Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I don't think you understood what I said. I said younger minority voters preferred Bernie to Hillary.
Older minority voters preferred Hillary to him.
Older people vote in bigger numbers than young people.
This is more a generational divide.
edited 25th Feb '17 3:10:05 PM by MadSkillz
According to his Twitter feed, Sanders congratulated Perez, and then said that Democrats can't turn against their progressive roots.
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders
![]()
![]()
The establishment being talked about was the democratic and Republican party brass; the latter was thoroughly discredited by the tea party movement followed by a final nail in the coffin in the form of Trump, the latter still maintains control over their party, and this particular election was the first engagement in what will likely be a protracted battle over party leadership.
edited 25th Feb '17 3:13:02 PM by CaptainCapsase
Eh, the RNC apparently had a really nasty (as in worse than Hillary's) opposition research file on Sanders. I'm not confident that between the shit in his closet, and the fact that he's an openly socialist, non-religious, Jew would have done him any favors (no matter how wrong it is to not vote for some on those last two basis).
edited 25th Feb '17 3:19:22 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.He was able to sell himself off as incorruptible and he seemed like a genuinely nice person.
It's a cult of personality similar to Trump's but he also found an outlet for anti-corporation hate that Hillary could not take advantage of because she was seen as in bed with Wall Street
If anything, it helps that he wasn't part of the Democrat Party because that means that he wasn't part of any corruption that people saw in the Democrat Party.
Yes, there were things the Republicans could have used against Bernie. A lot of things, really.
Doesn't make the Democratic talking point that he was unelectable any less a pile of bullshit, though, considering they ended up nominating a PR disaster in Hillary Clinton.
That's right, boys. Mondo cool.If Perez's election causes people to leave the Democratic party en masse (which I don't think it will, for the awful reason that there's no alternative), maybe you should blame the people who explicitly said to them 'we don't want you' by electin Perez? Since, again, the fact that Perez entered the race because the Obama wing didn't want to see a Sanders democrat as chairman is not a conspiracy theory, but pretty much confirmed by the (former) White House themselves. I thought the people around here hated 'purity tests'?
I don't think it really would've mattered. Bernie's cult of personality was near on equal to Trump's. It would all depend on if he could bounce them away like Trump.
It helps that Bernie has a lot of starting advantages that Hillary doesn't like being male, seen as sincere, outside the establishment, a cult of personality, a numbers advantage in the Midwest and wasn't currently being investigated.
But not enough info to know for sure. We do know that his campaign wouldn't have been stupid enough to ignore the Midwest though which was key to Trump's victory.
![]()
Whether or not the 'Obama wing' did that doesn't mean that people attacking Perez aren't doing some bullshit 'purity test' things. When there's an argument over something stupid, anyone who refuses to drop it is being an idiot, no matter which side of said argument they're on.
edited 25th Feb '17 3:23:51 PM by Gilphon
![]()
Sanders's "cult of personality" and for that matter Trump's is very similar to the cult of personality Obama had during his first run for the Presidency. That kinda deflated over the years as the reality of the Obama presidency failed to live up to the unrealistic expectations many had, and he didn't do much to stoke it like Trump is constantly doing.
It's less a purity test and more the first round of what's almost certainly going to be a protracted contest of wills between the party brass and people who think there needs to be a change in management.
edited 25th Feb '17 3:25:16 PM by CaptainCapsase
It's not even a conspiracy theory, it was outright side by several of Obama's associates that Perez was in the running to prevent someone affiliated with Sanders from taking the DNC chair. This election was less about ideology than it was the first proxy battle in a war over control of the party, not unlike what's happening in the labor party in the UK, and what will most likely continue happening until democracy in America has become something of a farce or someone manages to win this contest of wills decisively.
edited 25th Feb '17 3:29:45 PM by CaptainCapsase
Also something that's missed is this dispiriting piece of news of what happened right before the DNC vote. I'll include someone else's comment on it:
=================
"Democratic National Committee members on Saturday voted down a resolution that would have reinstated former President Barack Obama’s ban on corporate political action committee donations to the party.
Resolution 33, introduced by DNC Vice Chair Christine Pelosi, would also have forbidden “registered, federal corporate lobbyists” from serving as “DNC chair-appointed, at-large members.”
A majority of the 442 eligible DNC members rejected the resolution after roughly a dozen members rose to speak for and against it."
edited 25th Feb '17 3:33:48 PM by MadSkillz

Has Bernie even said anything about Perez winning?
edited 25th Feb '17 3:08:02 PM by Kostya