He was before this, but this hurts both his huge weaknesses with black voters and could turn off a large part of his major voting base (poor whites).
It won't really matter since the election was basically over after Super Tuesday.
Bernie Sanders clarifies his statement about ghettos
- Thread starter Guevara
- Start date
- Status
He was before this, but this hurts both his huge weaknesses with black voters and could turn off a large part of his major voting base (poor whites).
It won't really matter since the election was basically over after Super Tuesday.
This is why I won't ever be some pro-Bernie supporter in general.
It's hard to support somebody who leans back on the same shit and just wants to "end" things. He isn't really a guy that strikes me as having a plan, at least not a plan that won't get shot down.
I don't place much stock in that poll because Bernie's campaign has had the more visible online presence since the very beginning, and it hasn't really reflected in him actually beating Hillary Clinton.
Based on the response of the audience actually in the room, and a lot of the media response, I just challenge your idea that the view of Bernie's behavior last night was "overwhelmingly positive." We'll find out tomorrow though.
Prodigal Son
Member
Uhh. Yeah. Like I said. Not necessarily representative of the American people. Just the young American people.
I doubt Bernie will outperform the polls tomorrow. He's 20 points behind. If she beats him by more than 20 points, I think we have something to talk about. Otherwise, "people hated what Bernie said" is founded on very little.
JoeyJungle
Banned
It's a really big deal to completely deny the existence and experiences of poor white people. I have a (white) friend who heard this quote today and started talking about how she grew up in the shittiest trailer in her trailer park, with 3 different types of cockroaches living in the trailer, waking up with possums in the living room because there was a hole in the floor ineffectively covered up with loose plywood.
Pretty sure she knew what it was like to be poor.
Prodigal Son
Member
Not as a result of this - he was done after Super Tuesday; his supporters just haven't accepted it yet.
Bernie Sanders - king of the online polls, not quite so much anywhere else.
MWS Natural
Member
Exactly. Who the fuck is outraged by this? And how long have you been a Clinton supporter? lol
Go beyond your feed. It's your feed. Of course it's more likely to be representative of ideas that you agree with. Checking live tweets from the trending page is much more accurate of people's opinions. Twitter and much of the web as a whole, was overwhelmingly pro-Sanders.
Is this representative of the American people though? Sure isn't. You can argue it rubbed the average non-vocal viewer the wrong way. I'd argue otherwise of course.
Not at all. In all likelyhood, Clinton will take the nom, but it's still a race whether people are comfortable with that reality or not. Superdelegates will not go against the people's will or it'll be a shit-show.
True delegate count is what matters.
^ If you look at this and see a race that's "over", I don't know what'll convince you to look beyond GAF rhetoric.
Because it's a greater gap than Obama ever had and Clinton was done after Super Tuesday in 08? And because the porportional nature of the Dem campaign makes it extremely difficult to make up a gap that large?
It's not GAF rhetoric. It's reality. The Dem side has no winner take all races.
Prodigal Son
Member
Clinton didn't have rapidly growing support in 08 like Obama did.
Sanders is behind, but he is consistently rising in the polls. Obama was the one one surging in 08. Sanders is the one quickly gaining support in 2016.
He won't, but I'd love to be wrong.
*airhorn*
makingmusic476
Member
I like your optimism.
UnemployedVillain
Member
If I knew why I wouldn't be posting things like that! I'm just a confused black dude, trying to put myself in the shoes of other black people taking offense and still failing to find any reason to.
The message was clear to me. The intent was clear to me. Even without the greater context with his anecdote preceding the statement, I understood what he meant.
I've seen some of the reasons given. That some people find him implying that black people make areas ghettos and I can't even conceive the mental gymnastics that would allow me to arrive at that conclusion. The only responses I've really understood are those who took offense to his comment about white people, which is more people not getting that it wasn't a literal statement meaning there aren't any poor white people, and was more a privilege comment that white people don't know what's its like to be poor AND black. Our poor is worse than their poor for a number of reasons, many of which relate to underlying systemic inequities and injustices.
But yeah, I suppose I could understand it being a phrasing issue, it's just that it's so clear to me it's hard to imagine it not being. Like if someone told me to pretend not to know a concept I know well
And therein lies the rub.
And_Gignac
Member
He had a point but expressed it in the most weirdly way he could. Slightly offensive too.
I don't know if this comment will have much repercussions. I can see how it could, though.
Bernie is a BIG, FAT MESS for this.
I don't know if this comment will have much repercussions. I can see how it could, though.
Bernie is a BIG, FAT MESS for this.
While I'm hardly the arbiter of Bernie's black opposition, I posted earlier why I found a problem with Bernie's words, even while I knew what he was trying to say:
Where is this consistent rise on the polls?
It has completely stabilized, if not flipped over the past two weeks from what I'm seeing. Am I missing something?
Prodigal Son
Member
Likely so. It absolutely hasn't stabilized.
D.Lo
Member
Everyone from the establishments are so desperate for that Howard Dean moment aren't they?
He says something that basically implied he sees a very special disadvantage to black communities that needs to be overcome, and honestly should be more offensive to poor whites (as it sounds like they don't exist). And he's being painted as racist against blacks because that's what will hurt him.
He says something that basically implied he sees a very special disadvantage to black communities that needs to be overcome, and honestly should be more offensive to poor whites (as it sounds like they don't exist). And he's being painted as racist against blacks because that's what will hurt him.
Obama 'surging' never acquired a pledged delegate lead as large as the one that Clinton has over Sanders.
So if you extrapolate Sanders 'quickly gaining' support based on that, by the time enough people want to vote for him in a primary, it will already be the November and voting in the GE.
Unless you somehow think Sanders will take CA, NY, FL and many other states Hillary has a major advantage, by winning 25% or more of the votes?
The Democratic Establishment is not in the least bit concerned with trying to hurt Bernie at this point. He's done a lot to hurt himself, and Hillary's delegate lead is practically insurmountable at this point. The race was practically over after Super Tuesday; if he loses Michigan tomorrow, he might as well pack it up.
Prodigal Son
Member
Very true. Precisely why I've said Clinton likely has the nomination. The point is that should Sanders continue rising in the polls to the (frankly unrealistic) point where he surpasses Clinton, many Super-delegates will be faced with an important choice than might end in Sander's favor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfPbUty-Yf4
Worse? Okay.
He was quite behind in every state he won on Super-Tuesday aside from Vermont. Many of the state's polling were less than a month old.
It's also an easy google.
QuantumZebra
Member
yea pretty much lol
Lol, do you actually believe half the stuff you post? I think this article covers things pretty well.
NBC | It's Panic Mode for the Democratic Establishment
There was also this little gem from the founder of Media Matters.
An open letter to Bernie Sanders
The establishment care alright, some people are just too self absorbed to notice it. Hell, even the Republicans are starting to take note.
WSJ | GOP Groups Now Targeting Bernie Sanders too
None of this is to say he will win, but this notion that the Democratic Establishment is not in the least bit concerned with trying to hurt Bernie is just laughable.
And_Gignac
Member
Guys, Bernie isnt winning. Unless Clinton has some major campaign-killing gaffe (or she goes to jail hihi) or theres some kind of electoral miracle the 15th, his path for the nomination is done.
Dont relinquish on a presidency when theres a new born movement that will change the face of the Democratic Party forever.Thats something few political figures have achieved in history, and Clinton wont be part of that, Bernie will.
Dont relinquish on a presidency when theres a new born movement that will change the face of the Democratic Party forever.Thats something few political figures have achieved in history, and Clinton wont be part of that, Bernie will.
...
...kbvjkdbvlzb
BUT HE CAN'T WIN
Hillary's delegate lead over him is completely dominant at this point. So I'm asking YOU, why you think the establishment has any reason to be concerned over a losing candidate at this point. And no posting blogs and articles from January (JANUARY. Do you realize how much has happened since then??? And you have the nerve to challenge my posts?)
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Oh, so we're just going to ignore Reddit? r/sandersforpresident has been a trending subreddit for months!
Yes.
Prodigal Son
Member
This isn't dominance. It's a solid lead that's likely to remain solid. Doesn't mean it can't be watered down or surpassed. Will it happen? Probably not. Should we rule it out as an impossibility? No.
This isn't dominance. It's a solid lead that's likely to remain solid. Doesn't mean it can't be watered down or surpassed. Will it happen? Probably not. Should we rule it out as an impossibility? No.
No, it's a dominant lead. It's more than double the lead that Barack had on Hillary in '08 when people were calling for her to drop out. He has very few states coming up where it looks like he can beat her by significant margins.
Because you never know what's around the corner, and it's always better to be safe than sorry. At the end of the day, if Hillary did fuck up in a big last minute way, or some new major scandal came out or occurred, the establishment ensures she has enough ground to ride it out or never even risk anything less. Add to that it ensures her dominance and by virtue mandate, is more resounding and clear.
On a side note, the letter from David Brock is from toward the end of February, not that it changes my point.
DR2K
Banned
Well luckily he doesn't have to worry about the black vote.
Prodigal Son
Member
And again we disagree. This isn't 2008. As I've said, Obama was consistently gaining on Clinton in the polls in 2008 when it was suggested she drop out.
While Clinton is leading by more than Obama was in 08, in 2016, Bernie is the one gaining on her. A month ago he was far behind many of the states he has just won.
If this were a foot-race, Clinton has the head-start, but Sanders has the speed. Thing is, she's really close to the finish-line and will probably get there even if Comrade Sanders is gaining on her.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm not sure what the basis of this tangential discussion is, but Clinton closed then Senator Obama's lead by 30 delegates in 2008. The difference is that at the point that Obama had a 100 delegate lead they were 73% of the way through the pledged delegate allocation.
Conversely, Clinton has a larger lead, but we're only 29% through the delegate allocation. She isn't that close to the finish line. However, she's set for a string of wins. Tomorrow we're through 33% of the allocation. After the 15th we;re through ~50%. I can probably draw out now which places he'll win and which she will if he stays in throughout the contest.
I don't know where this idea of "speed" is coming from. The needle has barely moved despite active campaigning and out-advertising in places like Michigan, with essential constituencies, where she'll win tomorrow by double digits. Her Mississippi win tomorrow will probably grow her lead by 20-30 delegates. He isn't going to win places like NC, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Missouri.
There is no seismic shift. There is no #momentum.
Conversely, Clinton has a larger lead, but we're only 29% through the delegate allocation. She isn't that close to the finish line. However, she's set for a string of wins. Tomorrow we're through 33% of the allocation. After the 15th we;re through ~50%. I can probably draw out now which places he'll win and which she will if he stays in throughout the contest.
I don't know where this idea of "speed" is coming from. The needle has barely moved despite active campaigning and out-advertising in places like Michigan, with essential constituencies, where she'll win tomorrow by double digits. Her Mississippi win tomorrow will probably grow her lead by 20-30 delegates. He isn't going to win places like NC, Ohio, Illinois, Florida, Missouri.
There is no seismic shift. There is no #momentum.
reddit was founded by libertarians and will trend anything libertarian friendly
JesseEwiak
Member
It's more like Sanders might have the speed in theory, but is depending on an engine that works far less often than Hillary's less powerful, but far more consistent engine.
Also, if we went by online and Twitter polls as any evidence aside from "which candidate has the couple of thousand people willing to spam a poll", we should be planning for Ron Paul's reelection bid right now.
Baron Doggystyle von Woof
Member
Dam son. Asians are winning.
Prodigal Son
Member
Not a fan of your engine analogy, in part because I disagree and in part because you mechanized an otherwise beautiful, natural and simple foot-race metaphor
jokes
--
I didn't post the poll to imply Sanders has more support overall. I literally say just that.
I'm saying he quite obviously has more support from young-America and the average twitter/internet-goer and that these people likely weren't all that phased by his perceived gaffe last night.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Correct. As does the rest of the civilized world.
JesseEwiak
Member
Bernie could kill a baby on stage and 2/3 of the SandersforPresident Reddit would justify it and we'd see memes about how if the baby lived, it would've just become an evil worker on Wall Street anyway.
Prodigal Son
Member
Die-Hard Hillary supporters would do the same (with a less ridiculous scenario of course). People tend to be passionate about candidates they strongly support. Not that surprising, guy.
Bernie baby murder is also a far cry from a poorly worded sentence about black people (a sentence that has, by the way, been reasonably clarified).
when you say a thing like this
and you're trying to use it as a way to characterize other people as crazy
but the only one who looks crazy here
is you
JesseEwiak
Member
There's thing called hyperbole and the phrase "politician x or frankly, celebrity x could kill a baby/puppy/etc on TV/stage/etc" is part of it. I was actually not being serious. Calm down, this will be all over soon.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Sanders leans...libertarian??? On aspects of his social and foreign policy, sure, but other than that, I don't think that's what most libertarians would identify with.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Nah, Reddit just loves anti-establishment. And nothing says "anti-establishment" like an old, white, male politician who promises to fix America.
Libertarians love the idea that you should get everything you want in life because you did one thing a long time ago
- Status