kitsunelaine
Banned
Whenever I venture into those threads it's just a bunch of bernie supporters whining about how persecuted they are, and how bernie would totally have won and it was the evil DNC and hillary voters' faults he lost, so idk
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bernie Sanders Is the Most Popular Politician in America, Poll Says
- Thread starter Eylos
- Start date
- Status
Whenever I venture into those threads it's just a bunch of bernie supporters whining about how persecuted they are, and how bernie would totally have won and it was the evil DNC and hillary voters' faults he lost, so idk
A lot of gaffers hate Bernie because they were gigantic Hillary stans and are salty they've gotta take the L.
Seriously this place was an insufferable YAS QUEEN central post Bernie bowing out and during the general elections. I'm not even saying Bernie would've won. But the vitriol towards Bernie supports from Hillary stans was annoying
Seriously this place was an insufferable YAS QUEEN central post Bernie bowing out and during the general elections. I'm not even saying Bernie would've won. But the vitriol towards Bernie supports from Hillary stans was annoying
Why should I waste my time when you've shown how intellectually dishonest you are multiple times? The threads I'm referencing are constant and tiresome yet you want to sweep them under the rug, while acting like you're somehow superior. It's only annoying and makes this whole venture not worthwhile. You would still try to find a way to say people who liked Bernie in the primary are idiots/constantly bring up the primary anyway....all while you're bringing it up constantly in doing so.
The 1 in 10 thread for starters is a current example. There was another where Bernie voted no a bill due to drug costs and he was made out to be some giant dick for doing so. And etc. etc. etc. etc.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Sounds to me like he's saying only white voters should be able to decide who gets the nomination.
Aztechnology
Member
Yea, I would. It's silly. People are still in shock though, so I can't really blame them that much. Grasping at straws. I mean Bernie was my candidate, but so what? Doesn't do any good now.
It's amazing how much conservative media still talks about Hillary too. Hillary is just a freaking punching bag now.
Not really. The rest of us just want to move on.
🤔🤔🤔
ShironRedshift
Member
What are these other polls? Because looking into it, they all seem to have the same issues.
Like, for example,trying to look into it, this article cites a lot of these other polls:
http://observer.com/2017/07/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician/
I'm going with this Observer piece as a launch-point because most of the other results when googling "Sanders most popular politician" just ends up citing one or a few of these and that seems to be the most complete compilation of these polls. So it seems like a good place to dig into these polls.
However, upon doing so, they all have some flaw or another:
The cited Morning Consult poll:
https://morningconsult.com/july-2017-senator-rankings/
Problem? Only about current Senators. Unlike the title of the article, it has nothing to do with being the most popular politician period. And they even mention this when they cite it!
So surely the other stuff they cite actually does prove that he's the most popular politician in the country?
Well, the next thing they cite is a Fox News Poll:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/03/15/fox-news-poll-315.html
On Page 4, you can see that the options for politicians in the poll were:
Bernie Sanders
Mike Pence
Donald Trump
Elizabeth Warren
Paul Ryan
Nancy Pelosi
Chuck Schumer
Mitch McConnell
Again, just like the poll in the OP, just a random handful of names with big ones like Obama, Biden, Bill Clinton, and the like left off.
The next one they cite? This:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...nders-countrys-most-popular-active-politician
However, as the PolitiFact article they cite next explains, this too has the same problem and only asked about particular candidates, in this case asking about:
Sanders
Pence
Trump
Clinton
Warren
Ryan
Pelosi
Schumer
McConnell
Among a few other members of the Trump administration/appointees like Kellyanne Conway, Kushner, and Gorsuch. Speaking on that, PolitiFact also includes this tidbit about the Harvard-Harris Poll:
Speaking of the PolitiFact article, that's the last thing the Observer piece cites in regards to this:
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...e-losing-nomination-hillary-clinton-bernie-s/
However, it just cites the exact same polls. There is only one additional thing the PolitiFact article mentions, which is this, and it's quite interesting:
Of course, that's just from Huffington Post. That's only one source, but it's the only one that includes both Obama and Sanders so it's all the info I have on that. And as they note:
However, being the "most popular politician" and the "most popular active politician" are two entirely different things and saying one when you mean the other is incredibly misleading, especially when most of these polls articles are asking about the latter but then going on to claim the former.
So unless there are other polls I've missed saying he's the most popular politician in the country seems to need a huge asterisk around it. Unless there is other info I've missed that says otherwise? I'd love to see it in that case as the vast bulk seems to have very similar flaws and it would be great to see more that don't.
kitsunelaine
Banned
I hate Bernie because he ran a dishonest campaign on promises that he 100% knew he wouldn't be able to keep, and people kept propping him up as an example of a super honest and squeaky clean politician that would most definitely be able to solve each and every one of our problems without any issue whatsoever. Oh also he kept attacking people who were actually acting in a way that showed they understood and could contend with the realistic difficulties of passing policies and legislation in our current political climate.
But I guess I'm just a filthy lying paid Hillarystan shill.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
It's more like people who were only open to either Clinton or Sanders outright lie about how these threads go and expect everyone else to go along with it.
During the primary, I remember a few far-gone Sanders supporters outright saying that black voters who didn't choose him didn't know what was best for them and after the election, several of the same said that Clinton voters were the real racists. Granted most of those types got banned or eventually shut themselves up, but they were definitely there.
Similarly there have been Clinton supporters who consider Sanders supporters as unrealistic dreamers, closet racists, immature voters, and so on.
The loudest and least intelligent voices in both hardcore camps stand out because they make themselves standout.
I pretty much never see that but I see a hell of a lot of people trying to say Bernie supporters are the biggest reason Hillary lost/Bernie supporters are secret Republicans/secret racists/sexists all while I see sexism, racism (seen so many in real life and at least one example on gaf ask poc about their melanin count) and transphobia from Hillary supporters. Least I DID in the primary. I would rather move on with things but for some reason Hillary supporters seem to constantly want to bring it up.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
See its shit like this, you guys are so fucking insufferable. We're the fuck dk you see it now? Hillary supporters accepted her defeat and want to move on, you guys can't let the shit go, you have this massive persecution complex and want to continually talk about how Bernie would have won. Move the fuck on man.
Talk about to salty to take the fucking L.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
"He's a socialist, that makes him unelectable, a socialist could never win, lawl!"
Permanently A
Junior Member
From what I've seen people on both sides like Bernie cause he's stuck to his political ideology for a few decades.
kitsunelaine
Banned
I'm gonna have to slap a big CITATION NEEDED on this one
Frozenprince
Banned
Maybe because her opponent was Donald J Trump, a reality TV star and former slum lord.
I experienced the transphobia often personally in real life and on here.
Saw racism in real life and at least once here on gaf.
Saw lots of sexist shit spewed about women of color/people like Warren.
And a big as hell citation needed on your claims. That said, I'd rather fucking move on but you seem to want to drag this out.
Agreed.
I think GAF was about the only place I saw people so worked up for Hillary.
IRL everyone I know was for Bernie, Trump or Stein
kitsunelaine
Banned
why are you still replying if you want to move on
Go on to greener pastures with my blessings, friend
excelsiorlef
Member
Well I mean she did win both the primary and the popular vote so maybe your IRL isn't a proper sample base.
Can you stop with all the strawmen? It's getting to the point where you're being utterly disengenous.
A forum is for responding, is it not? I also edited that post in regards to your desires for citations.
I say what I said to you in that other thread that was currently active on the board that was all aimed at acting like Bernie supporters from the primary are the reason Hillary lost:
"Talk to me when you care to actually confront the problem the country faces from right-wing extremism/complacency some have in letting it happen for decades now rather than live in the primary."
I don't see what's so strawmanny about it or why, if it is, I'm the only one strawmanning here. Do you even see what I'm responding to? It's ridiculous how much starwmanning is going on of primary supporters. When most of them voted for Hillary and everyone should know that already.
Not quite what I was stating but okay.
kitsunelaine
Banned
I never personally experienced any transphobia, sexism or racism through the hillary campaign so idk. If all we're relying on is personal anecdotes you don't really have a foot to stand on with these assertions
That's one heck of a loaded statement, I guess you want to ask me about starving kids in africa too, as if I don't have the brain capacity to fight on multiple fronts.
Also it's a little weird to think that bernie supporters aren't the ones constantly trying to bring up the primaries in attempts to vindicate their hero but idk
Cool it with the loaded rhetoric and leading statements that could very easily and logically be read as super insulting. You're not doing yourself any favours.
Father_Brain
Banned
I seem to recall some sort of saying about a forest and trees that would be relevant here.
ShironRedshift
Member
Maybe because you've been banned for exactly this type of behavior previously? Making a claim, refusing to prove it no matter how many people ask, but just insisting it's true and thread-shitting and derailing the conversation? That would seem to be a pretty damn good reason to me.
excelsiorlef
Member
It's possible for the poll to be correct and for it to not really mean much at this current moment in time
So, bad faith.
He's still trying to push the DNC left. Why would the events in Charlottesville change that when he thinks moderates are the problem with the DNC in the first place?
SolicitorPirate
Member
The fuck is this? I'm not even American! I'm an Australian with my commie ass public healthcare who supports the fucking Greens! I pay attention to and understand American politics because the dumb shit people do there effects me whether I like it or not
Unbelievable. A realistic assessment is not fucking right wing brainwashing, you dummy!
I used to work as a tax consultant in Malaysia back around 2011-2013. One of my biggest projects was advisory work for the federal government to incorporate a small GST to the tax code. This was a small nation of 20 million with a relatively simple tax code trying to introduce a fairly straightforward GST, and the attempt was years in the making and countless total hours of research and planning. And the implementation was still a fucking dumpster fire because yo, systemic changes are hard
Sanders was proposing changes more complex and wide ranging by several orders of magnitude with no ability to explain even the basic framework of how these plans would have been implemented! In an environment significantly more hostile to those proposed changes!
Like I said in the primaries, but was called crazy for, and was literally laughed at on Gaf for saying Trump was taking it really early on...
There was a large group that was in the Bernie or Trump camp from the start. These folks were just not voting Hillary and were willing to swing if need be because they disliked her that much (not saying there right but it is what it is). I'm not justifying these folks but I have spoken to and met many of them. There the same people I know ended up voting for Trump. When talking to them during the elections if the ballot was Bernie Vs Trump they would have gone Bernie.
Folks can try and argue that but, those arguing against that reality are the same folks who laughed at Trump as a possibility to begin with. If you read my posts during the primaries, I called Trump a black swan, but thinking more on it, I think the election it self was the black swan and Trump was just in the right place at the right time with the right approach against the right type of candidate to win. Bernie would have countered that in the sense he would have also been a black swan type candidates environment wise.
Most of the people I know who voted for Trump, prior to the elections considered Trump a greed driven uppity snot nosed new Yorker. Basically the token guy they would not trust for shit. But given their options, they distrusted Hillary more, regardless of the facts.
There was a large group that was in the Bernie or Trump camp from the start. These folks were just not voting Hillary and were willing to swing if need be because they disliked her that much (not saying there right but it is what it is). I'm not justifying these folks but I have spoken to and met many of them. There the same people I know ended up voting for Trump. When talking to them during the elections if the ballot was Bernie Vs Trump they would have gone Bernie.
Folks can try and argue that but, those arguing against that reality are the same folks who laughed at Trump as a possibility to begin with. If you read my posts during the primaries, I called Trump a black swan, but thinking more on it, I think the election it self was the black swan and Trump was just in the right place at the right time with the right approach against the right type of candidate to win. Bernie would have countered that in the sense he would have also been a black swan type candidates environment wise.
Most of the people I know who voted for Trump, prior to the elections considered Trump a greed driven uppity snot nosed new Yorker. Basically the token guy they would not trust for shit. But given their options, they distrusted Hillary more, regardless of the facts.
Well, I experienced a lot of transphobia first hand in multiple places be it in meatspace or online. Racism was most often outside of here. and Sexism was pretty much aimed at any woman who was near Bernie's camp from what I saw so.... *shrugs*
@Bolded, I never insinuated anything of the sort. I have often argued that people can focus on multiple fronts at once. That said, I feel like primary reigniting is pointless. And it often feels like Hillary supporters are bringing them up to say we constantly bring it up when I rarely see that happening and often see the reverse. I dislike this on the grounds that it requires one to erase threads as they happen. I've referenced a few recent accounts already. It's pointless regardless as it';s just the same topic over and over and I was under the impression that primary reigniting wasn't welcome here in the first place. I would rather focus on the future than the non-news that Bernie supporters are somehow immoral/the reason Hillary lost or whatever hot take is going on at the time being.
I don't see how this is derailing anything. I'm responding directly to unfounded claims that read like they're just self ego stroking. Claims that Hillary supporters never bring up the primary but Bernie supporters do all the time requires a lot of active erasure of OT. Again, I already referenced a few such threads. But sure, pretend like you know me as a person whatsoever. I stand by my statement about the poster being intellectually dishonest. If they're going to deny the existence of readily active threads like the 1 in 10 one or any other number of threads that have happened adnaseum, I don't see the point in continuing to further try to have a discussion with them. They have a long history of that and it's just bothersome to even try to communicate when they clearly don't care to. I can point them in such directions and refute their claims (that they also present without any fact whatsoever, though you seem to have no issue with their claims) but that's all I care to do.
kitsunelaine
Banned
Okay and I've already said that I haven't experienced any of that and personal anecdotes aren't useful in this argument.
Could you please try actually reading my post next time before repeating yourself as if I didn't understand what you said and as if I never responded to you already?
ShironRedshift
Member
Do you have a particular disagreement or just platitudes? It's important that the claim made is backed up by the data. Most popular politician and most popular active politician are indeed two very different things. It's not missing the forest for the trees. Claiming the former when you mean the latter can lead to confusion, such as whether or not Sanders is more popular than figures such as former President Obama, which does not appear to be backed up by the data.
Let me ask this: what purpose is there in claiming the former when you mean the latter? Why would you do that? What benefit is there in that, and why would you not be as clear as possible about what you're actually measuring and what you actually have information on? Doing otherwise could only lead to confusion and misconceptions? So why would you make a claim greater than what the data says and why would you not strive to be as accurate as possible?
Kind of a personal sticking point to me, particularly as I'm just about to begin graduate school in a few weeks as part of my orientation process I had to complete an online course about research ethics, so a lot of this is on my mind right now in regards to how important it is for statistical research to be as accurate about what it's findings do and do not say so that people are able to trust them and not feel mislead, and to avoid falling into traps such as fabricating/falsifying claims and data that aren't backed up by your actual research that hurts not only your own credibility but the ability of people to trust others in the same field as well when practices like that come to light and not just right off polls and the like in general as "clickbait bullshit", but the point stands not only due to all of that type of stuff which was brought up in that course and on my mind, but what I said above.
I mean, if I, as not even a day 1 graduate student going into a Master's Degree program for School Counseling of all things is getting this stuff pound into my head before I even technically begin taking classes, I would hope the people conducting these polls/writing these articles could understand all that as well and be better and more careful about this type of thing as well is what I'm getting at, but alas...
hydragonwarrior
Member
It's so easy to think this way though. You have Clinton, whom everyone was expecting to take the reigns of leadership one day with Obama's full support. DNC sees their path to victory as clear as day with their candidate.
Then Bernie busts onto the scene with his rising popularity. And unlike Hillary, Bernie came with too many unknowns to deal with that could potentially cost the DNC the WH.
Hell, your exact words were probably what they were afraid conservative moderates were going to say if he had won the Primary; all the more reason why they focused far more on Hillary and far less on Bernie.
LizardKing
Member
I know you won't answer the question because there isn't a person here who would choose post 1968 Dems over pre 1968. It's pretty clear cut. As for pandering, you don't have to look any farther than last year. Hillary was a 90's Democrat. A longtime centrist, who ended up having to pander to the more liberal wing. Sure you can say her views "evolved," and there's actually nothing wrong with that. People should change with the times. But a visionary she is not. There are too many modern dems where that's the case. They are reactive politicians rather than proactive.
We are all aware when Kennedy/LBJ hitched the party to civil rights for minorities it tanked support with lots of people. Exacerbated by Nixon's southern strategy in 1968. I never said or implied the Dems didn't win an election because of the primary system post 1968. I haven't looked at it on a case by case basis. All I said was on a theoretical level, letting people who will not decide the president, decide your candidate is a poor strategy. I'm not saying anything about any specific election. I'm not even saying Bernie would have won with such a system. It may have changed some nominations, it may have not.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Social security at or below that of the average reasonably economically prosperous e.g. country is utopian?
What sort of hell hole do guys exist in. Truly the dark ages of our time.
And_Gignac
Member
I think everyone understands that Obama is not a politician anymore since he holds no position. Neither Biden, Bill, et al.
Bernie is the most popular currently working politician and the most popular potential 2020 candidate by a wide margin sans Biden. And this is exactly whats bothering most of the people here building castles of salt.
No one is claiming he is more popular than Obama.
I don't see how I'm being dishonest, deceptive or disingenuous but okay then.
I just find it telling you have issue with my statements but not the blanket strawmanning others have done.
I read your post. What else am I supposed to say here?
Unknown Soldier
Member
Yeah, what's most crazy now in retrospect was how the Internet completely failed to reflect the realities of actual humans I interacted with in 2016.
No one liked Hillary in real life. Literally nobody. Everyone I knew supported Bernie, until he was out and then they filtered in different directions. Some went to holding their noses and voting for Hillary, others chose refusing to vote at all and staying home, and one or two really did go crazy and vow to vote for Trump.
Speaking of Trump, I spent numerous days of 2016 crossing a bridge on a commute to one of my job sites and there was a gigantic Trump/Pence sign displayed on a concrete wall next to the bridge which was there probably 8 months of that year. There was actual real support for Trump out there and no one seemed to acknowledge it until November 9th.
LizardKing
Member
I don't think we need to resort to name calling. I mean really, your example is just to illustrate that complex shit is hard? You didn't need a paragraph to explain to us what we already know. When a politician runs for office, they are running on a platform of ideology. They run on what they would like to do for the country in a general sense. Nobody should expect a concrete hammered out plan at that time. That will be worked on later.
And yeah some shit is hard. I don't think you are going to convince anybody that we shouldn't do hard things. As evidenced by the fact that you are in an extreme minority among US liberals with your opinion. Hell even most conservatives would say it's doable they just don't want it.
If by "DNC" you mean "the voters"
dude couldn't get enough votes to win his own primary, but he was going to win the presidency
seems legit
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked