Bernie Sanders Favorability Rating = 61%

[Ackmed]

You go on as if she didn't connect with 3M more voters than Trump despite the tsunami of slime sent her way.

Still trying that "more popular votes" argument? How sad. I have already explained that too you, you justr don't seem to get it. Neither tried to get the most votes. Both tried to get the electoral votes. One did a better job than the other. Both would have campaigned differently if popular votes mattered more, but they didnt. As such, you cannot hold on to that as your saving grace. Doing so looks desperate and sad. Tsunami of slime sent her way? You mean like the facts that the emails uncovered? As if she didn't put out slime of her own?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads

Clinton’s team spent a whopping $1 billion on the election in all — about twice what Donald Trump’s campaign spent. Clinton spent $72 million on television ads in the final weeks alone.

But only 25 percent of advertising supporting her campaign went after Trump on policy grounds, the researchers found. By comparison, every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.

Maybe its because she tried to "slime" (ads about insults) her way and didn't talk about policy very much? Nah, that couldn't be it. She fucked up, her team fucked up. She didn't go to the right places, and ran ads that lacked policy, instead went to personal attacks too much. Not that it really matters, she lost. Time for some to get over it and move on. Try to make due with what we got, and make the best out of it. Yeah it can be hard sometimes because Trump can be a douche, looking backwards the entire 4 years does nothing.

 

[agent00f]

Good lord that's a lot of bullshit! Hillary Clinton's background is about as American as you can get and hardly one from the upper political class. Where do you even come up with this bullshit?

You illustrate perfectly the level of propaganda that was thrown at Hillary (Russian or not).

Btw, what Hillary lacked wasn't the ability to connect with people emotionally, it was the ability to connect with large crowds of people. By all accounts she connected with people on a very emotional level and even kept contact with alot of those people. It's also why she preferred smaller town halls rather than stadium type settings.

Hillary failed because trump had a superior electoral game or probably more accurately, Hillary didn't have a good electoral game (just like in her run against Obama). I'll also attribute part of her loss to a poor or non existent campaign message and because she played trumps game instead of hammering her policies into peoples head with the details and reasons why she chose such policies.

He does have a point that Trump appealed to conservatives in a way that no democrat or even prior R establishment could by blaming everything on lower class minorities.

Still trying that "more popular votes" argument? How sad. I have already explained that too you, you justr don't seem to get it. Neither tried to get the most votes. Both tried to get the electoral votes. One did a better job than the other. Both would have campaigned differently if popular votes mattered more, but they didnt. As such, you cannot hold on to that as your saving grace. Doing so looks desperate and sad. Tsunami of slime sent her way? You mean like the facts that the emails uncovered? As if she didn't put out slime of her own?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads

Maybe its because she tried to "slime" (ads about insults) her way and didn't talk about policy very much? Nah, that couldn't be it. She fucked up, her team fucked up. She didn't go to the right places, and ran ads that lacked policy, instead went to personal attacks too much. Not that it really matters, she lost. Time for some to get over it and move on. Try to make due with what we got, and make the best out of it. Yeah it can be hard sometimes because Trump can be a douche, looking backwards the entire 4 years does nothing.

Clinton or anyone else for that matter incl obama were never going to get those vote against the king of race resentment. The political rise of trump through birtherism was hardly some coincidence, and it's not exactly the sort of crowd who give a shit about policy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Still trying that "more popular votes" argument? How sad. I have already explained that too you, you justr don't seem to get it. Neither tried to get the most votes. Both tried to get the electoral votes. One did a better job than the other. Both would have campaigned differently if popular votes mattered more, but they didnt. As such, you cannot hold on to that as your saving grace. Doing so looks desperate and sad. Tsunami of slime sent her way? You mean like the facts that the emails uncovered? As if she didn't put out slime of her own?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads



Maybe its because she tried to "slime" (ads about insults) her way and didn't talk about policy very much? Nah, that couldn't be it. She fucked up, her team fucked up. She didn't go to the right places, and ran ads that lacked policy, instead went to personal attacks too much. Not that it really matters, she lost. Time for some to get over it and move on. Try to make due with what we got, and make the best out of it. Yeah it can be hard sometimes because Trump can be a douche, looking backwards the entire 4 years does nothing.

Please. The argument was that Clinton didn't connect with voters. She obviously did or she wouldn't have gotten more votes. That's really pretty simple.

 

[lopri]

She had 3 million more votes. OK. She was running against a POS and that doesn't mean she "connected". She smelled less.

I kind of understand what you are trying to say about emotional connection, but:

1) You are way overplaying it, and
2) Women are disadvantaged in that regard

With regard to #1, Jhnn gave you an irrefutable proof that Clinton was able to connect with voters. (by 3M voters more!) You can also go back 10 years when she had the primary fight against Obama. There was plenty of emotion running on both sides. Clinton has always been Clinton, a polarizing figure whose public appearance has been hardened by her public experiences. People knew who she was. See how much relaxed and accessible she appears in non-stadium setting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-namImCszCk (1992)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxTNjYHdzvI (2008, with Bill O'reilly!)

This naturally goes to explain #2. I am not saying Clinton lost because she was a woman - she had other advantages to make up for that deficiency. I am saying that you will not find many female leaders, here and elsewhere, who you perceive to be emotionally connecting with voters (with authenticity!) as well as male leaders.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Have you seen/heard of the genderswap spoof of the debates? From what I read, the female Trump didn't fare any worse in the "Ahh, Trump talks just like me, I can relate to him" aspect.

Please. The argument was that Clinton didn't connect with voters. She obviously did or she wouldn't have gotten more votes. That's really pretty simple.

Maybe she could have tried connecting with voters in Wisconsin and Michigan a bit more.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I kind of understand what you are trying to say about emotional connection, but:

1) You are way overplaying it, and
2) Women are disadvantaged in that regard

With regard to #1, Jhnn gave you an irrefutable proof that Clinton was able to connect with voters. (by 3M voters more!) You can also go back 10 years when she had the primary fight against Obama. There was plenty of emotion running on both sides. Clinton has always been Clinton, a polarizing figure whose public appearance has been hardened by her public experiences. People knew who she was. See how much relaxed and accessible she appears in non-stadium setting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-namImCszCk (1992)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxTNjYHdzvI (2008, with Bill O'reilly!)

This naturally goes to explain #2. I am not saying Clinton lost because she was a woman - she had other advantages to make up for that deficiency. I am saying that you will not find many female leaders, here and elsewhere, who you perceive to be emotionally connecting with voters (with authenticity!) as well as male leaders.

Well my question is this. If one sees Trump as the political antichrist, how much does the opposition have to connect? All he or she needs is to be seen as not as bad. I gave proof as well. GWB went with Hillary. Did she wow him? There were other Republicans who felt the same because they saw Trump as a greater threat. Remember how awfully bad her disapproval ratings were? Only Trump beat her.

When one person wins while being disliked more than liked it's hard to argue that either had a mandate, 3M more votes. Regarding past interviews I'm sure she's had some good ones, but compare to her husband or JFK, who were more similar than unalike. She simply relate to the majority with inclusive attitudes.

That's pretty much all I want to say as I don't want to fight someone who has a concern about this mess we are in, just restating my thoughts and a basis for them. In the end it doesn't matter until the next election where a Bill or a Hillary run in terms of relating and hopefully Democrats don't go all out with a platform disconnected from personality. It all matters.

 

[ivwshane]

Well my question is this. If one sees Trump as the political antichrist, how much does the opposition have to connect? All he or she needs is to be seen as not as bad. I gave proof as well. GWB went with Hillary. Did she wow him? There were other Republicans who felt the same because they saw Trump as a greater threat. Remember how awfully bad her disapproval ratings were? Only Trump beat her.

When one person wins while being disliked more than liked it's hard to argue that either had a mandate, 3M more votes. Regarding past interviews I'm sure she's had some good ones, but compare to her husband or JFK, who were more similar than unalike. She simply relate to the majority with inclusive attitudes.

That's pretty much all I want to say as I don't want to fight someone who has a concern about this mess we are in, just restating my thoughts and a basis for them. In the end it doesn't matter until the next election where a Bill or a Hillary run in terms of relating and hopefully Democrats don't go all out with a platform disconnected from personality. It all matters.

It matters, otherwise we're bound to repeat the same mistakes.

 

[agent00f]

Well my question is this. If one sees Trump as the political antichrist, how much does the opposition have to connect? All he or she needs is to be seen as not as bad. I gave proof as well. GWB went with Hillary. Did she wow him? There were other Republicans who felt the same because they saw Trump as a greater threat. Remember how awfully bad her disapproval ratings were? Only Trump beat her.

When one person wins while being disliked more than liked it's hard to argue that either had a mandate, 3M more votes. Regarding past interviews I'm sure she's had some good ones, but compare to her husband or JFK, who were more similar than unalike. She simply relate to the majority with inclusive attitudes.

That's pretty much all I want to say as I don't want to fight someone who has a concern about this mess we are in, just restating my thoughts and a basis for them. In the end it doesn't matter until the next election where a Bill or a Hillary run in terms of relating and hopefully Democrats don't go all out with a platform disconnected from personality. It all matters.

Given democracy is supposed to reflect the people, it's trivial to figure what Trump reflects about a lot of people in this country. Many folks, incl. quite forgiving/tolerant liberals, are given to making all kinds of apologies that degenerates aren't really that by denying the obvious; eg. how they were "tricked" instead of simply acting in immediate selfish interest. It's nothing but blind faith in some magical "good" of their countrymen instead of what all observation reveals.

 

[Jhhnn]

Given democracy is supposed to reflect the people, it's trivial to figure what Trump reflects about a lot of people in this country. Many folks, incl. quite forgiving/tolerant liberals, are given to making all kinds of apologies that degenerates aren't really that by denying the obvious; eg. how they were "tricked" instead of simply acting in immediate selfish interest. It's nothing but blind faith in some magical "good" of their countrymen instead of what all observation reveals.

Just because Republican leaders & particularly Trump can draw out the dark side of human nature doesn't mean that's all there is to their voters. Far from it.

 

[agent00f]

Just because Republican leaders & particularly Trump can draw out the dark side of human nature doesn't mean that's all there is to their voters. Far from it.

"Good" people aren't so trivially riled by talk of mexican rapists, to some state with no use for modern thinking. They've had plenty of opportunity to learn/develop in a competent contemporary education system so there's no reason to believe success is imminent after 12 years and dozens instructors' worth of failure.

 

[Jaskalas]

"Good" people aren't so trivially riled by talk of mexican rapists, to some state with no use for modern thinking. They've had plenty of opportunity to learn/develop in a competent contemporary education system so there's no reason to believe success is imminent after 12 years and dozens instructors' worth of failure.

WTF? Schools sure as hell do not teach critical thinking. They drill students to pass tests, nothing more.
And nowhere will you find a subject as to whether it's moral to attribute crimes of a population to their illegal presence.

And for you to stand by your racist obsession you've completely ignored the trade war promise with other countries. China in particular. That's a big part of Trump's economic message of MAGA. Kicking out illegals is just a portion of it.

 

[agent00f]

WTF? Schools sure as hell do not teach critical thinking. They drill students to pass tests, nothing more.
And nowhere will you find a subject as to whether it's moral to attribute crimes of a population to their illegal presence.

Any decent test or hw at secondary or higher levels use thinking skills taught in class, whether reading comprehension or working through technical problems, but it's no surprise backwards minds don't get much of that.

However they learn through other degenerates as to the advantages of gaining higher social status through ethnic appearance; also no surprise the opposite of what's taught in said schools.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just because Republican leaders & particularly Trump can draw out the dark side of human nature doesn't mean that's all there is to their voters. Far from it.

Indeed. People are motivated in voting for a number of reasons. The worst are the most heard about because that's news however people vote for a candidate and some against. People will look at a situation or person and make a decistion and their neighbor, the demographic identical, another.

I'm not saying that the angry ignorant do not exist, I have to deal with one in real life and it's no joy. But he's a loud exception where most I knew had little or no joy in choosing.

Having a benign and competent leader with the interest of the nation over party or self would be nice, but it's hard for a candidate to not have sold their soul long before reaching the national level. Even the best are biased or else they would never have an opportunity to hold office. Withstanding the political machine's is difficult.

 

[blankslate]

This naturally goes to explain #2. I am not saying Clinton lost because she was a woman - she had other advantages to make up for that deficiency. I am saying that you will not find many female leaders, here and elsewhere, who you perceive to be emotionally connecting with voters (with authenticity!) as well as male leaders.

Have you seen/heard of the genderswap spoof of the debates? From what I read, the female Trump didn't fare any worse in the "Ahh, Trump talks just like me, I can relate to him" aspect.



Maybe she could have tried connecting with voters in Wisconsin and Michigan a bit more.

Hamburgerboy is right. That gender swap drama experiment was interesting.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publ...ch/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html

After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016—a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who’d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women—Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton’s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?

Guadalupe reached out to Joe Salvatore, a Steinhardt clinical associate professor of educational theatre who specializes in ethnodrama—a method of adapting interviews, field notes, journal entries, and other print and media artifacts into a script to be performed as a play. Together, they developed Her Opponent, a production featuring actors performing excerpts from each of the three debates exactly as they happened—but with the genders switched.

Now they assumed that if a man was seen saying Clinton's words in the reenactment and a woman was seen saying Trump's words the man would seem more intelligent because of the content of what he was saying while peoples' unconscious biases would make them not like what was being said by the female Trump.

oddly enough that wasn't so.....

At some point they were able to do it from memory with the video of Trump and Clinton playing along behind them on a TV, so their level of accuracy was pretty amazing. Once we got into rehearsal and started experiencing Clinton in a man’s voice and body, Maria and I started to think that maybe Daryl had the harder job. We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate. But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.

In short the reenactment cast major doubt on the organizers' assumption that gender played as much a factor in the debates as they thought.

In a survey that the audience filled out after watching the Gender swap debates reenactment they were surprised that they favored Brenda King (the female Trump) more than they liked Jonathan Gordon (the male Clinton)

Inside the evening’s program were two surveys for each audience member to fill out—one for before the show, with questions about their impressions of the real-life Trump–Clinton debates, and another for afterward, asking about their reactions to the King–Gordon restaging. Each performance was also followed by a discussion, with Salvatore bringing a microphone around to those eager to comment on what they had seen.

“I’ve never had an audience be so articulate about something so immediately after the performance,” Salvatore says of the cathartic discussions. “For me, watching people watch it was so informative. People across the board were surprised that their expectations about what they were going to experience were upended.”

Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.

I'm surprised that some liberals who i otherwise respect react to this by deflection. Well it's not a scientific experiment under controlled conditions we need to have electrodes on the audiences heads.... wtf? Is it any wonder that a lot of liberal media has ignored this story?

To quote someone I vehemently wished never got elected...

"Sad so Sad"


__________

 

[agent00f]

Indeed. People are motivated in voting for a number of reasons. The worst are the most heard about because that's news however people vote for a candidate and some against. People will look at a situation or person and make a decistion and their neighbor, the demographic identical, another.

I'm not saying that the angry ignorant do not exist, I have to deal with one in real life and it's no joy. But he's a loud exception where most I knew had little or no joy in choosing.

Having a benign and competent leader with the interest of the nation over party or self would be nice, but it's hard for a candidate to not have sold their soul long before reaching the national level. Even the best are biased or else they would never have an opportunity to hold office. Withstanding the political machine's is difficult.

Evidently false: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/, and likely even greater division post 2016, not that such types have any use for facts.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Evidently false: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/, and likely even greater division post 2016, not that such types have any use for facts.

I've seen that and agree that we're becoming more divided, however I was talking people of similar demographics. People like me in that regard in my area voted for Hillary or Trump. I supported neither but went from being a lifelong indepent to register Democrat to vote for Bernie. Certainly within an ideology there would be less crossover but that is not what I was talking about.

Both ideologies are moving away from the center and that means a more dysfunctional nation as opposing ideologues cannot work together. Instead of mutual interests we have mutual scorn for the other.

 

[agent00f]

I've seen that and agree that we're becoming more divided, however I was talking people of similar demographics. People like me in that regard in my area voted for Hillary or Trump. I supported neither but went from being a lifelong indepent to register Democrat to vote for Bernie. Certainly within an ideology there would be less crossover but that is not what I was talking about.

Both ideologies are moving away from the center and that means a more dysfunctional nation as opposing ideologues cannot work together. Instead of mutual interests we have mutual scorn for the other.

Do you ever post anything that's not complete drivel? Who the fuck works with such worthless imbeciles? At least the lines the degenerates parrot have a point no matter how stupid.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Do you ever post anything that's not complete drivel? Who the fuck works with such worthless imbeciles? At least the lines the degenerates parrot have a point no matter how stupid.

I took a chance, but you are insane and incapable of dialogue and not very bright. It's a good thing we have anonymity or else folks like you might take to criminal activity.

Back in the pond small fry.

 

[agent00f]

I took a chance, but you are insane and incapable of dialogue and not very bright. It's a good thing we have anonymity or else folks like you might take to criminal activity.

Back in the pond small fry.

Just look at how dumb your post is. Clinton as a centrist is someone who'd work with conservatives, and look what that gets her from dumbshits like you & peers; Sanders not so much. "Independents" might as well be defined as people too goddamn stupid to ever understand these simplest of things. Actually on second thought their conservative brain trust friends are, too.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm seeing the claim that Sanders and his... "far" left policy is supposed to contribute to our divisions.

Certainly there's truth that those seeking a solution will scorn the status quo, or centrist approach.... and we agree that need for resolution is growing. But Sanders was, at his heart, a uniter who spoke positively, spoke for policy to help people. The failing of calling Clinton centrist is yes... her policy crossed the aisle in many ways...but her tact and scorn for others... the "deplorables" felt her venom. Can you claim Sanders did anything similar?

When confronted with #BLM, his correct instinct was that all lives matter. He did not want to play on people's divisions.
I certainly make a distinction for whether a candidate is reaching people with a positive message.

 

[agent00f]

I'm seeing the claim that Sanders and his... "far" left policy is supposed to contribute to our divisions.

Certainly there's truth that those seeking a solution will scorn the status quo, or centrist approach.... and we agree that need for resolution is growing. But Sanders was, at his heart, a uniter who spoke positively, spoke for policy to help people. The failing of calling Clinton centrist is yes... her policy crossed the aisle in many ways...but her tact and scorn for others... the "deplorables" felt her venom. Can you claim Sanders did anything similar?

When confronted with #BLM, his correct instinct was that all lives matter. He did not want to play on people's divisions.
I certainly make a distinction for whether a candidate is reaching people with a positive message.

People who see the world for what it is don't put any value in what tards and degenerates are told to "think" about centrists, or any other subject for that matter.

In this case the tards and degens are told to favor sanders esp after he lost the primary to fuck with the democrats, and of course they oblige. It has nothing to do with anything of principle or substance.

 

[Jaskalas]

What is this plight you speak of? Well, other than a weakness for doom, gloom & self pity?

Round 2, fresh news article:
The new face of suburbia: Economic woes and early death

• In the 1970s, Americans with only high school degrees could look forward to earning a steady, livable wage with benefits, but those days are long gone.
  
• White Americans without college degrees are suffering from “deaths of despair” after years of weak demand for their skills and stagnant wages...
• She added, “The evidence is growing stronger every day that income inequality is bad for health.”

Status quo, centrist policy... that is death for these people. That is hopelessness. You know who gave them hope in 2016. You also know who needs to do it again in 2020. They need help this time, for real. They need a country, governed by a party, that is going to give it to them. There is no place for middling policy for these people. They're willing to heed a call for trade wars to advert their suicidal feelings. Give them something else. Unite them behind a bold progressive policy.

Nothing else will stop this country's suicidal dive.

 

[agent00f]

Round 2, fresh news article:
The new face of suburbia: Economic woes and early death


Status quo, centrist policy... that is death for these people. That is hopelessness. You know who gave them hope in 2016. You also know who needs to do it again in 2020. They need help this time, for real. They need a country, governed by a party, that is going to give it to them. There is no place for middling policy for these people. They're willing to heed a call for trade wars to advert their suicidal feelings. Give them something else. Unite them behind a bold progressive policy.

Nothing else will stop this country's suicidal dive.

I'm sure the republicans are just dying to get behind a literally self-identified (democratic) socialist.

 

[Sonikku]

• In the 1970s, Americans with only high school degrees could look forward to earning a steady, livable wage with benefits, but those days are long gone.
  
• White Americans without college degrees are suffering from “deaths of despair” after years of weak demand for their skills and stagnant wages...
• She added, “The evidence is growing stronger every day that income inequality is bad for health.”

This is me right here. I have frequently fallen into despair and at times have considered suicide. (Though not solely just for economic strife) But then again I still never got taken in by Trump's bullshit.

 

[Jhhnn]

Round 2, fresh news article:
The new face of suburbia: Economic woes and early death


Status quo, centrist policy... that is death for these people. That is hopelessness. You know who gave them hope in 2016. You also know who needs to do it again in 2020. They need help this time, for real. They need a country, governed by a party, that is going to give it to them. There is no place for middling policy for these people. They're willing to heed a call for trade wars to advert their suicidal feelings. Give them something else. Unite them behind a bold progressive policy.

Nothing else will stop this country's suicidal dive.

Sounds great. OTOH, Americans could have voted for that with Bernie but he couldn't even convince generally sympathetic Democrats let alone more conservative voters & minorities.

Clinton didn't advocate status quo, anyway, but rather building on it in the direction you seek. You'd know that if you'd actually been paying attention to the important stuff.