|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 28 2016 13:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2016 13:39 Leporello wrote:On March 28 2016 13:36 xDaunt wrote:
So the Tea Party didn't elect its politicians within the established political framework? That's news to me. Tell me where I said that? Yes, they did. But what you're talking about was something created not OUT of any particular election. The Tea Party wasn't about promoting a candidate. Forget it, I forgot this is the deliberately-obtuse thread. Sorry, I'm not very sharp right now after a weekend of gluttony and drinking. You can't differentiate the Tea Party and the Sandernistas on those grounds. The allure of Sanders isn't the person. It's the platform -- no different than with the Tea Party.
iffy. there is definitely a budding cult of personality around sanders (kids and babies dressed as him for crying out loud) and weird references (which i hope are more than half joking) of him being jesus or chosen or something. in the slightly less weird way, his supporters also consistently cite his trustworthiness, character, etc. very often. he is pretty much the face of the movement, which also highlights the lack of any downballot candidates gaining traction (his lack of support may be a [non]contributing factor).
|
On March 28 2016 13:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2016 13:46 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2016 13:39 Leporello wrote:On March 28 2016 13:36 xDaunt wrote:
So the Tea Party didn't elect its politicians within the established political framework? That's news to me. Tell me where I said that? Yes, they did. But what you're talking about was something created not OUT of any particular election. The Tea Party wasn't about promoting a candidate. Forget it, I forgot this is the deliberately-obtuse thread. Sorry, I'm not very sharp right now after a weekend of gluttony and drinking. You can't differentiate the Tea Party and the Sandernistas on those grounds. The allure of Sanders isn't the person. It's the platform -- no different than with the Tea Party. iffy. there is definitely a budding cult of personality around sanders (kids and babies dressed as him for crying out loud) and weird references (which i hope are more than half joking) of him being jesus or chosen or something. in the slightly less weird way, his supporters also consistently cite his trustworthiness, character, etc. very often. he is pretty much the face of the movement, which also highlights the lack of any downballot candidates gaining traction (his lack of support may be a [non]contributing factor).
You'd have seen the same thing if the Tea Party's apex occurred during a presidential election (as opposed to 2010).
|
On March 28 2016 13:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2016 13:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 28 2016 13:46 xDaunt wrote:On March 28 2016 13:39 Leporello wrote:On March 28 2016 13:36 xDaunt wrote:
So the Tea Party didn't elect its politicians within the established political framework? That's news to me. Tell me where I said that? Yes, they did. But what you're talking about was something created not OUT of any particular election. The Tea Party wasn't about promoting a candidate. Forget it, I forgot this is the deliberately-obtuse thread. Sorry, I'm not very sharp right now after a weekend of gluttony and drinking. You can't differentiate the Tea Party and the Sandernistas on those grounds. The allure of Sanders isn't the person. It's the platform -- no different than with the Tea Party. iffy. there is definitely a budding cult of personality around sanders (kids and babies dressed as him for crying out loud) and weird references (which i hope are more than half joking) of him being jesus or chosen or something. in the slightly less weird way, his supporters also consistently cite his trustworthiness, character, etc. very often. he is pretty much the face of the movement, which also highlights the lack of any downballot candidates gaining traction (his lack of support may be a [non]contributing factor). You'd have seen the same thing if the Tea Party's apex occurred during a presidential election (as opposed to 2010).
good point. maybe. i associate palin bachmann and chaffetz with the movement. i dont think theres any strong rep there. sanders' movement is pretty much eponymous also. it was pretty much led by him. the tea party origins are kind of a weird murky thing with the koch's, ron paul and a few other grassroot things iirc.
|
United States19573 Posts
I disagree with Tea Party = Sanders analogies because of a few major factors.
#1 being that the Democratic party always has (for my lifetime) had socialist programs and their expansion as a goal, and they have pursued it whenever practicable.
#2 No primary challenges, even in precincts that are basically socialist.
This means that Tea Party was a revolt, while Sanders is the Id.
|
The NRA is just fucking annoying if you were ever a member they call/solicit more than any other organization by a huge margin. I know a LOT if gun owners myself included who don't care at all for the NRA and just see it as part of the political establishment.
(Btw just a comment for lols, I'm pretty sure an exit poll of even Sanders voters at my local caucus yesterday would have had a majority opposed to federal gun control.  gun ownership is not something to be messed with in Alaska regardless of where you are in the political spectrum)
Edit: also just because it was being misrepresented it's not that the republican convention forbade guns. The arena it's being held in does. (Like most public areas where large amounts of people gather.) I don't think it exactly shows hypocrisy on the part of the party and I'm a pretty big anti-fan of the party. The whole thing IS hilariously stupid though.
|
On March 28 2016 17:00 Atreides wrote:The NRA is just fucking annoying if you were ever a member they call/solicit more than any other organization by a huge margin. I know a LOT if gun owners myself included who don't care at all for the NRA and just see it as part of the political establishment. (Btw just a comment for lols, I'm pretty sure an exit poll of even Sanders voters at my local caucus yesterday would have had a majority opposed to federal gun control. gun ownership is not something to be messed with in Alaska regardless of where you are in the political spectrum) Edit: also just because it was being misrepresented it's not that the republican convention forbade guns. The arena it's being held in does. (Like most public areas where large amounts of people gather.) I don't think it exactly shows hypocrisy on the part of the party and I'm a pretty big anti-fan of the party. The whole thing IS hilariously stupid though.
Yes the arena is one of those dangerous gun free zones a terrorist jackpot!
That's why the petition is to move it to a safer venue where the attendees can be armed. Of course this does ignore that guns aren't allowed at any of the candidates rallies, but why would we let something like that get in the way of some good old fashioned ignorance.
|
Lol. I wasn't defending it. I said it was stupid. I have no problem with quicken loans arena being a gun free zone. Wth do you need a gun there for and only an idiot thinks it makes anyone safer. (Most people on both sides of gun argument are dumb as fuck.) nor do you need a gun at the republican convention in general.
I just don't see how it demonstrates "hypocrisy" of the Republican Party. I own like 13 guns and none of them are even a handgun. Most people ARE stupid enough that them carrying a gun in public makes it less safe. Like I said both sides are idiots on this subject.
Edit: to make things clear that petition demonstrates the same thing sandernistas raging about polling does. People are fucking stupid. A common them this election.
|
I always thought labels like "democratic tea party" obscured analysis but I think the "fear mongering" hits an interesting common feature between the radical wings of both parties : they are inward directed and anti establishment (another term that is imprecise). If you look at Cruz and Sanders, for example, they're both anti trade, in foreign policy they're isolationist, and they generally talk to the same demographic : white, poor, disenfranchised, rural people). It makes sense to turn inward when you try to reach a position of power within a party as you're not fighting the other political parties as much as your own, and any praise for the status quo assists those that have already been in power.
Unfortunately for Sanders, most democratic party voters like the status quo (see Obama's approval rating or Clinton's vote total). This isn't the case with the gop where voters are quite unhappy about the direction the county is going in under Obama and the party leadership is blamed for it (and people like Cruz who led the obstructionist wing are doing better than ever).
|
Poor rural people are not Sanders' demographic at all....
The rest of your post is irrelevant if you're so desperate to link the two that you'll distort things that much.
|
On March 28 2016 20:01 Belisarius wrote:
Poor rural people are not Sanders' demographic at all....
The rest of your post is irrelevant if you're so desperate to link the two that you'll distort things that much.
Actually, they are.
Edit: don't think I agree with the rest of his post as it really over simplifies matters, but rural white people are voting for Sanders by a big margin.
|
On March 28 2016 18:30 Ghanburighan wrote:
I always thought labels like "democratic tea party" obscured analysis but I think the "fear mongering" hits an interesting common feature between the radical wings of both parties : they are inward directed and anti establishment (another term that is imprecise). If you look at Cruz and Sanders, for example, they're both anti trade, in foreign policy they're isolationist, and they generally talk to the same demographic : white, poor, disenfranchised, rural people). It makes sense to turn inward when you try to reach a position of power within a party as you're not fighting the other political parties as much as your own, and any praise for the status quo assists those that have already been in power.
Unfortunately for Sanders, most democratic party voters like the status quo (see Obama's approval rating or Clinton's vote total). This isn't the case with the gop where voters are quite unhappy about the direction the county is going in under Obama and the party leadership is blamed for it (and people like Cruz who led the obstructionist wing are doing better than ever).
Fear mongering why ? Anti establishment sentiment has nothing to do with fear, it's just intelligence. People who still trust mainstream politics are either dumb or they have a private interest in doing so (upper middle class, living in an urban area with sufficient infrastructure, above 30, employed and qualified, etc.).
What is this ?
+ Show Spoiler +3xShamefulThrowaway: "I don't want to go through too much high school drama from 30 years ago. I'll give you the TLDR version of events. Gave my ex- boyfriend a baby ruth and a guitar for his birthday, he hated it. Ended up with Ted Cruz's dick in my mouth."
Long live american politics.
|
On March 28 2016 20:18 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2016 20:01 Belisarius wrote:
Poor rural people are not Sanders' demographic at all....
The rest of your post is irrelevant if you're so desperate to link the two that you'll distort things that much. Actually, they are. Edit: don't think I agree with the rest of his post as it really over simplifies matters, but rural white people are voting for Sanders by a big margin.
No, they definitely are not.
Young educated people (particularly white) are his strongest demographic.
|
On March 28 2016 20:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2016 20:18 Acrofales wrote:On March 28 2016 20:01 Belisarius wrote:
Poor rural people are not Sanders' demographic at all....
The rest of your post is irrelevant if you're so desperate to link the two that you'll distort things that much. Actually, they are. Edit: don't think I agree with the rest of his post as it really over simplifies matters, but rural white people are voting for Sanders by a big margin. No, they definitely are not. Young educated people (particularly white) are his strongest demographic.
So? You realize the statements are not mutually exclusive, right? Just because you want to focus on the millenial hippies voting for him doesn't make the hicks disappear.
|
It's somewhat disingenuous even still. Poor white rural people overwhelmingly vote republican anyways. That's part of why the "sanders only wins red states" narrative exists.
While it may be true that the ones who are democrats are likely to vote sanders over Hillary you can't call them his base lol. He won't have the "rural white" vote in the general. Not even close. Frankly I'm sceptical even of this as generally speaking the poor rural white folks that identify as democrats are the very old ones, but sanders has done well in those sorts of states. (Like mine)
|
You guys really went off the rails about this. I started the post saying that it's bad analysis and I dont think sanders is like Cruz but calling comparisons "fear mongering" (note the quotes in the previous post as well) takes away from the useful bit of analysis that Cruz and Sanders outperform their primary rivals in rural white districts. Here's 538 saying that sanders outperforms Clinton in more rural states : http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-doesnt-need-momentum-he-needs-to-win-these-states/
|
|
|
None of that that article says is particularly untrue. A lot of reporting and media use phrases that have sexist overtones. That when women in power are forceful or argue strongly on a topic, they are reported as “bitchy” and “pushy”. I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by this at all.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
smalltown rural folks who resent globalization and finance are naturally sanders allies. it's not a scandal or anything. the sites of economic vitality in the modern economy are the cities.
the division on the left is more than sanders, although what he does would affect it greatly. the most remarkable thing with the sanders left is the prominence of old style economics issues wrapped up in labor and trade. this is in contrast to the culture dominated message of the aughts and represents the general state of economic anxiety. it will get worse before it gets better, particularly for the young. there is both an organized movement on the left to fight the establishment (sanders, warren etc) and the popular sentiment to be tapped into. this structure is broadly similar to the tea party situation, but for me it boils down to tactical choice:
do you want to win (big tent) or be full throated radical (purity). the latter is tea party and sanders. the abandonment of the logic of moving to the middle that had girded the two party system is the most signfiicant tectonic movement of the tea party, and this sandernista thing has potential to do the same due to adherents apt to favor purity over strength. this should not be controversial.
it is instructive to look at the corbyn phenomenon. not completely the same political structure, but the same rebellion movement is there. the people that approve of the escalating tactics of the bernie campaign will not stand down so easily.
|
I've been trying to fit Trump > Cruz into this narrative and failing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
cruz's problem is personal more so than policy. the republican business backers can tolerate him because of his background. even if he's anti-trade and sort of nationalist now, it's not going to be that way.
trump is a total maverick and strange to them. because he's a clinton mole out to kill the gop. but really, trump is way more anti-establishment just by his appeal to the working class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
