HorrorMovieFans.com

A report came out today that 12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump. I'm personally not surprised, they were two sides of the same populist coin, both appealed to the emotions of poor and lower middle class whites. Every demographic just wants to be acknowledged and the Democrats opted to pretend their once loyal Scots-Irish voting bloc in the Midwest didn't exist. It was either a Democrat ego trip to want to win without them, or a stunning blindness to how widespread identity politics have become across the political spectrum. Either way, Bernie knew exactly what he was doing and he had to know they were never going to vote for Hillary.

In every Midwest state Trump won, the number of Bernie defectors to Trump more than doubled the margin of votes Trump won by.

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders- ... ion-654320

Headhunter wrote:A report came out today that 12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump. I'm personally not surprised, they were two sides of the same populist coin, both appealed to the emotions of poor and lower middle class whites. Every demographic just wants to be acknowledged and the Democrats opted to pretend their once loyal Scots-Irish voting bloc in the Midwest didn't exist. It was either a Democrat ego trip to want to win without them, or a stunning blindness to how widespread identity politics have become across the political spectrum. Either way, Bernie knew exactly what he was doing and he had to know they were never going to vote for Hillary.

In every Midwest state Trump won, the number of Bernie defectors to Trump more than doubled the margin of votes Trump won by.

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders- ... ion-654320

Why is it cool to say Trump supporters are largely comprised of lower class whites or that they won Trump the election, but not ok to say Obama won because of lower class blacks?

Also, Bernie voters went for Hillary 6-1 over Trump. If the election was decided by sanders voters, Hillary would be president.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:A report came out today that 12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump. I'm personally not surprised, they were two sides of the same populist coin, both appealed to the emotions of poor and lower middle class whites. Every demographic just wants to be acknowledged and the Democrats opted to pretend their once loyal Scots-Irish voting bloc in the Midwest didn't exist. It was either a Democrat ego trip to want to win without them, or a stunning blindness to how widespread identity politics have become across the political spectrum. Either way, Bernie knew exactly what he was doing and he had to know they were never going to vote for Hillary.

In every Midwest state Trump won, the number of Bernie defectors to Trump more than doubled the margin of votes Trump won by.

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders- ... ion-654320

Why is it cool to say Trump supporters are largely comprised of lower class whites or that they won Trump the election, but not ok to say Obama won because of lower class blacks?

Why are you implicating me in this?

Foo wrote:Also, Bernie voters went for Hillary 6-1 over Trump. If the election was decided by sanders voters, Hillary would be president.

Here you're just being obtuse. The point is a significant enough number of Bernie voters defected from their expected third party/Hillary support to swing an election, and this impact was especially strong in the Midwest swing states where the election was really decided.

Could you once just pretend double standards aren't the only thing you care about in politics and try contributing to a discussion? Thought this would be an interesting topic and here you are, back on your bullshit creating a straw man that has nothing to do with the original post. I don't give a fuck which demographic you need to single out to make a point, if it's valid it's valid, so this has nothing to do with me or anybody else here.

It seems a weird finding given both that Sanders spoke out against Trump then and since, and that Trump offered a lot more vile rhetoric than he did the populist anti-elite message. But clearly they didn't sense the distinction enough.

showa58taro wrote:It seems a weird finding given both that Sanders spoke out against Trump then and since, and that Trump offered a lot more vile rhetoric than he did the populist anti-elite message. But clearly they didn't sense the distinction enough.

There's something dangerous about the way Bernie framed the anti-elite message though. Essentially, his platform was: most Americans agree with my ideas but the millionaires, billionaires and DNC control everything and work to prevent those ideas from being realized. And that unless you voted for him, there would never be any hope for those ideas to advance. Are there some underlying truths to his message? Undoubtedly. But the way he presented that message, he knowingly fermented a culture of cynicism and hopelessness rather than optimism (i.e. Obama) in his voters, and I think that eventually played into Trump's hands.

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Also, Bernie voters went for Hillary 6-1 over Trump. If the election was decided by sanders voters, Hillary would be president.

Here you're just being obtuse. The point is a significant enough number of Bernie voters defected from their expected third party/Hillary support to swing an election, and this impact was especially strong in the Midwest swing states where the election was really decided.

Hillary is a crook who cheated Bernie out of a chance to be president. Also, he was an independent until the primary, so it's not like he does not have some fundamental differences with the Democrat establishment, which Hillary stinks of bigly.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Also, Bernie voters went for Hillary 6-1 over Trump. If the election was decided by sanders voters, Hillary would be president.

Here you're just being obtuse. The point is a significant enough number of Bernie voters defected from their expected third party/Hillary support to swing an election, and this impact was especially strong in the Midwest swing states where the election was really decided.

Hillary is a crook who cheated Bernie out of a chance to be president. Also, he was an independent until the primary, so it's not like he does not have some fundamental differences with the Democrat establishment, which Hillary stinks of bigly.

Independent. And where does his independent ideology fall on the political spectrum? You'll get it...

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Also, Bernie voters went for Hillary 6-1 over Trump. If the election was decided by sanders voters, Hillary would be president.

Here you're just being obtuse. The point is a significant enough number of Bernie voters defected from their expected third party/Hillary support to swing an election, and this impact was especially strong in the Midwest swing states where the election was really decided.

Hillary is a crook who cheated Bernie out of a chance to be president. Also, he was an independent until the primary, so it's not like he does not have some fundamental differences with the Democrat establishment, which Hillary stinks of bigly.

Independent. And where does his independent ideology fall on the political spectrum? You'll get it...

Obviously much closer to Hillary, which is indicated in the fact she pulled near 80% of his voters. It is not like the political spectrum is a single line with left and right on either side though. There are issue voters. I would imagine quite a few Sanders to Trump voters simply felt establishment politics are part of the problem.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Also, Bernie voters went for Hillary 6-1 over Trump. If the election was decided by sanders voters, Hillary would be president.

Here you're just being obtuse. The point is a significant enough number of Bernie voters defected from their expected third party/Hillary support to swing an election, and this impact was especially strong in the Midwest swing states where the election was really decided.

Hillary is a crook who cheated Bernie out of a chance to be president. Also, he was an independent until the primary, so it's not like he does not have some fundamental differences with the Democrat establishment, which Hillary stinks of bigly.

Independent. And where does his independent ideology fall on the political spectrum? You'll get it...

Obviously much closer to Hillary, which is indicated in the fact she pulled near 80% of his voters. It is not like the political spectrum is a single line with left and right on either side though. There are issue voters. I would imagine quite a few Sanders to Trump voters simply felt establishment politics are part of the problem.

Serious question: Did you read this thread? Not only was the anti-establishment politics element discussed, you seem to be responding to an imaginary thesis.

The 12% who defected to Trump are more significant than the 80% who followed the expected course. That's a given.

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Also, Bernie voters went for Hillary 6-1 over Trump. If the election was decided by sanders voters, Hillary would be president.

Here you're just being obtuse. The point is a significant enough number of Bernie voters defected from their expected third party/Hillary support to swing an election, and this impact was especially strong in the Midwest swing states where the election was really decided.

Socialist Bernard Sanders had zero appeal to the working-class Reaganites in the midwest. If Kernel Sanders had actually won the primary, he would've lost even bigger to Trump than Hillary did in the midwest.

The reason Trump won is because he is GOAT.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Also, Bernie voters went for Hillary 6-1 over Trump. If the election was decided by sanders voters, Hillary would be president.

Here you're just being obtuse. The point is a significant enough number of Bernie voters defected from their expected third party/Hillary support to swing an election, and this impact was especially strong in the Midwest swing states where the election was really decided.

Socialist Bernard Sanders had zero appeal to the working-class Reaganites in the midwest. The reason Trump won is because he is GOAT.

Bernie isn't a socialist. And pure socialism doesn't exist anywhere on the planet. Socialism is just a dirty word like "liberal" for you, it has no meaning. I assume you use it fairly interchangeably with Communism too?

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Also, Bernie voters went for Hillary 6-1 over Trump. If the election was decided by sanders voters, Hillary would be president.

Here you're just being obtuse. The point is a significant enough number of Bernie voters defected from their expected third party/Hillary support to swing an election, and this impact was especially strong in the Midwest swing states where the election was really decided.

Socialist Bernard Sanders had zero appeal to the working-class Reaganites in the midwest. The reason Trump won is because he is GOAT.

Bernie isn't a socialist. And pure socialism doesn't exist anywhere on the planet. Socialism is just a dirty word like "liberal" for you, it has no meaning. I assume you use it fairly interchangeably with Communism too?

Communism, socialism
Call it what you like.
There's very little difference in the two
Now, ain't I right?

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Also, Bernie voters went for Hillary 6-1 over Trump. If the election was decided by sanders voters, Hillary would be president.

Here you're just being obtuse. The point is a significant enough number of Bernie voters defected from their expected third party/Hillary support to swing an election, and this impact was especially strong in the Midwest swing states where the election was really decided.

Socialist Bernard Sanders had zero appeal to the working-class Reaganites in the midwest. The reason Trump won is because he is GOAT.

Bernie isn't a socialist. And pure socialism doesn't exist anywhere on the planet. Socialism is just a dirty word like "liberal" for you, it has no meaning. I assume you use it fairly interchangeably with Communism too?

Communism, socialism
Call it what you like.
There's very little difference in the two
Now, ain't I right?

No, but you're no different from 90% of Americans either so it ain't anything to single out. Those words don't have any meaning of their own other than being associated with "very liberal" which they understand is "bad".

Supporting Bernie over Hillary, the pre-ordained next president for the past 8 years, was already a departure from the expected.

They didn't think she was worth voting for in the primary. Is it so weird that only 2 of 10 would not want to support her in the general? Trump won the election. 12% supported who the country chose as president.

Trump also got big numbers of african-Americans compared to McCain and Romney. He was a different candidate.

Foo wrote:Supporting Bernie over Hillary, the pre-ordained next president for the past 8 years, was already a departure from the expected.

They didn't think she was worth voting for in the primary. Is it so weird that only 2 of 10 would not want to support her in the general? Trump won the election. 12% supported who the country chose as president.

Trump also got big numbers of african-Americans compared to McCain and Romney. He was a different candidate.

You continue to respond to non-existent arguments. Nobody said anything about it being weird, nobody even said anything about it being unique. The point, and the only point, is that it happened and it mattered. That's what the numbers show. I don't know what all this other stuff you're on about is.

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Supporting Bernie over Hillary, the pre-ordained next president for the past 8 years, was already a departure from the expected.

They didn't think she was worth voting for in the primary. Is it so weird that only 2 of 10 would not want to support her in the general? Trump won the election. 12% supported who the country chose as president.

Trump also got big numbers of african-Americans compared to McCain and Romney. He was a different candidate.

You continue to respond to non-existent arguments. Nobody said anything about it being weird, nobody even said anything about it being unique. The point, and the only point, is that it happened and it mattered. That's what the numbers show. I don't know what all this other stuff you're on about is.

Well yeah, but you bring it up as though it is somehow strange.

Did Bernie supporters elect Trump? Or was it women? Women supported Trump at higher percentages than Bernie peeps.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:Supporting Bernie over Hillary, the pre-ordained next president for the past 8 years, was already a departure from the expected.

They didn't think she was worth voting for in the primary. Is it so weird that only 2 of 10 would not want to support her in the general? Trump won the election. 12% supported who the country chose as president.

Trump also got big numbers of african-Americans compared to McCain and Romney. He was a different candidate.

You continue to respond to non-existent arguments. Nobody said anything about it being weird, nobody even said anything about it being unique. The point, and the only point, is that it happened and it mattered. That's what the numbers show. I don't know what all this other stuff you're on about is.

Well yeah, but you bring it up as though it is somehow strange.

Did Bernie supporters elect Trump? Or was it women? Women supported Trump at higher percentages than Bernie peeps.

Somehow strange? I said I didn't find it surprising in the very first post. And I don't think the way women voted in the election was far off from the expectation at all, while the Bernie --> Trump contingent was significantly downplayed throughout the election and even after the election.