Democratic Primaries

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)

19. The fact that the source is Jacobin?

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 11:04 AM

Sep 2019

It's an opinion piece from what is essentially Tiger Beat for Sanders, Gabbard and Stein.

Here is what they state are "facts"

Electorally speaking, Trump won for two related reasons: in key swing states, a handful of former Obama voters opted for Trump over Clinton, and another handful decided to vote for nobody at all. To unseat Trump, the nominee will have to perform well in those swing areas.

Jacobin has always trended "Russia schmussia" because "Russian interference" doesn't fit the narrative they posit about Bernie. Nor does voter suppression in key swing states.... So naturally they aren't going to include those among the "facts". Why should they when they and their readers equate their POV with "fact."

Instead of projecting our own fantasies about what voters (and potential voters) are looking for in a candidate, we should look at the supporter data that is already available.

Indeed they are projecting their own fantasies on what voters and potential voters want, as well as "the two electoral reasons that Trump won," because they know who their audience is. Those who really can't stand the Democratic Party, and those who want their confirmation bias reinforced concerning lefty candidates who do battle with the Democratic Party.

But individual donations in 206 counties as the metric? I'm going to see a bit more in the way of data.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

99 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bernie Sanders Is the Strongest Candidate to Beat Donald Trump [View all] Uncle Joe Sep 2019 OP

If sanders is the nominee, trump will win 45+ states Gothmog Sep 2019 #1

lol... Gumboot Sep 2019 #2

As we say in NYC, "not to worry". George II Sep 2019 #4

And if not his supporters will drive us off a cliff liberal N proud Sep 2019 #85

I have no doubt in my mind that would be the outcome with Sanders lunamagica Sep 2019 #98

I didn't even have to scroll down to know this was from Jacobin. George II Sep 2019 #3

Do you dispute facts presented in the OP? Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #5

The fact that the source is Jacobin? ehrnst Sep 2019 #19

Do you believe Jacobin "projected their fantasies" on to this map which originated from a Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #23

More straw men, I see. Well they aren't going to attack themselves, are they? ehrnst Sep 2019 #27

It would be entirely consistent, all of those 209 counties that swung from Obama to Trump are Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #28

Here is the map of the actual COUNTIES, mostly in blue states already: George II Sep 2019 #30

"It would be entirely consistent" is your idea of data? ehrnst Sep 2019 #34

Why does that map remind me of this one, now hanging in the Oval Office? OilemFirchen Sep 2019 #80

There are precious few facts in the article.... George II Sep 2019 #29

The paragraph clearly mentions "donors" Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #32

If those "donors" in those 206 counties said that global warming was a hoax ehrnst Sep 2019 #41

Gauging a probable action based on evidence is not the same as empirical science. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #42

Well according to your statements here, empirical science is really not necessary... ehrnst Sep 2019 #51

No question you're right Uncle Joe, if he's nominated, he'll lose at least 41 states. InAbLuEsTaTe Sep 2019 #48

It was clear where this article was from Gothmog Sep 2019 #8

Votes for incarcerated felons on death row. crazytown Sep 2019 #6

That would be approximately 2,673 people Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #7

It's going to kill him Joe crazytown Sep 2019 #11

The oddmakers believe that Joe Biden has the best chance of beating trump Gothmog Sep 2019 #9

cf BetOnline crazytown Sep 2019 #13

Because Jacobin, the Democratic party hating publication for the Left, sez so? ehrnst Sep 2019 #10

Do you dispute the facts presented in the article? Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #12

The facts are not in dispute, merely the absurd conclusion. LanternWaste Sep 2019 #14

Do you believe that people donating to political candidates are less likely to be involved? Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #16

Are there facts and stats to back up the donor metric in 206 counties as being ehrnst Sep 2019 #22

Bernie had more individual donors than Hillary qazplm135 Sep 2019 #47

Yes, that's a very good question. ehrnst Sep 2019 #53

As to your first question, I believe we have to adhere Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #54

"The rules of D.U." ehrnst Sep 2019 #56

so all you got is conspiracy theory stsuff qazplm135 Sep 2019 #57

As I stated the campaign is just beginning, we're 5-6 months away from the first vote. n/t Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #58

And certainly NOTHING could wrong in that time for the candidate. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #60

Do you believe that nothing could wrong for any candidate? n/t Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #61

Do you believe that something will? n/t ehrnst Sep 2019 #63

Inevitably stuff goes wrong to a lesser or greater extent for candidates for President. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #64

So is that a yes? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #66

What about my post was unclear to you? Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #69

So is that a yes? ehrnst Sep 2019 #74

I will retype this slower for your reading convenience. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #77

So that's a yes, then. You believe something will go wrong. ehrnst Sep 2019 #82

but those folks you keep describing qazplm135 Sep 2019 #65

Number of donors and donations is more concrete than polls which can be easily manipulated, Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #68

ahhhhh so all the polls are wrong then qazplm135 Sep 2019 #71

Well of course, not ALL polls are wrong.... ehrnst Sep 2019 #79

You mean like this poll? ehrnst Sep 2019 #72

I don't have a problem with that poll. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #75

So you think his supporters are less about supporting him ehrnst Sep 2019 #81

How about these polls... ehrnst Sep 2019 #78

I take all polls with a grain a salt, including my own posted ones. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #83

But only if they confirm your bias, then they are "concrete." ehrnst Sep 2019 #86

I believe the corporate media has bias, you do not or will not admit it. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #88

You don't care as long as they are flattering Bernie, you do not or will not admit it. ehrnst Sep 2019 #89

Sanders had more donors in 2016...how did the Primary turn out? brooklynite Sep 2019 #94

I believe you know Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #95

I believe TOS allows referencing a previous election as a data point for the current one. brooklynite Sep 2019 #96

Too many data points are not the same Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #97

I want the most qualified person who can beat trump. nt ecstatic Sep 2019 #15

As do I ecstatic. n/t Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #17

Yes, there are those qualifications. And those aren't measured by donations in 206 counties. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #25

Jacobin....ooook then awesomerwb1 Sep 2019 #18

Do you dispute the facts presented in the OP? Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #20

Did you ask in a Bernie voice though? awesomerwb1 Sep 2019 #21

People are disputing the assumptions. ehrnst Sep 2019 #24

Do you believe that donors to political candidates are less likely to be involved Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #26

See, here's the thing. You used the word "believe." ehrnst Sep 2019 #31

Do you believe that you will wake up tomorrow morning or will you need data to go by? Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #33

When one doesn't have data, one tactic is to dismiss data as extraneous to one's point, which hinges ehrnst Sep 2019 #36

Most people believe they will wake up in the morning, the vast majority of the time, they're correct Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #39

And there we have it... ehrnst Sep 2019 #44

Any candidate with a pulse will beat tRump. Joe941 Sep 2019 #35

I would like to believe that Joe but I thought the same thing Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #37

Well now, that settles it doesn't it? "It would be entirely consistent" ehrnst Sep 2019 #45

It's strong CURRENT evidence, and Bernie didn't run for President against George W. Bush. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #50

But you thought it then, and you were wrong, so that must mean that ehrnst Sep 2019 #55

Just evidence in regards to beliefs as to unseating a sitting President. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #59

"It would be entirely consistent" has been enough for you to think that something's ehrnst Sep 2019 #62

This is also strong CURRENT evidence that his supporters might not be as numerous this time around ehrnst Sep 2019 #70

I needed a big morning laugh NYMinute Sep 2019 #38

So did I, thanks for your "substantive" post. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #40

Another fantasy from Jacobin. nt comradebillyboy Sep 2019 #43

Bernie Sanders is an assured win for the republicans... vote Warren if Peacetrain Sep 2019 #46

Here's an indication of the fallacy of looking at isolated counties around the country.... George II Sep 2019 #49

And if he doesn't get the nomination? SHRED Sep 2019 #52

It doesnt make sense to compare 2016 to now. honest.abe Sep 2019 #67

I agree with part of your post, the dynamics are different than in 2016. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #73

Sanders would be the easiest candidate for trump to beat calguy Sep 2019 #76

Bernie WILL win. James48 Sep 2019 #84

Well, then. You should tell all the other candidates so they can just save ehrnst Sep 2019 #87

As confident as you are that Bernie will win, we are equally as certain Fresh_Start Sep 2019 #91

And if he is not the nominee? liberal N proud Sep 2019 #99

so using the same standard of the most individual contributions Fresh_Start Sep 2019 #90

Wait, your name is "Uncle Joe" and you support Sanders? Polybius Sep 2019 #92

FWIW there was "another" Uncle Joe... brooklynite Sep 2019 #93