Garrett78
Garrett78's JournalWhich of the following scenarios would best help lay the groundwork for progressive reform?
A) Trump beating Clinton
B) Clinton beating Trump by a slim margin
C) Clinton beating Trump by a wide margin
Let's review what took place regarding the DMX-Sanders Rally story.
It's quite instructive really. Sanders supporters have been claiming that the story was being peddled all over DU by Clinton supporters, but is that actually true? Let's review:
2 threads were started at more or less the same time (4 minutes apart) peddling the story. Here's one of them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512074682. What do you see? You see posters (most of whom are Sanders supporters) talking about how it was a mistake to play that song. The OP was hidden and there were, what, 10-12 Clinton supporters posting in that thread?
Here's the other thread that was started 4 minutes earlier but didn't get as much play initially: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2074645. That thread had only 19 posts (again, mostly from Sanders supporters) and fell off of page 1 (partly due to all of the threads disputing the story). It got resurrected (with a title change) after it broke that it was a Sanders supporter who was behind the prank.
Every other thread (6 by my count) on the subject was about how the story was bogus. Those threads were filled with baseless accusations that David Brock or some mysterious "they" (presumably Clinton surrogates) was behind the prank. In fact, there were more baseless accusations like that than there were Clinton supporters peddling the story.
That's the reality of what took place here at DU yesterday. I know it doesn't match the narrative and I'm sure some won't accept that reality, but there you have it.
A question for those who think Trump will defy the consensus and win in November.
Outside of the DU bubble, there's a pretty broad consensus that Clinton is a heavy favorite come November. But many DU posts suggest that Trump will not only win but that he'll win with ease.
So, I'm curious, which traditionally blue states and which swing states do those folks foresee Trump winning?
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
I just have to put this out there after seeing multiple people suggest it is up to others ("do your own homework"
to prove or disprove a claim they've made. That's not how things work in grown-up world.
What's more, some of those same people have been known to demand that others back up claims they've made. You can't have it both ways.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Simple as that.
The DU Bubble and the Legitimate Leftist Critique of Today's Democratic Party
Is it any wonder why people laugh off the suggestion that Clinton will have to step down or that Trump (in spite of the general consensus outside of the DU bubble) will kick her ass in November? For the folks who believe either of those things, if you end up being wrong, will you acknowledge as much? Consider the list below:
Back on Super Tuesday, posters (and Cenk from TYT) actually said Sanders had won the day and it marked the beginning of the end of Clinton's campaign. Nearly 3 months later and she's well on her way to winning a clear majority of pledged delegates, as many of us predicted she would be.
On the night of the Indiana primary, DU posters claimed there was no media coverage of Bernie's win, even though there were headlines everywhere.
Thread after thread suggests many are claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone, even though nobody can point to a single post in which that claim is made.
And then there's the supposed value of hypothetical general election match-up polls at this juncture (Remember President Dukakis? Remember how Carter beat Reagan? Remember how George HW Bush beat Clinton? Remember how McCain beat Obama? Me neither.).
And then there's this refusal to accept what numerous surveys reveal about who independents are: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152
And then there's the false claims about which candidate has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US.
And then there's the conspiracies surrounding exit poll data (historically untrustworthy for numerous reasons).
And then there are all of the posts suggesting low primary turnout translates to low general election turnout (historically, there's no correlation).
And then there are the suggestions that losing a state in the primary means that person will lose that state in the general, which is so obviously untrue (Are there not states Obama lost in the 2008 primary that he won in the general election?).
And then there are the posts implying Clinton can't win open primaries, even though she's won more open primaries than Sanders has.
And then there are claims that many Clinton supporters are saying it's "her turn," in which case it should be easy to point to numerous posts as evidence, but nobody seems able to do that (gee, I wonder why).
The DU bubble is a fantasy land where preconceived notions and desires trump reality. This hinders the cause, it doesn't help. Yes, there's a valid leftist critique of today's Democratic Party. There's a valid critique of the US political system in general, particularly the influence of Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Oil, etc. But subscribing to and promoting nonsense - denying reality and pushing fantasy - does a disservice to the effort to bring about systemic change, which is not something that will come about as a result of an election (people have to get organized and take action *between* election cycles).
That's interesting. I wasn't around back then. My theory:
The problem, I think, is that a vocal minority (which dominates the faceless, impersonal Interwebs) have taken what is a valid leftist critique (which some Democrats/Clinton supporters deny) of today's Democratic Party (and of the US political system) and distorted it with grand conspiracies and too much focus on individuals (the Cult of Personality detracts from systems analysis). This phenomenon is catching, so to speak. It snowballs.
And you end up with things like those I listed in a previous post (Sanders-Indiana media blackout, Clinton-Red State meme, people claiming that *none* of the opposition to Clinton has ever been rooted in sexism and misogyny, denying what research suggests about hypothetical general election match-up polling, various straw men arguments, etc.). This failure to accept reality...let me rephrase, this flat-out denial of reality and adherence to fantasy actually prevents people from organizing to alter systemic realities. That's what's so unfortunate about what I refer to as the cra cra.
And getting folks to give up their preconceived notions in the face of sound reasoning, research and so on, is a monumental task.
Why was that not the case when you first started posting at DU? Several reasons. Today's political climate and media exposure is different. Awareness of that valid leftist critique wasn't as great. The faceless, impersonal Internet has become an increasingly dominant part of individual lives. And so on.
Amborin says the MSM, especially MSNBC, doesn't want anyone to see that MSNBC video.
On the night of the Indiana primary, posters claimed there was no media coverage of Bernie's win, even though there were headlines everywhere.
Thread after thread suggests many are claiming Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone, even though nobody can point to a single post in which that claim is made.
And then there's the supposed value of hypothetical general election match-up polls at this juncture (Remember President Dukakis? Me neither.).
And then there's false claims about who independents are: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152
And then there's the false claims about which candidate has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US (Sanders).
And then there's the conspiracies surrounding exit poll data (historically untrustworthy for numerous reasons).
And then there are all of the posts suggesting low primary turnout translates to low general election turnout (historically, there's no correlation).
And then there are the suggestions that losing a state in the primary means that person will lose that state in the general, which is so obviously untrue.
And then there are the posts implying Clinton can't win open primaries, even though she's won more open primaries than Sanders has.
And then there's just the overall failure to grasp demographic and mathematical realities.
Far too many on DU are living in a fantasy world where preconceived notions and desires trump reality.
Have people been claiming that Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone?
If so, I've missed seeing those claims. If not, why all the threads and posts about how Clinton won't reach 2383 prior to the convention? Wouldn't that be like having numerous threads exclaiming that water is wet?
Of course it's highly unlikely Clinton will reach 2383 via pledged delegates alone. Is anyone arguing otherwise?
The Sanders/Anti-War Narrative
It's yet another DU narrative that simply doesn't jibe with reality.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/04/27/kill-a27.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/
Can we all agree the convention won't be brokered? What does a contested convention accomplish?
Apparently, the convention would meet the definition of "contested" if Sanders does not concede prior to the roll call vote and Clinton hasn't reached 2383 via pledged delegates alone.
But Clinton will undoubtedly top 2383 with that first vote, meaning the convention won't meet the definition of "brokered."
Personally, I think Sanders will concede before the vote and we'll avoid a "contested" convention.
If, however, Sanders doesn't concede, what would that accomplish? Would that result in negative press for Clinton and Democrats as a whole? Would it somehow give a boost to Sanders and his version of economic populism?
It won't be brokered. Clinton will be the nominee. What's the point of 'contesting' the convention? What goals are made easier to reach as a result? Is it not far better to concede, have a say in the platform and then return to the Senate with greater influence?
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AMNumber of posts: 10,721
