out for Biden and Dem candidates, so kindly shove off with this nonsense.
Negligibly so, if at all. 15% Sanders. 16% Clinton.Moreover, Clinton PUMAs in 2008 were more disloyal than Sanders supporters in 2016,
Agreed.but because Obama was a vastly superior candidate he won anyways
The data backs this up, to some degree. Of course, that also feeds into my original remarks questioning the degree to which some Bernie supporters are Democrats, or just Bernie supporters.It should also be noted that the majority of Sanders Dem defectors in 2016 did not have a liberal leaning in a first place, and thus didn't really owe any kind of allegiance to the Dem party
above....but again, you don't cast a vote for Trump if you are seriously concerned about corruption, etc. There's a faction of Bernie supporters that is something else. That's pretty obvious. And that means that the Bernie candidate is no longer an option, they are no longer Democratic voters. And it's entire fair for other Democrats to consider that and view some Bernie supporters with some concern. That's all I've been saying.; their motive seems to be more anti-corruption/anti-establishment than progressivism or left wing policy specifically.
I'm not defending them in any way, under any context. Not sure what I could have said to convey that message.And there is no defending Manchin/Sinema if you meant to say 'lacks some context'. They're literally taking campaign cash from the US Chamber of Commerce to run interference, lol.
Ok, well we see that differently. IMO, most of the "tiresome allegations" against AOC, etc. have been from the FauxNews crowd, not so much from legitimate news organizations.I'm not saying there hasn't been any, but it has been trivial and muted compared to the constant tiresome allegations of disunity and divisiveness arrayed against the left, while MSM voices try to make up excuses and carry water for Sinema and Manchin (while almost never coming to the defense of say AOC or Sanders when they're at odds with their party).
According to whom? You?I don't know what trash poll you saw, but it clearly didn't align with reality.
Well it's both true and accurate. And any "reactive anger" would be totally irrelevant to the FACTS. Sanders wasn't the first candidate to fall just short of a party nomination. But some of his voters sure do make a bunch of excuses for themselves.Even if true and accurate, which I doubt, it probably represented reactive anger rather than anything meaningful.
Well-regulated capitalism, as imperfect as it will always be...is the best economic model we humans have been able to come up with.Second I'm essentially a Norwegian model European centrist, which last I checked, still believes in capitalism and mixed market economies, albeit heavily regulated and moderated with strong unions and social safety nets; that's not being 'as far left on every issue as possible'.
Such as...??Since Shontel Brown fails a number of key litmus tests, no, she isn't a progressive.
Not really. You mentioned Medicare for All...yet BOTH Brown and Turner support that. Both also support Universal Pre-K, tuition-free 4 year public college, paid family leave, student loan relief, etc. etc. etc. etc.Again there are massive and substantive differences in policy that matter which I articulated before
Fair enough. You wouldn't vote for Brown over Turner.I have no interest in someone who evidently revels in corporate cash...
https://clyburn.house.gov/member-caucusesWe each form our opinion, but the progressive caucus (which Clyburn won't touch with a 10 foot pole) gives some idea.
https://medicare4all.org/candidates/Everything I've seen that says Clyburn is AGAINST Medicare for all,
You think Jim Clyburn is a "tap dancing mouth piece"?I happen to agree with him. Clyburn probably did more than any one person except perhaps Obama to derail what the country needed, a Bernie Sanders presidency.
Those would be poor descriptive terms for Jim Clyburn, coming from source(s) that lack credibility.How about "the epitome of...the Black mis-leadership class" or "a tap dancing mouth piece for right wing democrats" from the poster above.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/james-e-clyburn/summary?cid=N00002408Or we could just call him a pro-corporatist Democrats leader...
Gee...a senior-statement African-American Democratic leader in Congress who doesn't ignore black voters.... with a focus on black voters.
So what issues of importance to you do NOT also affect African-Americans? Anything?Issues which affect black people far more, which is Clyburn's focus, so yes he has some overlap with progressives on student loan cancellation.
That's just silly. And I think you know it.The more popular a label becomes, the more people will try to claim it wrongly, the more people will try to co-opt it (like Hillary did in 2016). Is everyone a progressive? How about Mitch McConnell? I mean, he's against the US being blown up by nuclear weapons, and so are progressives, so he's a progressive, right?
I said PATRIOTIC Americans. Modern Gopers have no real allegiance to their country or the Constitution. They are a white-nationalist, pseudo-Christian movement with no real agenda other than maintaining the power to perpetuate white-nationalism and pseudo-Christianity.Not really. Republicans advocate for radical under-regulation for corrupt reasons, bought and paid for, I would not call that arguing with respect to how much regulation is appropriate being from 'patriotic Americans'.
No she wouldn't, and that you believe she would clearly shows you don't understand Turner as a candidate.No argument that Clinton has endorsed Brown. I'm just not sure why it matters. That's politics. If Turner could have gotten Clinton's endorsement, she'd take it in a heartbeat.
It's not deflection because it goes to show that Sanders' disaffecteds are first of all in line with historical norms and indeed featured less treachery than Clinton supporters in 2008.Again, Sanders' people LITERALLY handed the electoral victory to Trump by giving him those 3 midwestern states. I'm not sure why you refuse to address that reality.
Negligibly so, if at all. 15% Sanders. 16% Clinton.
Luckily, Obama was wildly popular and won regardless. Clinton was not well-liked, and couldn't afford to have 220,000 Bernie's supporters abandon the party and vote for Trump.
Bringing Clinton into the discussion is just deflection from the bottom line: Sanders' supporters DID cost Clinton the election in '16. She certainly made it easy for them, but that doesn't excuse them. I don't know how ANYONE identifying as liberal or progressive could vote for Trump over ANY Democrat (Clinton included).
Here's the thing; I don't think that typical voters are nearly as sophisticated as you give them credit for, and I think that there were plenty of people who were part of the anti-corruption and anti-establishment vote for Sanders during the primary wanted to just shake things up out of a desperate desire to get rid of a status quo that clearly wasn't working for them who also had no idea how bad Trump would be and believed his populist lies. I personally wasn't one of them.above....but again, you don't cast a vote for Trump if you are seriously concerned about corruption, etc. There's a faction of Bernie supporters that is something else. That's pretty obvious. And that means that the Bernie candidate is no longer an option, they are no longer Democratic voters. And it's entire fair for other Democrats to consider that and view some Bernie supporters with some concern. That's all I've been saying.
Mostly in agreement here but no, Manchin wasn't and isn't doing the will of his constituents, Trump country or not, so I can't even give him that. Virtually everything of significance he's opposed in the Senate he has opposed in contradiction to the will of his voters (COVID support, min wage, voting rights act, etc). He too needs to eat a primary, and his popularity has fallen off as a direct result of his unrepresentative, anti-democratic votation (meanwhile he's telling his donors to try to bribe Roy Blunt with a post-political appointment).I'm not defending them in any way, under any context. Not sure what I could have said to convey that message...
...But count me among those who think Manchin and Sinema are fos about the filibuster....especially Sinema. They will go down in history for their obstruction of the Democratic agenda, right alongside McConnell. Manchin is in the most pro-Trump state in the country but Sinema has no excuses. She needs to be primaried and defeated.
So what issues of importance to you do NOT also affect African-Americans? Anything?
Unless your argument is that there is no difference between "progressive" and "conservative"...or "socialist" and "fasicst"....since everyone is against the US being blown up by nuclear weapons.
I keep asking you guys to give me your personal definitions of "progressive", but you keep deflecting in favor of silly stuff like the above. So is the real point here that "progressive" is whatever (and whomever) you decide? Clearly, it's not about policy positions. Clearly, it's not simply about money or corporatism. Every time I address an issue, you guys move on to another.
I said PATRIOTIC Americans. Modern Gopers have no real allegiance to their country or the Constitution. They are a white-nationalist, pseudo-Christian movement with no real agenda other than maintaining the power to perpetuate white-nationalism and pseudo-Christianity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?