Fascinating that Sanders' supporters are a mere 8% here

[Cary]

Last edited Fri Apr 19, 2019, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Five times as many of us are undecided yet I often feel stifled. I always knew that DU wasn't an accurate reflection of Democrats. That has always been obvious as I am so typical of Democrats.

What is really interesting is that it turns out that DU isn't typical of DU.

[shanny]

1. It's a mystery, isn't it?

[Cary]

2. Food for lots of thought

[defacto7]

27. As far as I remember it's been solidly at 8% since this system started.

or maybe 6% then to 8% within the first week or so. It doesn't seem to change.

[SidDithers]

39. Not really...

Lots of Berners decided they couldn’t abide by the new Terms of Service, so they left for JPR.

Or they were banned, because they ended up being too anti-Hillary, or anti-Democratic for the board.

‘Course, some have come back under new names...

Sid

[Baclava]

74. Yep, u are 100% correct, thats how i remember it too

The flameouts were historic. I can feel where they are trickling back in, loudly.....lol

[tymorial]

80. Bingo.

[unc70]

104. Too simplistic a vuew

Many of those who supported Sanders over Clinton have other first choices when the decisions are not binary. Probably the majority are now in the undeciddd group.

[George II]

3. Wait until Biden officially announces his candidacy next week, he'll probably spike....

....from his current 10%.

Plus we won't have to be told that Biden isn't the "current front runner" because he's not officially a candidate.

[ZZenith]

4. Were you here in 2016?

When 92% of Sanders supporters were driven off?

[Scurrilous]

6. I thought they all left for Greener pastures.

[George II]

24. I think they left for a popular spot in central New Jersey - the "Pine Barrens".

[Scurrilous]

55. Good one!

[still_one]

130. Clever

[Cary]

11. I recall being undecided, then as now

And being welcomed by Hillary Clinton supporters.

Not so much by Sanders' supporters.

[Cary]

8. I am referring to the here and now, but ...

... I what is your point?

I recall a tactic wherein a lot of people change the subject instead of addressing a point that was actually made.

[ZZenith]

16. I fully addressed your point, if I understood it.

You were wondering why Sanders had such a small percentage of support here at DU, were you not?

[Cary]

18. Wrong

I was wondering why there is so much handwringing and negativity.

But you can extrapolate.

[ZZenith]

20. Handwringing and negativity by whom?

I wish you wouldn’t be so vague.

[Cary]

30. Look up my prior opening post

You will see specific examples there.

[FreepFryer]

177. vague and incomplete answers to questions about your post, not even providing a link...

Seems kinda bad faith.

[Cary]

180. Yeah, you aren't the first to use that ploy.

My standard.response to that ploy is that if you have a problem, then you have a problem.

[FreepFryer]

182. Then your standard response, like your OP, is easily dismissed. Thanks for playing! (n/t)

[Cary]

184. Read slowly:

Is that right?

[FreepFryer]

185. Please. Make. Sense. (N/t)

[Cary]

186. Read slowly:

You don't say?

[FreepFryer]

187. Intelligent people do not feel the need to try to insult others intelligence. (n/t)

[Cary]

188. Read slowly:

Is that right?

[Sherman A1]

10. Yes

I recall the rather "interesting" times.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Most of us switched to Clinton and are still here.

A few felt "driven off" and went off to JPL, where they remain.

[ZZenith]

38. I guess I fall into that camp.

Just having such a hard time understanding all the vitriol that remains. Bernie Sanders and his supporters did not cause Hillary Clinton to lose the election no matter how hard people try to justify the belief that they did.

[LakeArenal]

62. Oooo Finally made the 8%...

[sheshe2]

93. ...

not

[ZZenith]

100. Saw it with my own two eyes.

[Decoy of Fenris]

103. I wouldn't say 92%, but a good chunk. n/t

[sheshe2]

105. You were lurking in 2016?

You joined DU in 2018.

I lurked for awhile before I joined as well. DU was one of the sites I came to read for news and politics. Me, as an Obama supporter, I was just caught up in Obama's run for a second term. I was not aware of all the inner conflicts at DU.

However I was a member years before 2016. I remember it all very well.

[Decoy of Fenris]

110. Lots of us are long-time lurkers before we post regularly.

I've been lurking since... 2003? 2004? Something like that. Had a few accounts I signed up with, but never really kept up with posting so I kept forgetting passwords and had to make new accounts.

[ZZenith]

113. I joined back in 2004 but because my internet provider went belly-up

I had to re-register under a new name. I was never a prolific poster under the old name (Nostradammit) but I read this site daily for a decade-and-a-half and have always tried my best to understand everyone’s point of view. I believed Sanders had the better chance of overcoming the shenanigans the GOP were certain to engage in, and understood from my distant mouth-breathing relatives that they, and many millions like them, would crawl miles over broken glass to vote against Clinton.

Once she won the primary I was fully supportive, but fully expected Trump to become the next president. There was SO much acrimony and division around here, coming from both sides in equal measure, that it became obvious the Democratic Party at large had become too fractured to function. Both camps in our party have acted out of reasonable fear and both have suffered as a result. We must coalesce this time or face a very dark future.

[sheshe2]

118. Thanks!

I agree.

We must coalesce this time or face a very dark future.

[yardwork]

115. Laugh. Out. Loud.

[mcar]

119. Driven off?

That's an interesting take. Yes, I was here.

[ZZenith]

125. It became impossible to voice any criticism of the candidate's tactics

without getting a post removed, no matter how well-intentioned, so yes, driven off. Their was plenty of belligerence coming in from all sides, but it was policy around here to quickly snuff out any whiff of dissension, no matter how large the iceberg loomed.

[mcar]

128. I saw the exact opposite

Good Democrats were alert swarmed because they dared to disagree with some supporters chosen candidate. Others were called anti-semitic. Many of those who were "driven off" by your description were so because they violated the TOS and refused to support the nominee. They also objected to not being able to call the nominee a c*nt.

[ZZenith]

134. Plenty of "Good Democrats" whole-heartedly supported Sander's campaign

because they believed he had the best chance of defeating Trump, and once he lost the primary they whole-heartedly supported Clinton. There was no shortage of asshole “Bernie Bros” around here and we will never know how many of them originated from St. Petersburg with the sole intention of causing chaos, but I can tell you from experience that it became nearly impossible to point out obvious mistakes that were being made by the DNC and Clinton’s team without being burned at the stake. And I know of several “Good Democrats” that gave up posting around here as a result.

No surprise that our experience differed, but please leave room in your world view for different viewpoints.

[mcar]

135. I am well aware that plenty of Sanders supporters voted for HRC

I'm also well aware that many had then, and still have now, a scorched Earth policy. We're seeing it again in real time.

My world view is fine, thanks all the same.

[ZZenith]

139. The scorched Earth policy worked both ways. I witnessed it.

[Cha]

149. So did we.. BS staffer in Michigan.. 2019..

Bernie Sanders Organizer Screams Expletives at Rally: 'F*ck Hillary! F*ck Hillary!'

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=69422

[Kentonio]

163. Yep. That was my experience too.

[Decoy of Fenris]

137. That happened on both sides, mate.

Lots of genuine, and some trolling, posters ate the granite tombstone. Some for "C*nt", others for "K*ke". There were no winners walking away from 2016, only survivors.

[mcar]

142. No one on this board ever used the word k#ke

Unless they were a short term disruptor who got nuked by MIRT. I was on MIRT then and never saw it, tho.

Plenty of long time poster used the C word toward HRC. This is a false equivalency. Mate.

[Decoy of Fenris]

143. They used it, just not on this board.

JPR wasn't the only "sister site" that sprang up during 2016. It was just the most popular of half a dozen. But I gotta bounce, got four minutes before I'm gone for the night. Have a good evening, mate.

[mcar]

144. Nice goalpost moving

This subthread is wholly about DU. Now you've expanded your "granite tombstone" response to include other, unnamed sites.

I wish you a good evening.

[Cha]

150. Most of them went to JPR of their own accord.

Don'tcha just love when history is tried to be re-written?

[katmondoo]

5. That is where he should be

[Cary]

9. It seems accurate to me

[BlueFlorida]

12. I think the 8% is an anomaly

Last edited Fri Apr 19, 2019, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

because a vast majority has gone to other places where they can bash our candidates with impunity.

We see some of that here but it is nuanced and measured.

Angry campaigns don't do well in civil situations.

[Cary]

15. Quite possible but ...

... there is a lot of negativity here and now.

I would prefer more positive debate but hey I'm just in the 43%! Who am I to assert my point of view?

[BlueFlorida]

21. There is a lot of congeniality and respect

between the "always-Democrat" candidates and their supporters. I'm a Biden fan but I love Kamala, Mayor Pete, Amy, Elizabeth Warren, Gov. Inslee, Cory Booker and my second choice Beto O'Rourke.

[rzemanfl]

63. I think you meant to say "with impunity." n/t

[BlueFlorida]

69. Thank you! I stand corrected.

[rzemanfl]

70. De nada. n/t

[DownriverDem]

13. Maybe

those undecideds were waiting for Biden.

[Cary]

17. I love Uncle Joe

I love all real Democrats

[TexasTowelie]

48. I know that you mean well,

but I wish that people would stop referring to Biden as Uncle Joe. Republicans use "Uncle Joe" as a slur against FDR because he used "Uncle Joe" as a reference to Joseph Stalin. I don't believe that we should provide the GOP ammunition for that slur.

[Cha]

71. Yeah, I don't like that, either..

First of all because he's clearly Not "uncle Joe".

[dhol82]

106. Totally did not know that.

Will now realize, when the opprobrious name is used, that they are fucking with me.

[still_one]

131. Now I wonder which Uncle Joe you are talking about?

[paleotn]

28. Waiting to see how the candidates...

present themselves and their ideas. Then I make an informed decision. For me there is but one constant in this. I vote for a Dem in the primaries and a Dem in the general. Really, we have an embarrassment of riches, candidate wise, compared to those people on the other side of the aisle. They have a nut and what many over there consider a rino. I could vote for any number of Dems and and feel comfortable about my decision.

[Hortensis]

14. :) We can all vote only once, as opposed to posting 50 times,

and it's very clarifying. Given the zeal and continuous activity of Sanders supporters, I assume most of them grabbed the chance to vote for him, so that percentage is probably pretty representative.

We need to remember and respect, of course, that 3/4 of Sanders supporters in 2016 and Hillary supporters in 2008 moved seamlessly to their second, Democratic!, choice, and wouldn't have dreamed of voting Republican, totally whacked to even suggest such a thing. I was one of the latter.

But back then, strikingly similar, aggressively antagonistic behaviors toward Obama were seen in strikingly similar proportion (about a quarter) of Hillary's primary voters. I have no idea how she could have even accidentally attracted them, but they were passionately against Obama and refused to vote for him when he was nominated; most voted Republican or third party, the rest didn't vote. So with what current polls reveal about the enmity some bring to all but their chosen leader, it looks like this pattern will repeat again.

Anyway, I imagine that undecided group might contain a few similarly solid Democrats who might decide on Sanders for the primary but vote for the Democrat in the GE. Notably, though, and despite the press and Republican puffery, the polling data say Sanders' overall support among Democrats now is significantly lower than it was in 2016. (But we know not among his zealous quarter.)

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. fun fact: More 2008 Clinton primary voters didn't vote for Obama...

than 2016 Sanders primary voters who didn't vote for Clinton. But keep sucking on those sour grapes if it makes you feel better, I guess.

[Cary]

23. Meaning what?

Assuming that's true, what is relationship?

President Obama won by a wide margin. Hillary Clinton lost because of 70,000 votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

You would blame people who didn't vote in 2012?

Good thinking.

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. Nope, I'd blame voter suppression and Russian interference, which had as sizeable an effect

the number of (African-American, likely pro-Clinton) voters turned away at the polls in Wisconsin, for instance, under their voter ID laws? Greater than Trump's margin of victory. But sure, blame Sanders and not Republicans.

[Cary]

42. It was a perfect storm but that doesn't negate the fact that if Stein voters had voted for Clinton

she would have won.

Case closed.

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. Stein voters were never going to vote for Clinton.

So your "case closed" is fundamentally ignorant nonsense.



On edit: I find it interesting and revealing that so many people pushing this argument are more troubled by people exercising their right to vote for a candidate of their choosing (the fundamental basis of a functional democracy, after all) than they are by the perversions and interference with the democratic process and poll access by Republican voter ID laws and Russian propaganda et al.

[Cary]

49. That isn't the point

But thanks for calling me "fundamentally ignorant." That explains a lot.

[Spider Jerusalem]

50. More votes were affected by suppression and interference than Stein got

so your argument literally has no point.

[Cary]

52. It isn't my fault that you missed the point

But unlike you I admit that I am not in your head. So it is also possible that you understand what I said and that you are being dishonest.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I really have no right to do that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. I understand what you said perfectly; the problem is that your argument is idiotic bullshit?

"If Stein voters voted for Clinton" = "I hate democracy", essentially. Some percentage of people are going to vote ideologically rather than practically; for an awful lot of people who supported Sanders in the primary, Clinton was never going to be an acceptable candidate. I don't particularly have any issue with those people exercising their democratic right to vote for a candidate of their choosing, who they feel best represented them. That's what voting is for. I do however have an issue with coordinated voter suppression and Kremlin-backed disinformation campaigns and Wikileaks fuckery (which are just as responsible if not moreso for Clinton losing those key states).

[Cary]

58. Not interested

If you have a problem with me then it is your problem, not mine.

But thank you for illustrating perfectly the actual point that I made.

[Cha]

152. Wrong.. "stein voters" might have voted

for Hillary if stein hadn't LIED her gd head off.

Link to tweet

Second, a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters weren’t big fans of Clinton. So Stein campaigning on the idea that Clinton and Trump were similar made it harder for Clinton to win over those voters — even if Sanders voters didn’t vote for Stein, they may have stayed home out of disgust.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/

[mcar]

124. You are correct

Fck Stein and her voters too.

[Autumn]

140. Stein also ran for President in 2012 on the green ticket . Obama won. nt

[Cary]

145. The more mature, evolved response would be:

"Yes, that was a big mistake. Let's.figure out how to be better."

[Autumn]

146. I made no mistakes. I didn't run for office so I don't need to figure

out how to be better. The more mature, evolved response would be yeah she did run in 2012 and 2016. Just saying, she had her voters in 2012 and in 2016.

[Cary]

147. Where did I say that you, personally made a mistake?

So defensive.

[Autumn]

148. let's is a contraction of "let us." You and I.

It's used to make suggestions about what you and someone else should do. As in "Let's go swimming". Defensive? I simply pointed out I didn't make any mistakes.

Cary (10,074 posts)

145. The more mature, evolved response would be:

"Yes, that was a big mistake. Let's.figure out how to be better."

[Cary]

154. Brutally defensive

I have a lot of nerve to say "let us do better."

Good grief Autumn, lighten up.

[Autumn]

157. Brutally defensive? You got a little testy Cary because I told you Stein ran in 2012 and Obama won.

You decided that rather than discuss Stein, whom you brought up in your discussion you would ignore my post and tell me what the "more mature, evolved response would be". Which had nothing with Jill Stein running twice against two Democratic presidential candidates. The conversation is going nowhere so you have a nice day.

[Cary]

158. It isn't my fault that you are defensive

You need a better ploy. You aren't any good.at gaslighting.

[Autumn]

165. .

[George II]

161. Stein ran in 2016 and trump won. And now three of Sanders' top staffers....

....were proud Jill Stein voters.

[Eliot Rosewater]

173. And how is it that does NOT BOTHER people

I honest TO GOD dont understand

[George II]

160. If you're a Democrat you should agree that WE have to be better in 2020.

Jill Stein "had her voters" in 2016, among the Sanders Campaign Chair Nina Turner, Senior Communications Advisor David Sirota, and National Press Secretary Briahna Joy Gray.

"Mature" notwithstanding, Sanders has tapped three Jill Stein supporters and voters for some of his highest level campaign staffers.

[Autumn]

162. I can't do any better. I maxed out donating to my choice for the primary, caucused for him and

he won my state. Hillary won the nomination I voted for Hillary with no hesitation, in fact, I had supported her in 08. I don't volunteer anymore, that's for the younger ones to do. I didn't like Brock either but I wasn't in on that decision and I no longer care that he was a political operative for her campaign. I was happy to move on from 2016 George. We all should.

[ehrnst]

167. "I was happy to move on from 2016 George. We all should."

[lapucelle]

168. "I was happy to move on from 2016 George. We all should."

[ehrnst]

169. ......

[ehrnst]

166. +1000.

[WeekiWater]

61. I believe that to be inaccurate

Even if it is, Obama won.

[Decoy of Fenris]

67. According to this, 25% defected to McCain, 5% didn't vote at all.

https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/06/hendersonhillygustompsonPOQ.pdf#page=9


Don't know anything about the pollster, but it was the first polling I could find on Google. Make of it what you will.

[WeekiWater]

76. I'll stick with my original assessment. NT

[Decoy of Fenris]

82. Why? It's demonstrably false and the stats linked above are considered common knowledge. nt

[WeekiWater]

90. They do not. That is clear. NT

[Decoy of Fenris]

92. Can I ask where you have contradictory information, other than opinion? n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

114. There you go again... citing inconvenient facts. Common knowledge is right!!

Good for you.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Decoy of Fenris]

117. Humility in victory or defeat, friend. Quench your zeal in the waters of wisdom.

I respect your fervor, but it can be a turn-off to many. I would humbly advise exercising some restraint in your posting. We're all Democrats here, Sanders preference or otherwise.

ON EDIT: "Quench", not "Temper". ~.~ My metallurgy terms got jumbled.

[sheshe2]

120. Well.

Gotta give you a plus for this at least.

I respect your fervor, but it can be a turn-off to many. I would humbly advise exercising some restraint in your posting. We're all Democrats here, Sanders preference or otherwise.

+1

[Decoy of Fenris]

123. Every one of us should be determined to avoid the mistakes of D.U. 2016.

I know I'm sure as shit trying. It's been too soon since then to deal with that shit again.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

136. To that end, then I'm sure you & everyone here agrees the extreme Bernie bashing should end, pronto!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Decoy of Fenris]

138. Sanders has fucked up several times. You can't deny that.

Such fuckups should be called out, or at least remembered. Putting off the tax returns comes to mind. I'm still personally let down that he jumped on the bandwagon to ouster Franken, same as with the rest of the candidates that did so, especially Gillibrand. No candidate should be completely immune to criticism though, and legitimate criticism should be addressed, -civilly and respectfully-, by both Sanders and his supporters.

Simple fact is, he needs to work to do better, just like any other candidate. I agree that a lot of the trolling shit from the old quarter is obnoxious, but that's all it is. A minor annoyance. We can't rise to it. Just ignore it and focus on helping Sanders get the nomination, and whatever happens, support whoever the nominee ends up being.

[Agschmid]

94. I find it odd 9% of Obama voters, voted for McCain in the GE.

I didn’t know that until reading that data.

[Decoy of Fenris]

96. Every election has some odd points. The Sanders/Trump supporters, the Obama/McCain supporters...

Elections are strange and voters are fickle.

[Agschmid]

97. Yeah but why actually support someone in the primary, and bail in the GE.

Only explanation I have is republicans voting in the primary.

[Decoy of Fenris]

98. Probably. Or right-wing Dems. Or something in the Debates that turned voters off.

Who knows? Could have been garden variety racists. My grandmother is -very- old, so she very well could have been one of the Dem crossovers to McCain. People vote for their own interests and, in some cases, skin color. To assume that the Democratic party don't have a small category of outright racists and ignoramuses within their ranks is, in my opinion, folly.

ON EDIT: The reason I added "Racism" despite supporting Obama in the primary could be the chance to help defeat a black man in an election. Like I said though, who bloody knows? The electorate is -very- fickle.

[Agschmid]

101. Agreed.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

194. In an electorate that votes for candidates based on height and hairlines, it doesn't surprise me...

.... that there are hundreds of reasons some people switch sides.

A buddy of mine was all in for Obama in the primary. I mean his biggest fan - ever (I was for Hillary). Then turns around and votes for the republican Mark Kirk for Obama’s seat because the Democratic candidate’s family bank made some bad loans. So he campaigned, donated, and supported Obama and then turned around and voted for someone diametrically opposed to everything he stood for.

[still_one]

133. 1 in 10 Sanders supporters voted for Trump in 2016, and another 1 in 10 eithere voted for Stein or

didn't vote.

However, one campaign for 2020 hired three people to high positions in their campaign who voted for Jill Stein and encouraged others to do likewise, up to the night before the 2016 election.

In 2008, after Hillary lost the nomination, she endorsed President Obama, encouraged her supporters to vote for President Obama, and campaigned for him in the GE

On the other hand another candidate made it clear that it wasn't his job to tell his supporters how to vote

Big difference there

[Cha]

151. Fun Fact.. your "WhatAbout?" is Not

working.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. You misunderestimate us

I was a Sanders supporter last time, but with such a rich field of candidates this time around, I am undecided...at least who I am for- I’m pretty clear who I’m not supporting...

[Cary]

26. I never said all Sanders' supporters were unreasonable

I was never snti-Sanders. Never.

[Hortensis]

99. Sure. 3/4 Of his primary supporters

moved to their second, Democratic choice after that. Responses to polls indicated that most of them were happy with their second choice, some very. In Iowa, 90% asked specifically said they respected Hillary Clinton and were happy to have her as their second choice.

Those people are normal Democrats who just preferred Bernie Sanders in the primary. It’s critical to note that.

When talking about the deplorables who refused to vote for her in the GE and voted Republican or third party — who are not here on this forum because they did not vote Democrat — we are not talking about the broadly diverse range of Democrats who would never dream of refusing to vote for any Democratic candidate except Bernie Sanders. Those who did and promise to again are very, very, very different.

[Mr.Bill]

25. I don't find it odd at all that a website called Democratic Underground

is not heavily in favor of someone who only recently became a Democrat.

[elleng]

29. Feel 'stifled?' Just ignore.

[Cary]

32. I have an agenda Ellen:

VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

[elleng]

34. Naturally,

as we all will do.

[NurseJackie]

43. Apparently not.

[Cary]

46. I am sure some here have another agenda

Given our system there are only two sides. Many don't understand that there is no third side. A third side just detracts from one side or the other.

[SidDithers]

45. The Great Purge...

Sid

[Cary]

47. Speaking of a "great purge" after a grand total.of 3 posts?

???

[SidDithers]

54. Yeah. Subtle they ain't...nt

Sid

[marble falls]

102. He read about it somewhere.

[SidDithers]

108. A long time lurker, surely...nt

Sid

[marble falls]

109. Frequent flyer. Someone needs a new sock.

[sheshe2]

122. When I do the laundry I always come up one sock short of a match.

I always thought it was sock bandits.

[ehrnst]

51. You weren't here then.

[aikoaiko]

35. DU was more welcoming to those on the left who weren't dedicated to Democrats.

There were both positive and negative consequences for that tolerance.

[ehrnst]

78. How do you define to "not dedicated to Democrats?"

Specifically, ideally with examples.

[Decoy of Fenris]

84. They may mean "Dedicated 100% to Democrats." AKA, left-leaning Indies or ideological "Dems".

People who weren't 100% willing to always vote for the Democratic candidate 100% of the time. The old TOS, IIRC, were fairly loose regarding that, so long as a poster didn't advocate voting 3rd party or GOP.

[ehrnst]

85. I'm not "Dedicated 100%" to any and every Democratic candidate

And don't need to be to vote for them. Any candidate that demands unquestioning lockstep raises my antennae. I've seen very, very few of them, as actual Demcorats of long standing understand that we are a coalition of diverse groups and that is our strength, and not a weakness characterized perjoratively as "identity politics"

It's why I've stayed with it as candidates come and go.

I do think 100% that the most centrist Democratic candidate is always preferable to the most liberal Republican in this day and age. Nixon would be burned at the stake as a liberal Democrat by current GOP party standards (founding the EPA, signing the Clean Air act putting forward a universal health care plan) as anything but conservative, showing how far to the right they have careened.

[Decoy of Fenris]

87. I think we may be two ships passing in the night. I'm not referring to you or anyone else.

What I'm saying is that in the past, the site was welcoming to people who shared a wide range of viewpoints, even those running counter to the Democratic party, so long as they didn't directly advocate against Dems or for Indies/Republicans. Their votes didn't matter (AKA, they could vote for whoever) so long as they didn't advocate it on the forum at large. In relation, now it is expected of every one of us to vote for Dems, always, regardless of circumstances. That's what I was hinting at when I said "100% committed". That may not have come across in my prior post though, so apologies for that.

As an aside, glad we're on the same page about "Any candidate that demands unquestioning lockstep". Too 1984 for my liking.

[Funtatlaguy]

36. TOS the one with initials DK has high Sanders support

Although the owner of that site is not a fan.

[NurseJackie]

40. Daily Kos? That's a BS haven? Good to know...

... I hope more people find out.

[Decoy of Fenris]

41. Lots of folk, Clinton and Sanders alike, got blown up in the 2016 wars.

It got bad enough that during the worst part of the wars, the most vocal proponents of both sides were FFRed, leading to a relatively large void in new and recurring posts. This led, in part, to the mass unbanning amnesty of everyone who had been FFRed by the admins, admitting a flood of incredibly toxic posters all at once. The worst and most obvious were banned again within days of their amnesty, but not before the GD: P was ripped apart anew post-Convention by a large degree of mocking, scorn, derision, et cetera from the Clinton camp against the Sanders supporters. This continued for a substantial time and, although it was not one-sided by any means, the Sanders camp slowly migrated to other sites or were re-banned. Some to Kos, some to JPR, some to HuffPo, still others into the depths of Reddit itself. In their eyes, the mocking and scorn directed at them, deserving or not, on D.U. was representative of the "Democratic establishment" not wanting to integrate them into the party.

Likewise, some Sanders supporters came to the seemingly accurate conclusion that wearing Sanders tags on here as a preference makes one a target. While most of the most toxic elements of 2016 have been banned again, there are several trollish stragglers that are thoroughly entrenched and, to quote one of them directly, "have long memories." With continued covert overtures of harassment and the omnipresent threat of alerts sent on innocuous posts (and as an aside, this is -not- exclusively targeting Sanders supporters, I've seen as many alerts on other supporters as Sanders), many of the former Sanders fanbase on D.U. are currently rolling with either Undecided tags, or tags of another candidate. True, this is possibly because they are actually undecided or supporting another candidate, but it is also possibly to avoid becoming a target yet again until post-Convention this primary. I know of at least a few cases where the latter is indeed the motivation.


Also, in relation to feeling "Stifled", simple fact is that Sanders is getting the most media coverage ATM, outside of Biden's buildup to announcement. The candidate who has the most media coverage will naturally be one of the most posted-about here on D.U. I think it's leveled out nicely with Buttigieg, and hopefully Biden will also help level the media presence.

[crazytown]

88. I left.

Stopped visiting. Didn’t bother to register after the hack.

[rzemanfl]

53. Bookmarking. n/t

[James48]

57. I'm a strong Sanders supporter.

But I’m going to hold off being classified in this DU page system because I don’t like being labeled long before the first vote or first debate is held. I’m keeping my mind open and listening to all the candidates, but unless something really unbelievable happens, I’m going to end up 100% in the Bernie bucket.

[Cary]

60. You do understand that my point has nothing to do with supporting Sanders?

[guillaumeb]

64. Or, many see no need to promote anyone at this point.

My idea at this point is to change my name to "Undecided" and coast to an easy victory.

[Cary]

66. You have my vote!

[TwilightZone]

65. Many people are staying undecided to avoid preconceptions.

I don't think that applies only to Sanders supporters, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of them doing so.

[Cary]

68. Not directed at you, but

many people take themselves too seriously.

From time to time I do that myself. Life is too short.

But we have a Nazi in the White House so there is a time and place for serious.

[TwilightZone]

73. I agree.

And I do the same, which is partly why I don't spend as much time here as I used to.

In the end, I think most will see the threat that Trump is and continues to be and act accordingly, regardless of what happens here and elsewhere during the campaign. The bottom line is that Trump and as many of his cohorts as possible have to go.

[Cary]

77. It is that simple

Yet many insist on complicating and creating drama.

[Lazy Daisy]

72. I'm not following

Not sure I know what it is your getting at. What is your point here?

[Cary]

75. Art is in the eye of the beholder

Think about it and you tell me.

[Lazy Daisy]

79. no thank you

I don't care to try to figure out what a person is getting at. They can either be direct, or not. If they choose not to be I lose interest.

[Cary]

81. Some will, some won't, so what?

Next.

[Me.]

83. Why, Because He's Not Everyone's Choice

on Democratic Underground?

[Cary]

86. Most people aren't ideologues

The ideologue game is to lure pragmatists into an emotional conflict. That table is easy to turn.

[Agschmid]

89. It's really not that much of a mystery.

[Andy823]

91. A lot of them

Simply pick another candidate so you really don't know they are for Bernie. Not sure why, but I think they have a plan.

[Decoy of Fenris]

95. It's simple. We took a beating here after the 2016 Convention.

I was idly perusing the 2016 stuff last night, and there were posts, no joke, of "I want (Sanders Supporters) to suffer for all they've done. I'll never forget." Of other note was one specific (hidden) post saying they'd make sure no Sanders supporters were left at DU (paraphrased). Even now, so long as you have a Sanders tag, you'll be spammed by Twitter-linking posts from hard-core rightwingers attacking Sanders. I saw one poster spam the same neocon post across a dozen threads to every Sanders poster wearing the tags.

"The plan" for those hiding their affiliation is "avoid heckling." Pretty simple.

[Andy823]

112. I don't know anything about twitter

But I was here in 2018 when a "scorched earth" tactic was being use to destroy Hillary at all costs. Now I will agree that all those involved in the were not really supporting Bernie, many were trolls, but there were others were involved that were his supporters, though I doubt they were really Democrats. Do you remember all the sick, pathetic things that were posted about Hillary?

I have no doubt that hard feelings are in play now, but I also know that some Bernie supporters here also went to JPR, the site that encourage the hate, and also encouraged voting for trump instead of Hillary. I have no problem with "real" Bernie supporters, and I know some from 2016 that spoke out about the tactics being used. As for hiding to avoid heckling, it's pretty obvious who they really support.

[Decoy of Fenris]

116. Yeah. 2016 was rough across the board.

I'd rather avoid getting into the nitty gritty of it, because there were no winners of 2016. Everyone lost. Every camp did dishonorable or disrespectful shit. Best we can do is learn from it and try to do better. That's the last I'd like to say about it.

In relation to "avoiding heckling", yes, it's fairly obvious who supports him of those hiding their preference, but it does stop the knee-jerk spam from those who still have an axe to grind.

[Honeycombe8]

107. I don't know what you're referring to. A poll or something? nt

[TwilightZone]

159. Poll at the top of the Democratic Primaries forum.

It shows declared candidate preference totals and links here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=candidates

[mcar]

111. K&R

[dalton99a]

121. My Revolutionary calculator converts it to 80%

So I wouldn't worry about it

[Basement Beat]

126. I was a pretty staunch Sanders supported...

but honestly just jumped off that train last year. Way too many blunders when it came to race and equality questions. And his shutdown of even talking of reparations was simply the icing on the cake. I'm still undecided probably for the rest of the year to be honest.

[dawg day]

127. Hmm, I tend to think the "Democratic" in the DU name says that most of us are ... Democrats.

Yellow Dogs Dems like me will always support a Democrat over an independent. I'm not sure why that would surprise you.

[Cary]

141. I said I.was fascinated, not surprised

A small minority makes a lot of noise.

[Mike Nelson]

129. I'm surprised...

... at the different levels of support, but I like watching the poll... I leaned toward Harris, but then Pete and he's moving up... I like several of the candidates. I did think Bernie would be doing better. I also thought Biden would be doing worse.

[LonePirate]

155. Much like Sanders' Senate career, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Cary]

156. Faulkner alluding to Shakespeare.

I need to re-read that book.

[Kentonio]

164. It's not particularly surprising at all.

This isn’t a welcoming environment for a Sander’s supporter. The constant bashing and double standards (and newly re-emerging alert stalking) just make being here unpleasant much of the time.

[Cary]

170. Usually there are three sides to a story

Yours, mine and the truth.

But I don't find that to be fascinating because it is old news. I failed, as someone trying to be reasonably objective, to engage many of Sanders' supporters I have encountered. As I said above some will, some won't, so what? Next.

Now the ones whom I could reach, perhaps they are victims. I don't think so but hey, I am not perfect. If I thought it would advance an actual dialogue I might fall on my sword.

But again that is old news. I prefer the here and now. What's.past is prologue.

You can speculate as much as you can, but the 8% number is the 8% number and it is small. It is much smaller than the volume of Bernie Sanders would suggest, in my opinion. I specifically refer to this "Our Revolutuon" schtick, this idea (apparently a myth) that the radical left (a small minority of Democrats apparently allied with non-Democrats) will take over the party.

After the 2016 primaries there was a lot of chatter, to which I said go for it. Set up your institutions. Run local candidates. Put your money where your mouth is.

Here we are in 2019, 8%, more mouth less money.

Fascinating, but no surprise.

[Kentonio]

171. I don't need outreach. I also don't need some grand debate about my beliefs.

All most of us need is to have a group that shares probably 95% of our progressive beliefs to not treat us like assholes and traitors for the crime of supporting a different progressive candidate to them.

Oh and as an added bonus it would be really nice to not see one of our nominees bashed multiple times a day, and that treated as perfectly fine and dandy.

[Cary]

172. None of that has anything to do with what I said.

Notice how you.changed the subject to you? That right there is the heart of the problem.

People cannot distinguish between intellectual discussion of issues and a personal attack and they change the subject either to some defensive, emotional thing about themself or some inane attack on the other person.

[Kentonio]

174. I wasn't attacking you in the slightest.

I’m not sure why you’d personalize what I said. You talked about reaching out to Bernie supporters as if that’s what we somehow need. I’m just pointing out that it isn’t. Personally I just want a friendly place to post where my candidate isn’t under constant attack and where I’m not treated like crap for supporting him. I can’t speak for others, but I strongly suspect the same is true for many of them too.

[Cary]

175. I said you changed the subject to you, not that you attacked me

How did you manage to miss that? I said it in plain English.

Be constructive. Stick to the issues. If we all did that then this would work out better.

[Kentonio]

176. You literally said..

“People cannot distinguish between intellectual discussion of issues and a personal attack and they change the subject either to some defensive, emotional thing about themself or some inane attack on the other person.”

How is that not accusing me of attacking you?

As for the topic, I answered what you wrote, I didn’t change the subject. Just because the subject isn’t fully covered by what you think it is, doesn’t mean I’m changing topic. Maybe if you tried listening you might understand the people you ‘reached out to’ a little better.

[Cary]

178. Is your name "people?"

If so then I am sorry, I misspoke.

[Kentonio]

181. Ok, this is pointless.

Let’s just leave this here and go about our days.

[Cary]

190. I made a good point.

Whether you take it as it was intended, or distort it, that's all on you.

[vsrazdem]

205. That is exactly why IMO people have chosen not to choose him in the primary forum.

[rainin]

179. I like how Bernie pulls the party to the left.

The democratic party has tried to be centrist for too long. We have low voter turnout for a reason. Obviously, we can disagree about the reason, but we can't eliminate the possibility that a huge percentage of voters haven't felt like any candidate represented them.

The candidates who are unabashedly liberal are bringing excitement to the political process.

I'm glad for the ideas Bernie contributes, along with many of our excellent candidates.

[Cary]

183. My view is similar

These people are auditioning for a job. I really only care about how well they will do their job. Their personality is relevant to me only insofar as to how well they will do their job.

But that isn't the point of my opening post. 8% support Sanders, yet if there was a way to measure the volume here at DU then I suggest the Sanders supporters are much louder then their actual numbers would justify. Hence DU does not even represent the majority opinion of DU.

Democrats, from what I can tell, are left leaning moderates. We are not "corporatist," nor any other epithet hurled by the radical left. We are left leaning moderates and there is nothing illegal, unethical, nor immoral about that.

No one is going to push us anywhere. We are the majority. Radicals need to adapt to us, not the other way around. Democrats are not Republicans. We will not be hijacked and the radical left doesn't have Koch money to spend pulling the wool over moderate eyes.

[rainin]

199. Saying democrats are left leaning moderates is a little broad brush.

Personally, I'm just happy to see the more liberal candidates propose ideas that would never have been proposed by a moderate democrat: like Universal Basic Income, Medicare For All, and Free Higher Education. I guess this makes me a radical left.

I'm not surprised that Sanders support is 8%. There are so many choices this time. I have never seen this many candidates that I would enthusiastically support.

[David__77]

201. Democrats have a lot of diversity.

And I think it’s great that there is and will be policy debate. It’s great to have a lot of voices in the mix.

[Cary]

203. You seem to be quite reasonable

Unfortunately some of our compatriots have a different agenda.

[Cary]

202. What's wrong with "broad brush?"

Sometimes a broad brush is the right tool for a job. A broad brush can paint a bigger picture.

[rainin]

206. To say democrats are left leaning moderates leaves out

democrats who aren't left leaning moderates, like me.

[Cary]

208. If a majority of us are left leaning moderates then...

...you can either accept that and work with it, or go elsewhere. That is my problem with the radical left. They refuse to accept the fact that left leaning moderates are the majority and they refuse to work with the majority. Instead they try to conquer the majority and impose their will.

Of course they because we are a plurality system the radical left has nowhere else to go. Nevertheless as has been pointed out many don't vote, vote third party, or vote for.tbe fascists out of spite. All three actually amount to the same thing.

The irony here is that most of their grievances are superficial. I am a left leaning moderate and you and I are probably virtually identical on the issues.

Alas, I can only observe, and regret that fascists (another minority) impose their will on us all.

[MineralMan]

189. Fans of some candidates are very verbal, and seem to think that

more posts are better, whether they say much or not. We've seen that before, and I'm sure we're going to continue seeing it this time, as well. However, as always, DU is not reflective of much, really. Nor is it particularly influential. I have yet to meet a person in real life who has even heard of DU. Odd, isn't it?

[Cary]

193. In a way, yes. It is odd.

I am not you, mind you, so my narrative here is my narrative. I enjoy your perspective and am pleased that you added to my post here even if you slightly deviated from my point. I welcome you to deviate any time. You generally help me to ponder things, which is really as much as I ask from any poster. You are creative, thoughtful, and back up your claims.

I have no reason to bicker with you and wish to avoid that in the future. You might try to give me some more room at times. Thank you.

[democratisphere]

192. It is easy to understand when a voter looks at the best choices we have.

[David__77]

195. What do you find stifling?

...

[Cary]

196. If you wish to understand you can easily figure it out.

If you don't wish to understand then I will never be able to teach you.

[David__77]

197. Thanks for the reply.

...

[Cary]

207. You are welcome.

[JCMach1]

198. There was a large exodus of Bernie supporters from DU

In 2016

[LongtimeAZDem]

200. Yep, a lot of them went to the JPR echo chamber

[Cary]

204. 8%.

Here.

Now.

[Gothmog]

209. How sanders thinks he will win the nomination

From the Political Wire-- How Bernie Sanders Thinks He’ll Win the Nomination https://politicalwire.com/2019/04/18/how-bernie-sanders-thinks-hell-win-nomination/

The Atlantic: “He’s counting on winning Iowa and New Hampshire, where he was already surprisingly strong in 2016, and hoping that Cory Booker and Kamala Harris will split the black electorate in South Carolina and give him a path to slip through there, too. And then, Sanders aides believe, he’ll easily win enough delegates to put him into contention at the convention. They say they don’t need him to get more than 30 percent to make that happen.”

Even Mondale got more support than sanders

Link to tweet

[corbettkroehler]

210. Related Point: Sanders Haters Claim He's Not A Democrat Yet DU Classifies Him As Such

Every time I ask a Bernie basher about this, the rare response I receive changes the subject or otherwise deflects.

The bottom line is this: DU calls him a Democrat. People on this board who claim Sanders is not a Democrat should take their web traffic elsewhere. To remain on this board while believing Bernie to be something other than a Democrat is an irreconcilable contradiction.

[SMC22307]

211. Meh. Not really. Sanders was my top choice in 2016...

but feel he's a bit long in the tooth for 2020. Same with Biden. Perhaps others feel that way as well, especially since so many other candidates have embraced his ideas.

[Cary]

212. How about just being a better, more functional party?

I would be very proud of us if we could rise above our petty squabbles and crush the fascists.

[SMC22307]

213. My guess is that very few Americans are thinking in terms of...

fascism, creeping or otherwise. Corporate Media won't drill it home. Right-wingers are OK with it since they lean authoritarian and like a (perceived) strong daddy figure at the helm.

I agree we need to be a better, more functional party. But look at the positions on Drumpf alone. We have calls to start impeachment now but also calls to continue investigating and possibly impeach. Then there's good ol' Steny Hoyer saying let's not and get rid of him in 2020 (which the Rs will steal again). We're not united on many issues and our messaging sucks. We've got to do better and for starters, I'm looking at Perez and the DNC. We can't even agree where FUX fits in... debates, townhalls, etc.

[Cary]

214. Interesting, Biden now 12% and Sanders still 8%