Support NeoGAF

[jtb]

the whole "bernie sanders thinks he's the final arbiter of progressivism" seems like projection to me. he's entitled to give his opinion and i don't think there's as many people who blindly follow it as some posters here seem to think.

i certainly disagree with him on plenty of things, and so does every leftist i know. the reason he has such a singular following is because he is basically the only national politician who's willing to talk about economic injustice and real solutions. people are passionate about the message more than the man, god knows bernie sanders is not the most personally charming and charismatic person in the world.

I'm with you on this. I think he's a great asset for the party. (Hardly the only progressive though, but whatever)

But, on occasion, could he let up on the friendly fire? The primary's over. The eleventh commandment, and all that.

They'll care when their children and grandchildren become destitute once deflation sets in. Changes will have to happen at that point. The large majority of people do not have the savings or resources to survive another economic downturn. Any Democratice leader that isn't scared to death of the lack of financial flexibility available to people doesn't belong in a position of influence.

Our economy is operating on the edge, most people have no margin for error. It's a recipe for disaster. The fact that so few of our 'leaders' understand this is monumentally distressing.

Voting in the interests of the children and grandchildren? When has that ever happened?

 

[boiled goose]

the whole "bernie sanders thinks he's the final arbiter of progressivism" seems like projection to me. he's entitled to give his opinion and i don't think there's as many people who blindly follow it as some posters here seem to think.

i certainly disagree with him on plenty of things, and so does every leftist i know. the reason he has such a singular following is because he is basically the only national politician who's willing to talk about economic injustice and real solutions. people are passionate about the message more than the man, god knows bernie sanders is not the most personally charming and charismatic person in the world.

This right here.
It's total projection.

Bernie is definitely not the "savior" the country needs nor deserves. There's just no one else for young progressives to latch on to.

 

[kirblar]

the whole "bernie sanders thinks he's the final arbiter of progressivism" seems like projection to me. he's entitled to give his opinion and i don't think there's as many people who blindly follow it as some posters here seem to think.

i certainly disagree with him on plenty of things, and so does every leftist i know. the reason he has such a singular following is because he is basically the only national politician who's willing to talk about economic injustice and real solutions. people are passionate about the message more than the man, god knows bernie sanders is not the most personally charming and charismatic person in the world.

The bolded isn't true to anyone outside of the cult of personality.

 

[Autoignition]

The bolded isn't true to anyone outside of the cult of personality.

The others don't count because they have vaginas.

 

[kirblar]

I'm with you on this. I think he's a great asset for the party. (Hardly the only progressive though, but whatever)

But, on occasion, could he let up on the friendly fire? The primary's over. The eleventh commandment, and all that.

He can't. He is who he always has been. This will end about as well for everyone as the Cersei/High Sparrow team-up did.

 

[Piggus]

I won't get excited until after the election if dems make big gains. Young people are the dumbest, laziest motherfuckers in the country when it comes to the midterms and I have zero faith that they'll actually take the time to vote.

 

[Eidan]

The bolded isn't true to anyone outside of the cult of personality.

Seriously, Elizabeth Warren is RIGHT THERE. I'd think even those who don't pay attention to these things would at least be able to name drop her.

 

[Autoignition]

the whole "bernie sanders thinks he's the final arbiter of progressivism" seems like projection to me. he's entitled to give his opinion and i don't think there's as many people who blindly follow it as some posters here seem to think.

i certainly disagree with him on plenty of things, and so does every leftist i know. the reason he has such a singular following is because he is basically the only national politician who's willing to talk about economic injustice and real solutions. people are passionate about the message more than the man, god knows bernie sanders is not the most personally charming and charismatic person in the world.

This sure is a hypocritical post from someone who posts Bernie's favorability ratings in every single thread and who decided to shit on Jon Ossoff for funsies while parroting Bernie's half-baked, flimsy, petty reason for doing so himself.

 

[legacyzero]

the base of the party is not angry at sanders

It's like this shit is completely ignored. It's really baffling.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Voting in the interests of the children and grandchildren? When has that ever happened?

They won't be able to escape reality at that point, and by then they will no longer have the numbers either to dictate the political course of this country.

 

[aeolist]

The bolded isn't true to anyone outside of the cult of personality.

The others don't count because they have vaginas.

who is exactly is willing to openly say "the enemy is the rich"? i posted this earlier too: https://twitter.com/TimeForAllofUs/status/854699349636526080

perez represents the majority establishment view among elected democrats. he is flat-out unwilling to blame the rich for rigging the system at everyone else's expense, when that's what people clearly want to hear.

 

[Autoignition]

who is exactly is willing to openly say "the enemy is the rich"? i posted this earlier too: https://twitter.com/TimeForAllofUs/status/854699349636526080

perez represents the majority establishment view among elected democrats. he is flat-out unwilling to blame the rich for rigging the system at everyone else's expense, when that's what people clearly want to hear.

Elizabeth Warren's name is literally three posts above this one.

 

[boiled goose]

The bolded isn't true to anyone outside of the cult of personality.

Sanders supporters pushed for another strong progressive like Ellison for dnc chair.

There's warren. Markey. Murray. Franken. Holmes Norton.
The number of people with national visibility is very limited...

People like schumer and Frank are liberal on social issues but complete turnoffs on campaign finance and foreign policy.

 

[jtb]

who is exactly is willing to openly say "the enemy is the rich"? i posted this earlier too: https://twitter.com/TimeForAllofUs/status/854699349636526080

perez represents the majority establishment view among elected democrats. he is flat-out unwilling to blame the rich for rigging the system at everyone else's expense, when that's what people clearly want to hear.

Just because the people want easy answers to difficult questions doesn't mean we should give it to them.

 

[aeolist]

This sure is a hypocritical post from someone who posts Bernie's favorability ratings in every single thread and who decided to shit on Jon Ossoff for funsies while parroting Bernie's half-baked, flimsy, petty reason for doing so himself.

the only thing i said about ossoff is that i agree with bernie when he said that being in the democratic party does not automatically make you progressive. that seems uncontroversial to me?

i don't know much about the guy except superficially, in that he's taking standard centrist democratic positions on things like single-payer (against) and that he generally lines up with the party on social issues.

 

[legacyzero]

who is exactly is willing to openly say "the enemy is the rich"? i posted this earlier too: https://twitter.com/TimeForAllofUs/status/854699349636526080

perez represents the majority establishment view among elected democrats. he is flat-out unwilling to blame the rich for rigging the system at everyone else's expense, when that's what people clearly want to hear.

Yep. No other Politician besides maybe Warren is actively aiming for redistribution of wealth and working to get money out of politics, except when Hillary had to cross the desert to the left to fight Bernie during the Primary.

 

[aeolist]

Just because the people want easy answers to difficult questions doesn't mean we should give it to them.

why is "say popular true things to win elections" so hard? the rich DID rig the system, they ARE siphoning money away from the rest of us, and we DO need to directly fight them in order to achieve anything important.

 

[jtb]

why is "say popular true things to win elections" so hard? the rich DID rig the system, they ARE siphoning money away from the rest of us, and we DO need to directly fight them in order to achieve anything important.

Because you're spending long-term political capital for short-term political gain. Aren't we literally seeing the results of this with the Republicans in Congress now?

Of course you can promise things you can't deliver. Okay. That's an easy to win now, and lose later.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Just because the people want easy answers to difficult questions doesn't mean we should give it to them.

Sometimes the answer to a question is pretty simple, and in this case it is. The wealthy elite own our government and more people are waking up to that reality all the time. People in positions of influence that give voice to this truth should be applauded.

 

[kirblar]

Yep. No other Politician besides maybe Warren is actively aiming for redistribution of wealth and working to get money out of politics, except when Hillary had to cross the desert to the left to fight Bernie during the Primary.

What the hell do you think UHC is if not redistribution of Wealth?

Why do you think that "getting money out of politics" means you need to take a spork to a gunfight? Especially when you're then turning around and complaining that we're not sending national funds to local races.

 

[jtb]

Sometimes the answer to a question is pretty simple, and in this case it is. The wealthy elite own our government and more people are waking up to that reality all the time. People in positions of influence that give voice to this truth should be applauded.

Really? Are there 50+ million people in America with more than $1bn net worth?

 

[CyclopsRock]

I hope they're right. The problem with relying on people who don't vote, though, is that they have a tendency not to vote.

 

[Funkyhamster]

why is "say popular true things to win elections" so hard? the rich DID rig the system, they ARE siphoning money away from the rest of us, and we DO need to directly fight them in order to achieve anything important.

Do rich people overwhelmingly oppose paying a larger share of taxes or doing other things to right these wrongs? Maybe it's out there and I just haven't seen it, but I haven't seen evidence that all rich people are enemies.

 

[boiled goose]

Just because the people want easy answers to difficult questions doesn't mean we should give it to them.

I don't see that as a controversial opinion.

It's a fact that the chamber of commerce strategized to stack surpreme court, which led to erosions on protections of money in politics.

It's a fact that tax burden has been shifted to middle class.

It's a fact that money wins most elections

It's a fact that legislation correlates with big donor opinion and not constituents.

If he didn't want to call people the enemy he could still say it's a systematic issue that needs to be fixed.

 

[kirblar]

I don't see that as a controversial opinion.

It's a fact that the chamber of commerce strategized to stack surpreme court, which led to erosions on protections of money in politics.

It's a fact that tax burden has been shifted to middle class.

It's a fact that money wins most elections

It's a fact that legislation correlates with big donor opinion and not constituents.

If he didn't want to call people the enemy he could still say it's a systematic issue that needs to be fixed.

We're seeing significant evidence post-CU that money has tremendous diminishing returns.

Not that we shouldn't be working to undo CU, but it's not winning elections on its own.

 

[jtb]

I don't see that as a controversial opinion.

It's a fact that the chamber of commerce strategized to stack surpreme court, which led to erosions on protections of money in politics.

It's a fact that tax burden has been shifted to middle class.

It's a fact that money wins most elections

It's a fact that legislation correlates with big donor opinion and not constituents.

If he didn't want to call people the enemy he could still say it's a systematic issue that needs to be fixed.

Why did 50 million people vote to repeal Obamacare if they actually want single payer?

Citizens United is a fucking cancer on our democracy. Our Supreme Court is a disgrace.

These things can all be true. But what about the voters? Stop stripping them of any agency. It's dumb to ignore that the electorate ultimately chose this. It's the elephant in the room that progressives have to address if we ever want to see progressive policies enacted.

 

[2Smashed4U]

The fact that 35% of voters think he's "Making America Great Again" terrifies me.

27% is the floor, he'll always have that at minimum.

 

[boiled goose]

We're seeing significant evidence post-CU that money has tremendous diminishing returns.

Some studies would be appreciated as this is the political topic of most interest to me.

If you mean money matters less in high visibility elections with lots of free press? Sure.

Also diminishing returns is not a statement against influence of money. If anything most studies show politicians are incredibly cheap to bribe and money has a huge roi

 

[LegendofJoe]

Really? Are there 50+ million people in America with more than $1bn net worth?

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy/amp

 

[RDreamer]

Sam Wang was saying 99.999999999999% or something along those lines, and GAF considered him to be way more precise than Nate Silver. at least Nate had an inkling the blue wall could be an illusion

never checked if Sam really ate that insect

Sam Wang isn't a poll. Neither is Nate Silver. They aggregate and interpret polls.

The other thing is even if someone said there's a 99% chance of something and that thing doesn't happen that doesn't mean they're wrong. For instance if I flip a coin and get heads 5 times in a row does that mean someone is wrong if they said that there was a 97% chance of that not happening? No, it means we landed in the 3%.

You must not have read NeoGAF at any point in 2016.

Neogaf also isn't a poll.

Abjectively false. State polling, particularly in the rust belt states, were off by quite a bit. I don't even think that's up for debate.

Some were off, but that doesn't mean polls don't work or something. Most of them were within the margin of error. I just looked a few of the final polls up and the margin of error was around 3-5% for places like Pennsylvania which ultimately went to Trump by 1%. Let's also not forget that a poll is a snapshot of a time. People can still get information between that snapshot and the actual activity and change their mind.

 

[aeolist]

Why did 50 million people vote to repeal Obamacare if they actually want single payer?

Citizens United is a fucking cancer on our democracy. Our Supreme Court is a disgrace.

These things can all be true. But what about the voters? Stop stripping them of any agency. It's dumb to ignore that the electorate ultimately chose this. It's the elephant in the room that progressives have to address if we ever want to see progressive policies enacted.

health care in the 2016 campaign was "we'll get rid of something you don't like and give you something you do like" vs "this thing you don't like is actually good". now that the election is over and people have seen the republican plan for the sham and lie that it is, support for repeal has dropped off a cliff.

it's stupid to vote republican, yes, but the democrats were not presenting a good position on healthcare last year.

 

[kirblar]

Some were off, but that doesn't mean polls don't work or something. Most of them were within the margin of error. I just looked a few of the final polls up and the margin of error was around 3-5% for places like Pennsylvania which ultimately went to Trump by 1%. Let's also not forget that a poll is a snapshot of a time. People can still get information between that snapshot and the actual activity and change their mind.

And the bolded is what happened. The polls taken post-Comey letter were disastrous for Clinton, but they were internal because very few were bothering to poll people that close to the election.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

Sam Wang isn't a poll. Neither is Nate Silver. They aggregate and interpret polls.

The other thing is even if someone said there's a 99% chance of something and that thing doesn't happen that doesn't mean they're wrong. For instance if I flip a coin and get heads 5 times in a row does that mean someone is wrong if they said that there was a 97% chance of that not happening? No, it means we landed in the 3%.



Neogaf also isn't a poll.



Some were off, but that doesn't mean polls don't work or something. Most of them were within the margin of error. I just looked a few of the final polls up and the margin of error was around 3-5% for places like Pennsylvania which ultimately went to Trump by 1%. Let's also not forget that a poll is a snapshot of a time. People can still get information between that snapshot and the actual activity and change their mind.

I feel like people don't understand that so long as someone's chances are >1%, there will always be a chance for them to win. Just because Trump trailed behind Hillary in the polls did not mean that the polls were wrong, it simply meant he was statistically less likely to win.

 

[AlimNassor]

This right here.
It's total projection.

Bernie is definitely not the "savior" the country needs nor deserves. There's just no one else for young progressives to latch on to.

Who else is there? Bernie isn't the second coming but,. he's at least willing to fight for the little guy.

 

[RDreamer]

And the bolded is what happened. The polls taken post-Comey letter were disastrous for Clinton, but they were internal because very few were bothering to poll people that close to the election.

Right. It's kind of nuts to call foul on polling when we had such an active election right up to the last second this year. Plus when all the polling also says both candidates were unfavorable that's just a recipe for last second changes. But it's not like the last second change were massively, massively different even from what was predicted either.

 

[Gallbaro]

Man Twitter is going to be so pissed when the republicans win the mid-terms.

 

[kirblar]

Really? Are there 50+ million people in America with more than $1bn net worth?

Elite = "not Rural."

The realization that "The Hunger Games" is an exaggerated view of how they think the world actually works was eye-opening to me.

 

[jack_package_200]

https://twitter.com/NARAL/status/854885298815340545

NARAL Pro-Choice America president @ilyseh on why the Democratic party would be making a GRAVE mistake to abandon reproductive freedom for all as an essential part of their platform.

Give this a read ya'll https://twitter.com/i/moments/854881279908753408

 

[RDreamer]

If you want the receipts, look at NeoGAF at any time before the Comey letter, and even many posts after it.

Or look at the Keepin' It 1600 podcast, rocketing to fame on their "Bedwetters" catchphrase. Although, their mea culpa after the Comey letter, days before the election, was probably more direct and honest than almost anything I saw on GAF during that same period.

NeoGAF isn't a poll. That's not receipts to "polls are wrong." That's just a bunch of people that don't understand what polls mean and posting about it. They were the ones wrong, not the polls which clearly stated margins of error, etc.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Man Twitter is going to be so pissed when the republicans win the mid-terms.

The GOP winning these midterms would be historic, and there would need to be some kind of reason why. Convention wisdom (ie, people who aren't pessimistic for the sake of being so, but look at historical trends) is that this is the Democrat's to lose, and thus far they've been doing right. The last two weeks should wake people up that there will be big changes in 2018 in congress.

 

[pvpness]

Man Twitter is going to be so pissed when the republicans win the mid-terms.

Yeah it is and it's going to explode into a million pieces when Trump gets re-elected.

 

[ElFly]

Sam Wang isn't a poll. Neither is Nate Silver. They aggregate and interpret polls.

The other thing is even if someone said there's a 99% chance of something and that thing doesn't happen that doesn't mean they're wrong. For instance if I flip a coin and get heads 5 times in a row does that mean someone is wrong if they said that there was a 97% chance of that not happening? No, it means we landed in the 3%.

Neogaf also isn't a poll.

Some were off, but that doesn't mean polls don't work or something. Most of them were within the margin of error. I just looked a few of the final polls up and the margin of error was around 3-5% for places like Pennsylvania which ultimately went to Trump by 1%. Let's also not forget that a poll is a snapshot of a time. People can still get information between that snapshot and the actual activity and change their mind.

again, the original post didn't say 'pollster' he just said 'no one'

and you are missing the actual insight just to post some more 'blah blah 99% still means 1% chances of happening'

the polls and poll aggregates being so conclusive about Hillary winning led to her campaign to make bad decisions; yes, the results were in the error margin, but she could have done something to sway the results her way, had she feared her advantage was not enough

the decision to never visit Wisconsin obviously didn't happen in the last few weeks; this wasn't an issue of 'oh no something random happened at the very end and moved the needle just a little the other way'. Trump actively courted the blue wall during the whole election, Hillary did not; that was not something that happened by random in the very last week

 

[Ecotic]

This just pisses me off quite frankly, the time to be energized was 6 months ago. The lack of foresight and being reactive rather than proactive is infuriating.

 

[boiled goose]

Why did 50 million people vote to repeal Obamacare if they actually want single payer?

Citizens United is a fucking cancer on our democracy. Our Supreme Court is a disgrace.

These things can all be true. But what about the voters? Stop stripping them of any agency. It's dumb to ignore that the electorate ultimately chose this. It's the elephant in the room that progressives have to address if we ever want to see progressive policies enacted.

More than half of Americans thought Sadam was involved in 9 11 before the iraq war. Voter agency? Information matters. Money controls information.

 

[kirblar]

This just pisses me off quite frankly, the time to be energized was 6 months ago. The lack of foresight and being reactive rather than proactive is infuriating.

Unfortunately, if you look at our history, this is completely predictable behavior.

People are stupid.

More than half of Americans thought Sadam was involved in 9 11 before the iraq war. Voter agency? Information matters. Money controls information.

People are just bad. There's no nice way to say it. The problem is us.

 

[legacyzero]

What the hell do you think UHC is if not redistribution of Wealth?

Why do you think that "getting money out of politics" means you need to take a spork to a gunfight? Especially when you're then turning around and complaining that we're not sending national funds to local races.

BERNIE 👏 SANDERS 👏 DID IT

All that money raised only by his supporters put him through an entire Primary season, and would have gone beyond it. You don't NEED corporate interests.

 

[RDreamer]

again, the original post didn't say 'pollster' he just said 'no one'

and you are missing the actual insight just to post some more 'blah blah 99% still means 1% chances of happening'

What original post said no one? Which post are you talking about that had insight? I'm responding to a bunch of people that said NeoGAF was 100% sure Hillary would win.

the polls and poll aggregates being so conclusive about Hillary winning led to her campaign to make bad decisions; yes, the results were in the error margin, but she could have done something to sway the results her way, had she feared her advantage was not enough

the decision to never visit Wisconsin obviously didn't happen in the last few weeks; this wasn't an issue of 'oh no something random happened at the very end and moved the needle just a little the other way'. Trump actively courted the blue wall during the whole election, Hillary did not; that was not something that happened by random and the very last week

Where did I deny any of this? And none of this proves you should never believe polls give actual data.

 

[kirblar]

BERNIE 👏 SANDERS 👏 DID IT

All that money raised only by his supporters put him through an entire Primary season, and would have gone beyond it. You don't NEED corporate interests.

And he failed to raise money the moment it was going to anyone but him.

Obama has faced the exact same issue w/ OFA.

You can't rely on people having the reaction of a 15yo girls at a Jonas Bros or Beatles concert and opening their wallets because of it.

 

[CopperPuppy]

(Democrat reading this article): "Oh, we're good then. I don't need to bother."

 

[kirblar]

(Democrat reading this article): "Oh, we're good then. I don't need to bother."

Nah, that only comes after they get a D president.