2020 Democratic Primary

[Arilynn]

Speak for yourself. I don't scare so easy. I'll vote Trump over Biden any day.

I mean... unless there is some way Biden is better than Trump. I don't think I've seen anybody make that argument, though. The only argument I've seen in Biden's favor is hysteria from "vote blue no matter who!" crazy people, who are basically the democratic equivalent of MAGA hat wearers. They function on fear. I don't. If you want my vote, you need a credible plan for me to get behind. If Bernie loses the primary (it's nowhere near over yet!), then I look forward to letting Trump and Biden both try to earn my vote.

Ok, so what is Trump’s credible plan that makes him better than Biden?

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Jolene, you don't remember most of the stuff I write anyway. I don't recall reading it and didn't stick with me that he was going to vote for Trump, it happens.

I remember enough and I remember that you engaged him directly after it. The larger question is: do you still consider him "on your side"? If so, why?

 

[Cristalle]

I remember enough and I remember that you engaged him directly after it. The larger question is: do you still consider him "on your side"? If so, why?

Clearly not enough since I have to keep repeating myself.
Again: only to the extent that he supports Bernie. Not for being willing to support Trump.

 

[Salome]

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Clearly not enough since I have to keep repeating myself.
Again: only to the extent that he supports Bernie. Not for being willing to support Trump.

You keep repeating things that haven't been alleged such as your need to repeat that you are not "Bernie or bust", etc.. You do this despite repeated acknowledgments that you are not and insert them where they haven't been questioned in the slightest.

Only to the extent that he supports Bernie. Okay, let's unpack that. You believe that it's quite possible to support Bernie yet consider a vote for Trump? You have said multiple times that you are all about policy. How do you reconcile allyship with a person or people willing to completely forego not only any progress forward toward those very same policies, but actual destruction that another may make on that path?

You see, for me let's say I have a deep belief that all people have a basic right to healthcare. Let's say that I desperately want something done about income inequality. I'll just stick with those two for now. Exactly how would you reconcile those "deeply" held beliefs with voting for someone who not only despises such beliefs but actively works against them? You still actually would believe that I hold those beliefs with any amount of conviction?

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

That's rather different, though, from working together with people who've recently been telling you that you, or your candidate, are no better than the other side -- it doesn't make for a particularly good working environment, for reasons that should be obvious.

People don't have to be friends, or even particularly like each other, to work together effectively, but going for each other in the way different candidates' supporters in the Democratic primaries have been doing doesn't make for an harmonious and profitable working relationship, which is what the Democrats will need later in the year.

How individuals behave towards each other during the campaign is generally more important than how the leadership treats their sometime rivals' supporters, to my mind.

That's what I've been getting at this whole time.

Some want to frame this as Sanders-skeptics telling his supporters "you were mean to me, therefore I'm going to show you by voting against my (alleged) self-interest". It's not so much that. Blue No Matter Who WILL vote for a nominated Sanders, it's not even a question - and Bernie's supporters know that. That's what Blue No Matter Who means, after all. It's more a question of what happens after that. The toxic wing of Sanders' fans seem to be setting up to make mainstream Dem voters some kind of rhetorical underclass, even if they put him in office.

That's why it's so important that Sanders acknowledges the existence of these people, and affirms that what they're doing is unacceptable - and not as just some throwaway platitude to appease complainers, but with genuine understanding of what the problem is. It won't stop the dweebs - on social media they already freely brag that they will proudly ignore any directive by Sanders to stop what they're doing - but mainstream Dem voters need assurance that a President Bernie won't be rewarding these people with positions of influence.

 

[Cristalle]

You keep repeating things that haven't been alleged such as your need to repeat that you are not "Bernie or bust", etc.. You do this despite repeated acknowledgments that you are not and insert them where they haven't been questioned in the slightest.

Only to the extent that he supports Bernie. Okay, let's unpack that. You believe that it's quite possible to support Bernie yet consider a vote for Trump? You have said multiple times that you are all about policy. How do you reconcile allyship with a person or people willing to completely forego not only any progress forward toward those very same policies, but actual destruction that another may make on that path?

You see, for me let's say I have a deep belief that all people have a basic right to healthcare. Let's say that I desperately want something done about income inequality. I'll just stick with those two for now. Exactly how would you reconcile those "deeply" held beliefs with voting for someone who not only despises such beliefs but actively works against them? You still actually would believe that I hold those beliefs with any amount of conviction?

He and I want the same person to win. But beyond that, we definitely don't agree. It’s transactional. He votes in the primary for my guy, great. If Bernie loses, that transaction ends.

 

[Cristalle]

That's what I've been getting at this whole time.

Some want to frame this as Sanders-skeptics telling his supporters "you were mean to me, therefore I'm going to show you by voting against my (alleged) self-interest". It's not so much that. Blue No Matter Who WILL vote for a nominated Sanders, it's not even a question - and Bernie's supporters know that. That's what Blue No Matter Who means, after all. It's more a question of what happens after that. The toxic wing of Sanders' fans seem to be setting up to make mainstream Dem voters some kind of rhetorical underclass, even if they put him in office.

That's why it's so important that Sanders acknowledges the existence of these people, and affirms that what they're doing is unacceptable - and not as just some throwaway platitude to appease complainers, but with genuine understanding of what the problem is. It won't stop the dweebs - on social media they already freely brag that they will proudly ignore any directive by Sanders to stop what they're doing - but mainstream Dem voters need assurance that a President Bernie won't be rewarding these people with positions of influence.

How many times does he have to do it? He's already done so a number of times. It seems like the answer is he will never be able to satisfy people.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

You keep repeating things that haven't been alleged such as your need to repeat that you are not "Bernie or bust", etc.. You do this despite repeated acknowledgments that you are not and insert them where they haven't been questioned in the slightest.

Only to the extent that he supports Bernie. Okay, let's unpack that. You believe that it's quite possible to support Bernie yet consider a vote for Trump? You have said multiple times that you are all about policy. How do you reconcile allyship with a person or people willing to completely forego not only any progress forward toward those very same policies, but actual destruction that another may make on that path?

You see, for me let's say I have a deep belief that all people have a basic right to healthcare. Let's say that I desperately want something done about income inequality. I'll just stick with those two for now. Exactly how would you reconcile those "deeply" held beliefs with voting for someone who not only despises such beliefs but actively works against them? You still actually would believe that I hold those beliefs with any amount of conviction?

This is sounding disturbingly Authoritarian.

 

[Salome]

Only to the extent that he supports Bernie. Okay, let's unpack that. You believe that it's quite possible to support Bernie yet consider a vote for Trump? You have said multiple times that you are all about policy. How do you reconcile allyship with a person or people willing to completely forego not only any progress forward toward those very same policies, but actual destruction that another may make on that path?

This gets to the heart of the matter. The problem with Bernie isn’t that he’s a progressive (a majority of Dems are) but that he’s a populist. That’s why he inherited so many Rand Paul Libertarians and why so many of his little manbun minions can so blithely shrug and say “oh well, enjoy Trump.” We’re seeing the ramifications of populist candidates on a global scale right now and it doesn’t matter what side of the spectrum they fall on, they create more problems than they solve.

Lets face it, we all know that dude who takes no personal responsibility and blames “the establishment” for all his woes. We can even sometimes like that guy. But he's not the one we call to water our plants and feed the pets when we’re gone. Because it’s hard to trust the things we value to a person who takes no personal responsibility, no matter how much they keep telling us shit we want to hear.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

How many times does he have to do it? He's already done so a number of times. It seems like the answer is he will never be able to satisfy people.

Yeah but it hasn't been very convincing, which is why I added the part about "and not as just some throwaway platitude to appease complainers, but with genuine understanding of what the problem is". I don't know if you've noticed, but Bernie has this shtick where despite supposedly being smart as a whip on so many things he's somehow also this doddering simpleton who doesn't know what "the internet" is. He doesn't know what "memes" are, and doesn't know what his own fans do online - when asked he seems to not even be aware of his own campaign's online messaging. Considering this, "well I don't know what's going on, but that sounds bad and nobody should be doing it" comes off as more of a confused handwave that doesn't signify a deep understanding of what he's disclaiming.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

This is sounding disturbingly Authoritarian.

And you sound disturbingly like another once-banned, but returned, poster with a claimed similar background. You've tried to psychoanalyze me once before, when you claimed that I sound just like an adult child of an alcoholic. I caution you to not think yourself worthy of another attempt. Anything else?

 

[Cristalle]

Yeah but it hasn't been very convincing, which is why I added the part about "and not as just some throwaway platitude to appease complainers, but with genuine understanding of what the problem is". I don't know if you've noticed, but Bernie has this shtick where despite supposedly being smart as a whip on so many things he's somehow also this doddering simpleton who doesn't know what "the internet" is. He doesn't know what "memes" are, and doesn't know what his own fans do online - when asked he seems to not even be aware of his own campaign's online messaging. Considering this, "well I don't know what's going on, but that sounds bad and nobody should be doing it" comes off as more of a confused handwave that doesn't signify a deep understanding of what he's disclaiming.

It's not convincing to you because you spend a hell of a lot more time on the internet than he does. I really don't know what you expect. It feels like he'd have to go cut himself on TV and even then that might not be enough.

 

[Salome]

Trump just made it clear they're going to try and use the current epidemic to undermine Social Security via payroll cuts.

Sure would be nice to be focused on the GOP‘s efforts to go after SS instead of lying about Biden.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

How many times does he have to do it? He's already done so a number of times. It seems like the answer is he will never be able to satisfy people.

I've not been following all this on Twitter well enough to know all the details, but I do think there are specific things he could do, like make it clear to people on his official campaign staff that some things aren't acceptable and will lead to dismissal, and follow through on that.

Similarly, he could disavow that Chapo podcast's vile attack on Elizabeth Warren after she pulled out, and make it clear he doesn't that sort of support.

However, my point -- I wouldn't presume to speak for Dakota -- is more to do with how his activist supporters behave online and in meatspace.

That is, assuming they are actually out there campaigning and canvassing for him, I'd hope that they'll be out there canvassing and campaigning for him come November, too, and I assume they'll expect Democratic activists who've supported other candidates -- Warren, Biden and so on -- to do the same.

My point is that they're not actually making that any easier for people -- we've talking about volunteers here, after all, and people aren't going to find it so easy to work alongside people who've been abusing their preferred candidate and the candidates supporters (so, by extension, them) so roundly only a few months before.

That's why I hope people on both sides will try to remember that they're going to need each other come November, no matter what their disputes now, so they should try not to make the situation any more difficult than it need be.

 

[Cristalle]

There is quantitative evidence disproving the "Bernie Bro" myth

A computational social scientist's study shows Bernie's Twitter followers act pretty much the same as everyone else

www.salon.com

 

[Salome]

However, my point -- I wouldn't presume to speak for Dakota -- is more to do with how his activist supporters behave online and in meatspace.

That is, assuming they are actually out there campaigning and canvassing for him, I'd hope that they'll be out there canvassing and campaigning for him come November, too, and I assume they'll expect Democratic activists who've supported other candidates -- Warren, Biden and so on -- to do the same.

My point is that they're not actually that any easier for people -- we've talking about volunteers here, after all, and people aren't going to find it so easy to work alongside people who've been abusing their preferred candidate and the candidates supporters (so, by extension, them) so roundly only a few months before.

That's why I hope people on both sides will try to remember that they're going to need each other come November, no matter what their disputes now, so they should try not to make the situation any more difficult than it need be.

Sanders specifically chose and rewarded scorched earth voices for his 2020 campaign staff. People who loudly and boldly advocated voting 3rd party in 2016 and bragged about it when they did. Sanders can mumble all he wants about supporting whoever wins, but the message he sends with who he chooses to surround himself with, who he chooses to court, and who he chooses to blow off speaks far louder. When progressives like Warren explain why it’s wrong (morally and financially) to go on FOX, Sanders still does. Then he tweets lies about how he’s winning over republicans and the responses are full of a bunch of his followers being recruited to watch FOX because it’s “more fair.”

 

[Cristalle]

If you don't care about the commentary, start at 59 seconds.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

No mention of how he will attack Sanders (and he will) and repeating the bullshit about Biden in "cognitive decline." Not exactly convincing.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

There is quantitative evidence disproving the "Bernie Bro" myth

A computational social scientist's study shows Bernie's Twitter followers act pretty much the same as everyone else

www.salon.com

Q: Is there actually any difference between different candidates' supporters online behavior, based on this?

A: As a data scientist, I am usually skeptical of any result. So I'll say maybe not or at least much less than claimed.

Convincing stuff. Totally disproves everything.