Hillary destroying Bernie among minorities. women, age 50+ in New NBC/WSJ Poll

Status
Not open for further replies.
What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

5oI5KXk.gif
 
This is probably the best post in the thread. It may be on the short side of explaining things but this part hits the nerve of why Bernie is struggling with those demographics besides simply not being as known.
Or it could be that Bernie brand is full of idealistic bullshit that will never get him elected in America.
Like it or how you say something matters Bernie has constantly shown he doesn't get that point. Hey if you want to feel superior go ahead and keep blaming branding for not backing your guy.
 
I wish that were the case but it's not. A lot of self-declared liberals or progressives think Hillary is essentially a republican. It makes no sense. It's not backed by reality. I can't explain it. But it is not based on a global perspective, it's just they think she is a closet republican or something.

Yeah, that's obviously dumb to call her a Republican and I'm sure it's just used as a drive-by zinger, but again, it's all relative to the times and the definition of what exactly 'liberal' means. To me, Hillary comes across as an old-school, 60s/70s era Rockefeller Republican - your George Romneys and your Prescott Bushes of the world. And your Jimmy Carters

Liberal comparatively to the other side of the spectrum, but still conservative in a lot of ways. Ways that irk a lot of the liberal wing. Btw, that Carter Atlantic article is both hilarious and sobering for the final bit:
[...]
Time let the cat halfway out of the bag in its January cover story of the Man of the Year: “Carter is a Democrat who often talks and thinks like a Republi­can.” Further clues keep piling up. David Broder wisely made a page-one story in the Washington Post in February of the news that it was the Republican leadership in the House that jumped to introduce Carter's government reorganization plan, after Democrat Jack Brooks of Texas, chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations, balked at what he considered an arguably unconstitutional and poten­tially Nixonesque reach for wider executive authority. Pat Caddell, in a memo written last December and leaked into print in May, informed Carter that what calls itself the Republican Party was not the real oppo­sition, The GOP ”seems bent on self-destruction,” Caddell wrote. ”We have an opportunity to coopt many of their [the Republicans'] issue positions and take away large chunks of their normal presidential coalition. “Unfortunately,” he added, “it is those same actions that are likely to cause rumblings from the left of the Democratic Party.”

And so they were. George McGovern, whistling in the dark, had been loyal to Carter throughout 1976, but by May 1977 be was seeing things from a different perspective. Distressed about Carter's emphasis on a balanced budget and his reluctance to enact reforms in health care and welfare, McGovern remarked that it was hard to tell who won the election. Carter brushed away criticisms from McGovern and other liberals, saying, “They are very difficult to please.” And it was plain that he was not going to go out of his way to please them. Charles Kirbo, Carter’s lawyer friend from Atlanta, told reporters at breakfast recently that the President was pleased to be widening his base since the election. What did that mean? “He told me he was getting some support from Republicans,” Kirbo said. Not the first time or the last, I thought, and only fair, too.

More things change, the more they stay the same. Thankfully our kids will break the cycle and won't be repeating the same tired shit
because they'll be living in a socialist utopia paradise thanks to Comrade Bernie Sanders and his revolution
 
Interesting but not unexpected. Its pretty frequent that those who would benefit most from changes things up, support the very structures that are likely to keep them at square one...
Having said that, the female statistic is interesting.
 
Interesting but not unexpected. Its pretty frequent that those who would benefit most from changes things up, support the very structures that are likely to keep them at square one...

Having said that, the female statistic is interesting.

That's a bit disingenuous.
 
Yeah, that's obviously dumb to call her a Republican and I'm sure it's just used as a drive-by zinger, but again, it's all relative to the times and the definition of what exactly 'liberal' means. To me, Hillary comes across as an old-school, 60s/70s era Rockefeller Republican - your George Romneys and your Prescott Bushes of the world. And your Jimmy Carters

Liberal comparatively to the other side of the spectrum, but still conservative in a lot of ways. Ways that irk a lot of the liberal wing. Btw, that Carter Atlantic article is both hilarious and sobering for the final bit:


More things change, the more they stay the same. Thankfully our kids will break the cycle and won't be repeating the same tired shit
because they'll be living in a socialist utopia paradise thanks to Comrade Bernie Sanders and his revolution
But this is the thing: She is not liberal simply relative to conservatives. Her voting record places her squarely to the left of most Democrats! You're continuing the narrative that she is somehow not "really" liberal when it is patently false. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are two of the few well known politicians on the national stage that are left of her. (Sanders himself is fairly conservative in his stance on gun reform but that doesn't make him any less one of the most liberal politicians of today.)

Do you also consider Barack Obama an "old school Republican", dabig?
 
What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

I don't know but it's an interesting phenomenon. I would have expected support for Sanders to be at least as prevalent amongst minorities and women, if not more so. I know Bill Clinton was popular with black people and that's probably extending to Hillary, but I would have thought they would have mostly seen through the whole Clinton thing by now. And I know Hillary is a woman, but so what when she's so clearly an establishment figure.
Lmao and Bernie fans wonder why people don't like them.
 
But this is the thing: She is not liberal simply relative to conservatives. Her voting record places her squarely to the left of most Democrats! You're continuing the narrative that she is somehow not "really" liberal when it is patently false. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are two of the few well known politicians on the national stage that are left of her. (Sanders himself is fairly conservative in his stance on gun reform but that doesn't make him any less one of the most liberal politicians of today.)

Do you also consider Barack Obama an "old school Republican", dabig?

Dont even have to go to Rockefeller Republican era. Obama is close to Reagan.
 
What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

I don't know but it's an interesting phenomenon. I would have expected support for Sanders to be at least as prevalent amongst minorities and women, if not more so. I know Bill Clinton was popular with black people and that's probably extending to Hillary, but I would have thought they would have mostly seen through the whole Clinton thing by now. And I know Hillary is a woman, but so what when she's so clearly an establishment figure.

Oh my.
 
Clinton has been center-right her whole career and is backed by the corporate oligarchy.

Clinton is very intelligent, and probably a high-functioning sociopath, so I think she'll just say what she needs to say to make Sanders supporters vote for her instead of the Republican nominee. When she gets elected it's going to be politics as usual.

Armchair psychoanalysis is a great way to get people to take your opinion seriously!
 
Didn't know this thread could go more off the deep end, but "Hillary's a sociopath" and "straight white guys are smarter than minorities" is definitely one way to keep going.
 
I'm sorry you or others took it personally, but the fact of the matter is I made a quite valid point, namely that women and minorities may be getting more sidetracked by the brand of identity politics the left currently trades in than other groups, and that it might be coming at the expense of greater awareness of some of the other issues.

Other people are suggesting it's just straight ignorance on the part of minorities, that's not what I was suggesting.

And your basis for this is...what? Besides not agreeing with your views?
 
probably true, although nobody will say that to her face

don't trust any candidate with superpac money

Why trust any candidate with any money? You don't think that money just goes to aggrandize them? The only political candidate I support is one who refuses all donations.
 
Didn't know this thread could go more off the deep end, but "Hillary's a sociopath" and "straight white guys are smarter than minorities" is definitely one way to keep going.

It's pretty amazing. Personally, I'm keen to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

One thing is for certain, we can no longer claim the GOP is the only party with loons and bigots.
 
What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

I don't know but it's an interesting phenomenon. I would have expected support for Sanders to be at least as prevalent amongst minorities and women, if not more so. I know Bill Clinton was popular with black people and that's probably extending to Hillary, but I would have thought they would have mostly seen through the whole Clinton thing by now. And I know Hillary is a woman, but so what when she's so clearly an establishment figure.

Wow.
 
You have to be kind of a sociopath to want to run for president in the first place. To want to grant yourself the kind of power that determines whether a few hundred million people will be able to eat or clothe themselves or afford a hospital visit - that's a burden, and many candidates seem all too eager to jump right in.
 
What does it say that straight white males have their heads seemingly screwed on straighter than the rest? Maybe the others are falling for false and pervasive social narratives that create false perceptions of reality, while the rest are actually more in touch with reality and able to see the real problems more clearly?

I don't know but it's an interesting phenomenon. I would have expected support for Sanders to be at least as prevalent amongst minorities and women, if not more so. I know Bill Clinton was popular with black people and that's probably extending to Hillary, but I would have thought they would have mostly seen through the whole Clinton thing by now. And I know Hillary is a woman, but so what when she's so clearly an establishment figure.

db409cf1693feb0e724e61034442d7ad9a339b62_m.gif
 
I'm curious if Bernie can close the gap on these numbers. I think he is doing better and better but he may also be running out of time. It's been an uphill battle and he has been essentially locked out of so much institutional support.
 
You have to be kind of a sociopath to want to run for president in the first place. To want to grant yourself the kind of power that determines whether a few hundred million people will be able to eat or clothe themselves or afford a hospital visit - that's a burden, and many candidates seem all too eager to jump right in.

I think it's unfair to paint all these candidates with the same brush. You could easily say that these candidates are displaying exceptional bravery to assume the most powerful office in the world.

While I'm a little surprised that Bernie Sanders isn't doing as well with minorities--primarily African Americans--it's clear to see how perception is still king in presidential races.

It takes a lot for voters who have already decided Hillary is the defecto Democratic nominee and, in extension, the defecto nominee of monorities. I think the more people pay attention, the better Sanders will do amongst minorities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom