I could argue turnout would be lower with Bernie and the base would be fractured.

Bernie can't win the primary so "giving it to him" would be ****ing awful for turnout amongst non whites and other groups he failed to connect with.

What puts the hypothetical to bed is this:

If you are arguing Bernie should have been the nominee you are part of the problem. He lost by millions of votes to a woman who would beat trump by millions of votes. Arguing he would get huge turn outs is a ****ing fantasy. We tried it, he didn't get huge turn outs. He lost. Bigly. She ****ing crushed him.

Hillary also got millions more votes by having a different better message than both Bernie and Trump. She didn't lose on turnout or on votes. She lost because of the idiocy of the Russian and American news media spreading fake bull**** and because they didn't message well enough on policy to the idiot whites, instead relying on people to look things up for themselves. She gave too much margin away for trump to exploit.

It also didn't help that lots of pieces of **** thought that a protest vote for vaccine idiot or can't name a world leader idiot was a good idea.

Never have I felt more confident in my assertion that Bernie wins in a landslide than after reading a post by Phill stating the opposite. Thanks Phill

It mystifies you because it is too advanced a point for you I guess.

She held a voting record almost identical with Bernie, this btw includes stuff like Bernie voting for the Bill Clinton crime bill that Bernie voters attacked Hillary for not stopping with her first lady super secret veto of wtf. She pushed a number of liberal policies when she was in the Senate including equal pay bills which was a big part of her work, she spent her entire life working for equality and empowering the powrless and being attacked for being too liberal.

Hillary isn't the problem. America is the problem. Thirty years of pretending the pieces of **** on the right right have a point when they push baseless never proven fake scandal on her time after time is the problem.

The end result is a president who is corrupting the position of president before he even takes the oath. He is using the position to enrich himself setting the stage for the most corrupt presidency ever. But she had a totally legal email server omg.

Trump has already made tens of millions out of this job. Congratulations you nation of stupid ****ing idiots.

Problem is "liberals" represent the upper middle class and its interests. They can't communicate with folks who didn't go to the university or don't have steady jobs.

Hillary had the same voting record as Bernie because it's nearly impossible for anything more progressive than the DEMe wants to get to a full vote.

Take Elizabeth Warren's 21st Century Glass-Steagall bill for example. It was introduced in 2013, reintroduced in 2015, and is still in committee. It will never get voted on.

As far as progressive race issues go, if an open affirmative action Bill could get voted on, they'd also have diverged.

True, and also one of the long-running failures of liberalism has been a lack of communication between the middle/upper-middle class who advocate for the working class and the actual working class. You can go to a college campus or to a showing of Hamilton and find lots of sincere talk about raising the minimum wage and sticking it to Wall St., but those cats just don't ever talk to or strategize with the actual guys in factories swinging hammers. There's a lack of real solidarity and maybe even a mutual dislike between the coffeehouse liberals and the Joe Sixpacks out there.

Nobody votes for Bloomberg ever idk how this meme got going, NRA hates him liberals hate him gmafb

Ya most liberals refer to inner city youth as super predators.... Jesus

I had to double back..... liberals definitely were full throated champions of the Iraq war..... like I know you have trump derangement syndrome but to say Hillary Clinton is a liberal champion is ABSURD

Clinton surged in the polls after the debates and after audio tapes emerged of Trump boasting about grabbing women by the pssy, but during the primaries, Hillary always polled very even vs Trump while Sanders crushed him. The warning signs were out there.

You don't need hindsight to know that Hillarys support was always very volatile, and flakey due to her high dislike factor and brewing scandals, and from the general position that running THE symbol of establishment against a populist , in an anti establishment environment was always very risky.

Hillary's policy positions in 2016 were well to the left of Obama 2008.

But also, yeah, here's the issue with "Bernie would've totes won because America's great mass of secret socialists would've turned out"...

Feingold and Teachout both lost. Feingold ran behind Clinton! And the idea that disaffected Bernie voters swung the election, well, the election was very close. Lots of things swung it. If Hillary had won disaffected Kasich voters could be the cause. But Bernie Sanders was a full-throated and effective surrogate for Clinton, he campaigned hard for her. The Bernie primary voters who stayed home or switched to Trump were pretty likely to stay home or switch to Trump anyway, they clearly have some issues.


Just as important that we reject Clintonite "Comey changed everything" takes that absolve their failures, it is equally important that we don't fall into the trap of "Oh our problem was that we nominated the email felon that everyone hates, just pick someone else next time and it's easy peasy". The issue is not candidates, it is messaging.

Clinton is Neoliberal, like Obama, and the rest of the democratic party these days and why they have failed and been rejected. Bernie represented a real Liberal, hence the Neoliberal disdain for him. Trump lost likely is as well.

been rejected = getting more votes for president and senate?

Which ones? lol

She wasn't even to the left of Trump for gods sake. Her foreign policy, and support for the TPP and economic policy were the stuff of Republicans. From what I understand Feingold lost because his party abandoned him which resulted in him being out campaigned. Sad really because someone like him should have been the beacon for the Democrats not some 69 year old wife of an ex president.

Obviously you've never lived in East Asia.

Uhhhhh yes there is, do you read the news?

College tuition, racial justice, war on drugs to name a few, probably more

Clinton was nowhere on the war on drugs til Bernie brought the ruckus on it. She sucks

I mostly addressed everything else in this post:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1197

But I will respond to the above. First, appearance in support of a cause is superior to appearance in support of an ego. If you have genuine conviction, you should able to translate that into an effective winning strategy. Don't forget that I'm not saying you should have genuine conviction in your own cause - I don't even share your cause! - but that very often ineffectiveness is a sign of lack of genuine conviction. The problem with doing social justice for show isn't that doing something for show is necessarily bad. It's just that if the goal is, say, ego gratification instead of social justice, ultimately the effort will be directed in a way as to maximize ego gratification, not social justice.

Second, I'm not asking liberals to pretend to be religious - I'm asking them to have faith and use it to understand others' faith. One problem on the left - though it's also increasingly common on the right - is people who are isolated and spiritually impoverished. They are desperate to believe in something but for whatever reason they decided they are above those things that other people believe in, so they opportunistically combine the things that come across their belief system into a half-baked personal religion, one that's less coherent than most mainstream religions, lacks the rich metaphors that are designed to appeal across different states of mental, emotional and spiritual development and too often leads to a solipsistic personality cult.

It's sad when people from an unrelated faith tradition like Buddhism with limited exposure to Christianity are able to understand Christian faith and effectively talk to Christians about it using the language of Christians but liberals that grew up in a predominantly Judeo-Christian country and have been bombarded with Christian symbolism all their life have no idea what anyone's talking about when Christian faith is brought up.

As to your meta comment about how my own posts are about signaling or whatever - there's some truth to it but remember that I don't really care about politics one way or another. My engagement in politics is about as minimal as it can be - I've never voted in my life! If there were smart Republicans interested in engaging me, I'd be happy to give them advice as well. If you and your fellow allies are doing the same kinds of things that I am doing, you're in trouble because I'm a mostly disinterested observer whose academic interest in politics comes more from wanting to understand mental illnesses, complex systems, economics, human minds and societies and that kind of stuff better. Not that I don't have personal sympathies but that's not why I post here.

I mean, I didn't say she was the Woody Guthrie of the Senate. You kind of made this up on your own.

Uh, like all of them? Obama was a centrist.


OBAMA SUPPORTED TPP. Also you have no idea what TPP is or why it's bad, one of Bernie's major major misteps was keying on that as a wedge issue because it let Trump co-opt that and attack Clinton from the left on trade where her flip-flopping made her a gaping fish out of water saying that she liked it but then didn't like it and she'd only approve things that are good, not things that are bad.

If she had some ****ing balls she would've just stuck with supporting it and told Trump "I support TPP because it's good, why do you think it's bad?"

And this is the messaging war that we lost. Hillary's actual policies, on economics, on trade(she flip flopped on TPP and opposed it at the end), or taxes... they were not "of Republicans".

She completely failed to TELL people this, she kept telling them to go to her website like anybody was going to do that.

literally nobody is talking about east azns tho, except you

Oh, right. SUB is an expat. LOL.

Democrats (largely basing this on Twitter) seem about as dumb as conservatives - maybe dumber once you consider strategy and tactics. They have their own fake, conspiratorial news. They're absolute morons about Nate Silver (lashing out at him). The reason I was prompted to post was Fly's post about Bernie being an effective surrogate for Clinton. Today I saw some posts mad at Bernie for some reason or other, and a woman is like "he's promoting his new book which he wrote while he was supposed to be campaigning for Clinton."

Like wtf level of maturity and stupidity are you that you think that's a legitimate thing to say? This looked like a "respectable" person's account too, some journalist or whatever.

I definitely see as much fake news on the left as on the right, you can usually tell from the awful URLS and click bait everywhere. That people regard this as legitimate is frightening to me like how drunk high lazy stupid fat ugly do u have to be to think those sites are legit?