The Thread of Democrats

[L'Emmerdeur]

Dump Michael Moore...or shove him aside till election
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/s ... ore/24852/

I think the Palmer Report gives too much credit to Moore.

[H]is absurd exaggerations and lies about Hillary Clinton – at a time when she was ahead of Bernie by millions of votes and he knew she was going to be the nominee – are one of the big reasons Donald Trump is in office.

An absurd exaggeration in itself. Yes, he's a toxic wannabe demagogue, but I don't see any evidence that his effect on the 2016 presidential election was significant. The Sanders supporters who chimed in with the Republican anti-Clinton narrative didn't need any encouragement from him, nor did the Trumpists and other gullible nurks who bought into it.

[Tero]

Well, as far as Trump voters, they would not have heard of him. Whatever opinions they had were already formed before any of the Sanders Hillary thing. I think the number going from Sanders to Trump was small.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Well, as far as Trump voters, they would not have heard of him. Whatever opinions they had were already formed before any of the Sanders Hillary thing. I think the number going from Sanders to Trump was small.

According to at least one analysis, the number was small (12%), but it was large enough to make a difference.

'Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof'

Bernie Sanders supporters switched their allegiance to Donald Trump in large enough numbers last November to sway the election for the real estate billionaire, according to an analysis of voter data released Tuesday by the blog Political Wire. Since Trump's shock victory over Hillary Clinton, much discussion has focused on the degree to which passionate Sanders supporters' refusal to embrace Clinton led to the Republican winding up in the White House.

[JimC]

I find that very weird. I can imagine Sanders supporters simply not voting, which would have an effect in itself, but voting for Trump in a fit of pique? Surely not!

[laklak]

Bloomberg doesn't like Fauxcahontas' proposed wealth tax, says it's "socialism" and "Venezuelan". But taxing the shit out of the rest of us, well, that's fine and dandy! No socialism there, no sir!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... M2o8e17iFg


What a corporatist neolib asswipe. They're all the fucking same, only the paint job differs.

[Tero]

Yang is a significantly changed candidate from even a month ago: In a word, he has grown up. Gone from the back of his bus is the Super Nintendo game console. On the exterior is a picture of a serious-looking Yang, replacing printed names of loyal Yang Gang members.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/ ... owa-110383

[Hermit]

I find that very weird. I can imagine Sanders supporters simply not voting, which would have an effect in itself, but voting for Trump in a fit of pique? Surely not!

Well, Trump kept emphasising how he was going to clean out the swamp, and Hillary Clinton, the Wall Street shill, represented the swamp. I can see the possibility of a sufficient number of morons among disappointed Sanders supporters genuinely regarding Trump as preferable to Clinton to tip the scales. It would have only taken 80,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to stay with Clinton to give her the required number of electoral college votes to win the presidency.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The numbers presented in the article I linked above bear that out:

In each of the three states that ultimately swung the election for Trump—Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—Trump's margin of victory over Clinton was smaller than the number of Sanders voters who gave him their vote.

Sanders -> Trump voters…
WI: 51k
MI: 47k
PA: 116k

Trump win margin…
WI: 22k
MI: 10k
PA: 44k

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

-- G. Elliott Morris 2:16 AM · Aug 23, 2017

[JimC]

I'm not disputing the facts, just saying I find it fucking weird.

And a perfect example of cutting off your nose to spite your face...

[Tero]

How did Sanders qualify to be the same outsider Trump was thought to be?

[Hermit]

I'm not disputing the facts, just saying I find it fucking weird.

Not so weird, as I tried to explain above, if you were gormless enough in 2016 to take Trump's campaign promise regarding the draining of the swamp at face value. Sanders was going to do it, but he was shafted by the DNC. Clinton won, and she was one of those people who needed to be drained from the swamp. So, who is left to vote for?

[JimC]

I'm not disputing the facts, just saying I find it fucking weird.

Not so weird, as I tried to explain above, if you were gormless enough in 2016 to take Trump's campaign promise regarding the draining of the swamp at face value. Sanders was going to do it, but he was shafted by the DNC. Clinton won, and she was one of those people who needed to be drained from the swamp. So, who is left to vote for?

Surely anybody who was a Sanders supporter would detest Trump. I can understand detesting Hilary as well, but simply not voting would have been enough...

[Hermit]

I'm not disputing the facts, just saying I find it fucking weird.

Not so weird, as I tried to explain above, if you were gormless enough in 2016 to take Trump's campaign promise regarding the draining of the swamp at face value. Sanders was going to do it, but he was shafted by the DNC. Clinton won, and she was one of those people who needed to be drained from the swamp. So, who is left to vote for?

Surely anybody who was a Sanders supporter would detest Trump. I can understand detesting Hilary as well, but simply not voting would have been enough...

Let me try to explain again: Sanders was going to drain the swamp. Trump promised to drain the swamp. Clinton was a swamp creature that needed to be drained. Sanders did not survive the primaries, so, if you go by the "lesser of two evils" principle, who will you vote for?

You don't have to agree with the thought process, but if you make an effort to understand its logic you won't find it weird. Just wrong. Tens of thousands of Sanders's supporters thought it was the right way to go. Hundreds of thousands simply did not bother voting at all. The number of the former sufficed to leave Clinton short of the requisite electoral college votes.

[JimC]

What it tells me is that here is something deeply wrong with being a dyed in the wool "X" supporter, whoever X might be. The flip side of this is being automatically against "Y", whatever their politics might be. Personality politics sucks...

[Hermit]

What it tells me is that here is something deeply wrong with being a dyed in the wool "X" supporter, whoever X might be. The flip side of this is being automatically against "Y", whatever their politics might be. Personality politics sucks...

This is clearly about politics. Look at it again: Sanders will drain the swamp. Some people believed Trump's promise to drain the swamp. Clinton, the Wall Street shill who was paid huge amounts of money by the bankers for giving speeches to them in which she promised that banking regulations are best left in the hands of bankers, is a swamp creature. Sanders gets eliminated in the primaries, leaving the choice between voting for the candidate who promised to drain the swamp and the candidate that needs to be drained. If you saw the situation like that and you felt it is your duty to cast a vote, who would you vote for?