Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Garrett78

Garrett78's Journal
Garrett78's Journal
May 26, 2016

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.

May 26, 2016

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.

May 26, 2016

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?

May 25, 2016

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?

May 25, 2016

It's backed up by some polls.

Just as some polls show Clinton beating Trump and others show her losing to Trump. And I don't give a rip about any of them, no matter who they have in the lead--all are worthless.

All cherry picking aside, the overarching point stands. Hypothetical general election match-up polls are historically misleading...to put it mildly.

McCain beats Clinton by 1 and Obama by 5:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106981/gallup-daily-obama-49-clinton-45.aspx

Dukakis vs. Bush:

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/26/us/dukakis-lead-widens-according-to-new-poll.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/17/us/poll-shows-dukakis-leads-bush-many-reagan-backers-shift-sides.html?pagewanted=all

Kerry led Dubya in a majority of polls up until September:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2004/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_kerry-939.html#polls

Dubya led Gore in polls right up until election day.

George H.W. Bush had big leads over Clinton in early polling of '92. It wasn't until July that Clinton first took a lead in polls.

Even Bob Dole led Bill Clinton in polls...though, in that case, I'm referring to polls taken more than a year before the election. Throughout '96, there wasn't ever much doubt that Clinton would win re-election.

Early polling had Carter defeating Reagan. Actually, late polling did, as well. But times were different. There was only 1 debate between the 2, and that was a week before the election (Reagan got a big bump following that debate).

May 25, 2016

This isn't about how I feel. This is about reality.

While I'm not a Clinton fan, I am a fan of reality-based thinking. From my experience, reality-based thinking is a rare thing on DU.

When it comes to the supposed value of hypothetical general election match-up polls at this juncture (Remember President Dukakis? Me neither.).

When it comes to who independents are: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512026152

When it comes to which candidate has done best in the 'reddest' parts of the US (Sanders).

When it comes to the so-called reliability of exit poll data (historically untrustworthy for numerous reasons).

When it comes to primary turnout supposedly correlating to general election turnout (historically, there's no correlation).

When it comes to thinking losing a state in the primary means that person will lose that state in the general.

When it comes to who has won more open primaries (Clinton).

When it comes to a basic understanding of demographic and mathematical realities.

Reality simply doesn't jibe with what so many on DU believe, or wish to believe.

May 25, 2016

Hypothetical GE match-up polling is meaningless at this juncture.

You'll notice that Dukakis did not become POTUS (not even close). You'll notice that McCain did not become POTUS (not even close). A general election campaign is a different dynamic. The polls at this point, which so many on DU love to mention, are worthless.

And, as the Washington Post pointed out, the Democratic candidate has a much easier path to the nomination given today's demographics. The Democratic candidate has won 19 states (plus DC) in 6 consecutive presidential elections for a total of 242 electoral college votes. Just 28 more and it's a done deal.

There's a reason oddsmakers heavily favor Clinton to become the next POTUS. The vocal majority at DU contradicts the general consensus.

May 22, 2016

"Most independents are just partisans who are turned off by partisanship."

For your reading pleasure: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

An excerpt:



While around four-in-10 voters say they’re independents, very few are actually swing voters. In fact, according to an analysis of voting patterns conducted by Michigan State University political scientist Corwin Smidt, those who identify as independents today are more stable in their support for one or the other party than were “strong partisans” back in the 1970s. According to Dan Hopkins, a professor of government at the University of Pennsylvania, “independents who lean toward the Democrats are less likely to back GOP candidates than are weak Democrats.”

While most independents vote like partisans, on average they’re slightly more likely to just stay home in November. “Typically independents are less active and less engaged in politics than are strong partisans,” says Smidt.

Rising polarization—and the increasingly personal and nasty nature of our politics—has had a paradoxical effect on the American electorate. On one hand, the growing distance between the two major parties has contributed to a dramatic decrease in the number of true swing voters. Smidt found that low-information voters today are as aware that there are significant differences between the two major parties as well-informed people were in the 1970s, and people who are aware of those differences tend to have more consistent views of the parties’ candidates. At the same time, says Smidt, many people who vote consistently for one party say they’re independents because they “view partisanship as bad” and see claiming allegiance to a party “as socially unacceptable.”
May 18, 2016

Clinton has been relying on the Obama Coalition throughout this campaign.

I keep seeing people point out that Clinton won such and such state in '08 but lost it this year. While true, it doesn't prove the point they seem to think it proves.

Surely people aren't just now realizing that Sanders is doing well where Clinton did well in '08. Clinton not doing as well in Kentucky (or Indiana or Oklahoma or Massachusetts, etc.) this year as she did in '08 is not a surprise, nor is it really meaningful. It follows a well-established pattern. If anything, it's surprising that she did as well as she did in some of those states.

Clinton is focused on winning the way Obama won. Naturally, this means her opponent (Sanders) is going to do well in places where Clinton did well against Obama in '08--when her target demographic was much different.

Again, this should be obvious and something everyone recognized months ago. Clinton does best in delegate-rich, diverse states. Sanders does best in less diverse and typically smaller states. That pattern was established more than 2 months ago. With there being no reason to believe that pattern would suddenly get flipped upside down, it's not hard to understand why many said Clinton had the nomination sewn up by mid-March.

Not to mention that at this stage in the game, the Clinton campaign is just going through the motions and waiting for the inevitable to become official. As was the case with Obama in '08 when he lost a majority of the primaries down the stretch, knowing that it didn't really matter. It's mere formalities going forward. Whether the convention is contested or not, it won't be brokered. The candidate with a clear majority of pledged delegates will reach 2383 (and then some) on the first vote. A mere formality whether Sanders concedes or not.

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AM
Number of posts: 10,721
Latest Discussions»Garrett78's Journal