• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Guardian: The Bernie Sanders voters who would choose Trump over Clinton

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are supreme court nominations worth more than peoples lives in Syria and soon to be Iran?

You think that Clinton is going to bomb Iran? You think Clinton is going to put troops on the ground this time next year?

Were you in a coma for the last two years?

And yes, I personally view the next forty/fifty years of social policy, economic, you name it policy being liberal over the slim, microscopic chance that Hillary goes rouge and starts bombing every middle eastern country.
 
There is no argument beyond that for why a Bernie supporter would actually want to, of their own free will, want to vote for Hillary.

I consistently, repeatedly provide the argument to this point, but the Bernie-or-Bust crowd tap dances like friggin' Sammy Davis Jr to avoid it, to the point where it's pathetic and comical.

If you're willing to hand over SCOTUS to the GOP, you're willing to sentence whole swaths of Bernie's vision to death-by-judiciary for a generation. Anything remotely controversial in this era is challenged in the judiciary. We could elect Bernie 2.0 in 2024, and as soon as the ink dries on legislation bearing his signature, the GOP-appointed judiciary would essentially exercise a veto on it.

Own-up to your willingness to kill Bernie's vision, or effectively counter this point.

Or, do like so many others have and avoid it in typical conspicuous manner. Here's your shot.
 
At this point, I can't respect anybody who votes for Trump.

The amount of hate that man has spread, the violence he's condoned. There's no washing that away at this point.

Screw his vague-as-shit policy positions. A vote for Trump is a vote for a hatemonger. A racist. A xenophobe.
This past week has just made me lose any respect I had for anyone that may support Trump. That shit is some of the worst I've seen in an election and it is probably just going to be getting worse.
 
Are supreme court nominations worth more than peoples lives in Syria and soon to be Iran?



I think she would gladly escalate the one in Syria. She's implied as much. Iran is always next on that list with those people. I don't want that country to be destroyed either.

like i said, dont vote for president then, or just write in Bernie if you want. But you're being unreasonable and your logic isn't sound if youre going to vote for Trump as some sort of spite vote against hillary

it's petty and it's dangerous.
 
I was actually talking to one of my closest friends last night about this. He's a working class guy, his family isn't all that great financially (there's periodic drama whenever he picks up his grandmother's medication and it costs just a few dollars more than normal.) and he's always working additional jobs over the weekends to try and make ends meat.

Another friend and I have been concerned about talking about this election with him, we're both Bernie supporters, and were worried because this friend, we'll call him Bob for clarity's sake, has always held rather, interesting, political beliefs and we were concerned he'd be for Trump, who both me and my other friend aren't really interested in seeing as President. Ever.

Well last night he came over and brought up this election in front of my wife and I. We were initially worried he'd start going on about Trump being what this country needs, but he surprised us and was actually staunchly in the Bernie camp. Then he dropped it on us that if Hillary got the nomination instead of Bernie, he'd vote for Trump. We were definitely shocked. But I actually decided to engage him about it, and try to understand where he was coming from.

Bob, as we're calling him, is of a demographic that I think often gets overlooked in political discussions. Where as lots of talk of Minorities and Women pop up, and Hillary often harps on (for the better) we rarely hear her and other politicians address the near poverty level white men of this country. Now that's not to say I think they're being forgotten, or are more important than the race and sex issues this country faces, but to him, someone who isn't the stereotypical middle class white man, It stings hearing how minorities and women are being put on a pedestal, and he's become afraid for his livelihood as he worries that they'll begin substituting him and others for minorities, or women, at his job even if they're under qualified compared to him.

It's an ignorant view, sure, but they're his fears, and understandable to an extent when he's already scraping by, and there's this talk of making the work place more equal, when, in his eyes, he's already barely holding on. He sees Hillary as this man hating woman, who'll do whatever she can to screw him over in her efforts to prop women up in the workplace, more than he already is in life. Now I think he's wrong, I don't see Hillary as that at all, but he simply can't or won't trust her. We talked about his issues, his fears, and his beliefs for a good hour. I came to understand that Bernie's rhetoric of income equality, while failing to grab the black vote, really resonates with Bob, not just because income equality and tax changes are appealing to his demographic, but because he hears himself included in there when Bernie talks. By not focusing on minorities and women in his speeches, he's managed to make Bob feel like he's included in Bernie's vision of the future of this country.

When it comes to switching to Trump, it seemed like my friend, Bob, was focused on getting back at Hillary for taking away his preferred candidate. It was clearly vengeful in nature, as he'd already gone on about how stupid Trump is as a choice (and I did convince him it'd probably be better to either abstain from voting, or vote for someone, anyone else, but Trump.) but he could not bring himself to give Hillary his vote no matter what (although he made it a point to say he'd vote for Bill Clinton again if he could, and he agreed he'd probably toss Hillary his vote if Bernie became her VP.)

I didn't think too much about this demographic of Bernie voters before last night's discussion, and I still don't believe they make up a larger portion of Bernie's support like this article claims. But I do believe Bernie is perhaps the best counter we have to Trump, and while I doubt Hillary would lose to Trump in the General, I think Bernie would hold stronger, capturing the minds of other people, like my friend Bob, and convincing them of a different course outside of the establishment then, well, whatever the hell Trump is pushing for.

I don't think my friend is a bad person, or anyone else in his position, and he's actually quite a nice guy, if bit odd sometimes, but I think he feels like he's been forgotten about, something I think anyone can relate to. He doesn't have a problem with minorities, or women, but he does fear that in the efforts to fix things for them, he'll be one who suffers in their stead.
 
This whole "anti-establishment" thing is hilarious. The Federal (and state) governments will still be full of "establishment" politicians regardless of who is President. Citizens will continue en masse to vote for establishment politicians.

Are supreme court nominations worth more than peoples lives in Syria and soon to be Iran?

Well seeing as Trump has gone on record a few times supporting action in Syria...you tell us.
 
I'm generally of the opinion that anyone who votes for Trump has something going wrong with their brain.

That said, people unwilling to vote for Hillary aren't necessarily doing so because they're sexist. Some people don't like Hillary, for reasons that may be arguable, but are not fictional. She has a very long history, and much of it is questionable at best.

I'll be voting for her if she wins the nomination (which won't make an ounce of difference because I'm in Texas) but I'm not going to immediately assume that anyone who isn't willing to vote for her is doing so because they hate women. No more than I'm going to assume that people not voting for Sanders are doing so because they hate Jews.

Sometimes people have different focuses than yours. Your focus may be "any candidate but Trump!" but someone else's focus may be "No candidate that lies a lot" (which makes Trump a pretty fucked up choice) or "no candidate that takes money from Wall Street", or whatever weird criteria you're using to pick your candidate (see Huelen).
.
 
Are you pretending the TPP is actually a free-trade agreement? You don't need thousands of pages to proclaim that trade is now free across the entire TPP economic zone. Those thousands of pages are mainly carve-outs for every nation in TPP to ensure some aspects of the trade are not actually free for every nation, to protect their own economic interests.

Also a significant portion of TPP is dedicated mainly to expanding American corporate power over the TPP economic zone. The infamous American lifetime + 75 years copyright regime is the most glaring example of this. But also the expansion of patent protection for American pharmaceutical companies should be alarming to every country in TPP that isn't America if they like reasonably priced drugs for life-threatening illnesses.

No one is claiming expansion of trading rights is inherently bad. I'm not and I never have. But the reality is that that the way "free trade" is implemented in the real world is mainly about increasing the power of corporations and enriching the 1%. There's nothing actually free about it.
I mean, I get that they're abused, but I think patents for pharmaceuticals are important because developing new drugs is really fucking expensive process and it ends with a failed product more often than not. You might get existing drugs for cheaper, but you'd also get far less new drugs being developed, which I think would be worse for medicine personally
 
I've seen a few people here on GAF say that, so I'm not really surprised.

I'm pretty sure most are just trolling for kicks, or pissed off Green-Rainbow Partiers screaming for attention.

The people that think blocking freeways at rush hour is "good politics".
 
This idea that protectionism is the solution to all of America's economic ills is such a bizarre hill for liberalism to die upon. I get why Trump uses it as his magic bullet -- less so why the far left is so attached to it.

quirky example of how open-circle-y American politics is I guess
 
Ugh, this is asinine. I get the counter-establishment argument, but this is like a lactose-intolerant person who gets mad that almond milk gets pulled from the shelves and instead of deciding to go with soy milk (which fits the bill, but is arguably worse tasting), they would rather have diarrhea.
 
I was actually talking to one of my closest friends last night about this. [...]

I read the post and enjoyed the story, thank you for sharing.

I do think, like you posit, there are individuals like that, but I feel overall the Bernie supporters claiming to vote Trump are either (a) saying so to nudge democrats into voting Bernie or (b) so firmly anti-establishment that I wonder if they will actually vote.
 
My guess is that these are people who don't actually vote
 
like i said, dont vote for president then, or just write in Bernie if you want. But you're being unreasonable and your logic isn't sound if youre going to vote for Trump as some sort of spite vote against hillary

it's petty and it's dangerous.

I don't think I can. Not because of the policy he talks about. That all sounds good to passable to me. I don't give a shit about a wall. They won't make you climb it if you migrate legally.

It's the violence he inspires in others that makes it presumably impossible for me to give him my vote. :(
 
Ugh, this is asinine. I get the counter-establishment argument, but this is like a lactose-intolerant person who gets mad that almond milk gets pulled from the shelves and instead of deciding to go with soy milk (which fits the bill, but is arguably worse tasting), they would rather have diarrhea.

Soy milk has phytoestrogens and carrageenan. I mean you need to consume A LOT of soy milk before it actually becomes something you might care about, but there's a reason why almond milk is getting popular recently.

So oddly enough without realizing it, you picked absolutely the perfect analogy there.
 
And I don't know why they are. Any Democrat knows she has baggage and has been demonized from the get-go. Any Republican knows her name, and not in a good way. She also lost a lot of love with harder core liberals with her campaign in 2008.

She's a very strong candidate, but she's got serious negatives too.

Yeah, while she's definitely the strongest in terms of her work and recognition as far as Democratic candidates go, she also has the most people that dislike her. And it's not just Republicans that don't like her either. With that said, I don't think there should be much fear of a large amount Bernie supporters switching to Trump. I do however think you're going to see a lot that either sit out the election or vote for Jill Stein. I think many Bernie supporters are young people who are able to vote for the first time, and in that since he's similar to Obama. He's managed to inspire those people in a way that Hillary just can't. And those are the people that will most like take alternate routes if Bernie isn't the nominee.
 
Oh and Trump has a boner for ISIS. Hillary's biggest boner in Syria seems to be for Assaad, which is confusing since Obama and Clapper both came out and said the evidence on him using chemical weapons was shaky in hindsight.
 
Ugh, this is asinine. I get the counter-establishment argument, but this is like a lactose-intolerant person who gets mad that almond milk gets pulled from the shelves and instead of deciding to go with soy milk (which fits the bill, but is arguably worse tasting), they would rather have diarrhea.


Almond milk is delicious, soy milk is disgusting
 
I think there's a large segment of people who feel like "If you're not willing to do what's best for you, I hope you crash and burn instead." Has nothing to do with sexism, has nothing to do with racism. It's a feeling of "if you can't see what's best for you then you deserve worse than you have now." "Take your medicine and like it, or die without it." Smug superiority, sure, but that's not sexism or racism.

To me, it does feel like they're better off than they claim they are. It's the left's equivalent of "fuck you, got mine".
 
Ugh, this is asinine. I get the counter-establishment argument, but this is like a lactose-intolerant person who gets mad that almond milk gets pulled from the shelves and instead of deciding to go with soy milk (which fits the bill, but is arguably worse tasting), they would rather have diarrhea.

I see it more as, "well, I couldn't get my first preferred date to the prom. The second option is okay, so-so, but.. I think I'll go stick my dick into a woodchipper instead."
 
Happy to discuss specific trade deals and change their terms accordingly.

I made no defense of the TPP. I am addressing the anti trade movement.

People who defend NAFTA or the TPP characterize their opponents as being "anti-trade," so much so that there has become a "movement" of these phantoms. I'm not buying it.
 
It surprises me that progressives that are supposedly defenders of common sense research are categorically against free trade in 2016.

The evidence is overwhelmingly and resoundingly against you. The entirety of the academic left disagrees, and it's up to you to decide that you would rather side with fringe dissenters with weak or non-existant empirical evidence.

Much like the anti-FED goldbugs, I suppose. How's that hyperinflation coming along?
Free trade actually has benefited Americans, it had given them low prices goods and it has created large growth in certain sectors of the economy(mainly software and business services). But most Americans don't see that, what they usually see is that xxx corporation just shipped x number of jobs overseas and x number of people lost there jobs. They see that on TV and they create an attitude that free trade doesn't benefit America.
 
* Trump isn't anti-free-trade, he's just a dude who watched a Morning Joe segment on China and came away with the Inviolable Truth that they're a currency manipulator. He will be a conventional Republican when it comes to trade.

* Not going to war? His entire raison d'être is to project strength; the idea that he won't go to war at the drop of the hat, at the slightest provocation, at the tiniest prodding by erstwhile allies, is mind-boggling to me. This is a person who has never backed down, who has always escalated, who praises himself for never apologizing. The assertion that he'd somehow be a restrained CiC is wishful thinking coming from absolutely nowhere. He'll be worse than any modern President when it comes to projection of American military power.

* Re campaign finance reform, his weaks condemnations are a transparent method of damning his political opponents and little else. He will be a conventional Republican when it comes to this issue.
 
Just what I suspected and feared. There seems to be a segment of Bernie supporters that care more about anti-establishment than the actual issues/stances.

I know there was a thread on here a little while back where some of his supporters said just this. I'll try and find it

This has been my biggest issue with the Bernie "Feel the Bern" movement and it can come back to bite
 
I've said this in every political thread recently. This exact thing scares the fuck out of me and I know it will be a problem come November.

I know more than one person who plans on voting against Hillary if they can't vote for Bernie. It's disgusting.
 
In order to convince follow Democrats that Sanders was the right choice they actively chopped down Clinton. They figured she was the real threat since Trump would never make it.

goddamn they may have fucked us all.
 
It doesn't surprise me there are SOME Bernie supporters who would have Trump as a second choice. He's been very successful in his home state for a few decades in some part because his economic message attracted people beyond just Democrats or those further to the left. If you can attract such a wide base, there's no reason to think they'll uniformly agree on a second preference.
 
I've said this in every political thread recently. This exact thing scares the fuck out of me and I know it will be a problem come November.

I know more than one person who plans on voting against Hillary if they can't vote for Bernie. It's disgusting.

don't be scared, 2008 was far, far worse in terms of the divide in the democratic party
 
I consistently, repeatedly provide the argument to this point, but the Bernie-or-Bust crowd tap dances like friggin' Sammy Davis Jr to avoid it, to the point where it's pathetic and comical.

If you're willing to hand over SCOTUS to the GOP, you're willing to sentence whole swaths of Bernie's vision to death-by-judiciary for a generation. Anything remotely controversial in this era is challenged in the judiciary. We could elect Bernie 2.0 in 2024, and as soon as the ink dries on legislation bearing his signature, the GOP-appointed judiciary would essentially exercise a veto on it.

Own-up to your willingness to kill Bernie's vision, or effectively counter this point.

Or, do like so many others have and avoid it in typical conspicuous manner. Here's your shot.

Sure, I'll take a shot. And my reply will be as simple as the post you replied to.

It's not a reason to vote for Hillary. It's a reason to not vote against your interests.

You aren't wanting to vote for Hillary to keep the SCOTUS out of Republican hands. You're simply voting against the Republicans.

You still haven't given me a reason why I would actually want to vote for Hillary, of my own free will.
 
I can kinda see the argument about disappointment in both parties. Obama's first two years he made a lot of progress on health care, but with the house and the senate in control of the Republicans, there has been total gridlock, and Obama hasn't been able to withdraw from the Middle East, or close Gitmo. He's extended the Patriot Act, been hard on whistle-blowers, and generally been kinda centre-right on a lot of security and privacy issues.

Hillary will be more of the same. Bernie seems like Obama, in that he might try and be more progressive in some areas. I mean, it really didn't seem like Obama was going to swing back so hard to the right, but he did. So Bernie is this kinda leftist hope against hope.

Trump however, isn't even liked by the Republicans. A vote for him is more like a protest vote against both parties.

It's like sports. Your team wins 50% of its games every season. You want to win 75% to get a good seed in the playoffs. You want to win 25% to get a good shot in the draft. You don't want to keep winning 50% year after year.

So yeah, trading away your two best players and handing the keys to a really horrible player isn't a good idea if you want to win. It is a great idea if you want to lose.

Chances are the lessons the Dems/Republicans take away is "more TV stars, less experience in politics!"

edit: I think it's really fucked up that the president can't appoint a judge to the supreme court, that's an entirely separate issue. I would love for Hillary to appoint Obama -but that's not gonna happen- just for the glorious meltdowns >:)
 
Yeah it can't be her hawkish foreign policy, corporate cronyism or the fact she is an expert liar.

Must be sexism, thats why all the bernie bros want Warren as VP right?

bruh, we're talking about people voting Trump or Cruz as the alternative to Hillary. You may have good reasons to pick Bernie over Hillary, but that's not what this is about, so don't try to disguise it as such. Your argument isn't going to hold up when you're talking about counter-voting with Donald fucking Trump.
 
Sure, I'll take a shot. And my reply will be as simple as the post you replied to.

It's not a reason to vote for Hillary. It's a reason to not vote against your interests.

You aren't wanting to vote for Hillary to keep the SCOTUS out of Republican hands. You're simply voting against the Republicans.

You still haven't given me a reason why I would actually want to vote for Hillary, of my own free will.

A very cutesy answer. This is a linguistic game here, but I'll spell it out for you if you insist.

Hillary will appoint jurists who will not tear-down future legislative achievements of Bernie's spiritual successors.

It is no longer enough to elect a Bernielike candidate. Part of the recipe for successfully implementing his policies is to ensure that they survive judicial review. She would be actively contributing to that recipe.
 
This idea that protectionism is the solution to all of America's economic ills is such a bizarre hill for liberalism to die upon. I get why Trump uses it as his magic bullet -- less so why the far left is so attached to it.

quirky example of how open-circle-y American politics is I guess

Because they don't quite understand what it'd mean, more than likely. The US trades in a lot of things -- electronics in general being one of the top ones, and that's an import. Bringing tariffs into the equation would multiply the cost of these electronics -- electronics that are found in just about everything, from your computer, to your microwave, to your car. The cost will go up, but it will not go up enough to drop quantity demanded enough such that it becomes profitable in a reasonable time frame to bring manufacturing back to the US.

All told, trade restrictions raise the price of most goods while providing little benefit, even in the way of jobs. It's not just electronics, of course, but food, unless further subsidized, would skyrocket in price, as well -- due primarily to the fact that any competition from outside the country would dry up(higher prices, substitution effect leans toward US produced).

"But Abstrusity," you ask, "why wouldn't it create more jobs?" The reasoning behind this is that both fixed and variable costs to business will rise, as they must pay extra for inputs sourced from outside the country -- yes, rare earth metals, for instance, to go back to electronics, are primarily received from China, for the leads and other things required in electrics and electronics. They may be produced here, but China is the primary exporter. Those prices would all go up, and without an equal or greater increase in demand, jobs will be shed. It's just a fact of life. The government could subsidize production here, but that still doesn't decrease the price enough to be competitive with China on the GLOBAL stage. So these American electronics producers would then lose out on huge market share.

Thus, with a smaller market and more expensive products, this can go one of two ways: Prices will rise further to capitalize on needs and luxury consumption, or these businesses will stop producing that good. Next stop, deflation, and with sticky wages, no less. 1930s ring a bell for anyone?
 
Sure, I'll take a shot. And my reply will be as simple as the post you replied to.

It's not a reason to vote for Hillary. It's a reason to not vote against your interests.

You aren't wanting to vote for Hillary to keep the SCOTUS out of Republican hands. You're simply voting against the Republicans.

You still haven't given me a reason why I would actually want to vote for Hillary, of my own free will.

That's because talking to you about politics seems to be like putting my hand in a wood chipper while grating my face on a brick wall thinking it's going to talk back.

The fact that you would vote for Bernie but taking the shot that the right will have majority control of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years is all that is need to be stated for who people are trying to talk to. You're a single issue voter and if you don't get that issue 100% your way you are willing to just throw it all away.
 
Are you pretending the TPP is actually a free-trade agreement? You don't need thousands of pages to proclaim that trade is now free across the entire TPP economic zone. Those thousands of pages are mainly carve-outs for every nation in TPP to ensure some aspects of the trade are not actually free for every nation, to protect their own economic interests.

Also a significant portion of TPP is dedicated mainly to expanding American corporate power over the TPP economic zone. The infamous American lifetime + 75 years copyright regime is the most glaring example of this. But also the expansion of patent protection for American pharmaceutical companies should be alarming to every country in TPP that isn't America if they like reasonably priced drugs for life-threatening illnesses.

No one is claiming expansion of trading rights is inherently bad. I'm not and I never have. But the reality is that that the way "free trade" is implemented in the real world is mainly about increasing the power of corporations and enriching the 1%. There's nothing actually free about it.

Yup, and it just adds to the damage already created by the worldwide intellectual property regime that disproportionally harms those in poverty by denying them the treatment they need to protect IP brands and values.

It's why HIV and AIDS treatments 2 or 3 million dollars depending on the timeframe of one's life.

Like I said before, the only real argument Hillary supporters can attack Sanders on without looking hypocritical due to her posturing are the small % of his supporters who won't vote for her in the GE. And even with that, she had a larger PUMA stance in 08 with Dems then Sanders does now.

Personally I won't vote for her. I refuse to vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq war and I have yet to do so. I won't vote for a GOP candidate either.

Now with the GOP declaring a open convention, Romney could get my vote.... he did bring us Obamacare =D, but I depends on how much he tries to distance himself from the Trump/Tea Party. I may get a lot of shit for this but Romney sitting out the primary to swoop in and take the contested nomination at the convention is brilliant. The main reason why he didn't win last time was because he had to move hard right in the primary, holding him to base idealogy. If you look at his record as governor of Mass, it is a lot closer to Hillary then she is to Sanders, especially in foreign policy and wall street. If only he wasn't a batshit Mormon...

Part of me thinks Romney and Clinton are the same identical political animal that will say and do anything to become president. The difference is one voted for the Iraq war and one couldn't. I Don't exactly know how I feel about that.
 
You can find people on this forum that say the same thing. Still cannot work out if they are trolling

It's almost equally bad when people say they wont vote AT ALL if Clinton gets the nom. The absence of vote is still a plus 1 for trump since his campaign is built on a fanaticism that creates large turn out. Trumps existence is making more people vote in general

Trump is good at emboldening these people but Trump has shown that he is very cheap in hiring the people necessary to reach out to voters.

So much of his actual base want to vote but can't because they won't get the help needed to ensure they register to vote before the deadline is reached.

Trump has a structural flaw as well as a demographics and likeability flaw. He's shown no signs of fixing any of them so far.
 
A very cutesy answer. This is a linguistic game here, but I'll spell it out for you if you insist.

Hillary will appoint jurists who will not tear-down future legislative achievements of Bernie's spiritual successors.

It is no longer enough to elect a Bernielike candidate. Part of the recipe for successfully implementing his policies is to ensure that they survive judicial review. She would be actively contributing to that recipe.

Will this argument change if Obama is actually able to ram a Supreme Court Justice nominee through and have him or her reach the Court this year? We still got a lot of time left on Obama's clock you know.

That's because talking to you about politics seems to be like putting my hand in a wood chipper while grating my face on a brick wall thinking it's going to talk back.

The fact that you would vote for Bernie but taking the shot that the right will have majority control of the Supreme Court for the next 40 years is all that is need to be stated for who people are trying to talk to. You're a single issue voter and if you don't get that issue 100% your way you are willing to just throw it all away.

This is pretty funny, I feel the same way when trying to talk with some of the diehard Hillary supporters on this forum. Especially the ones who are taking it for granted that Obama isn't going to try to get a Justice to SCOTUS before his term expires, like it's literally Hillary or nothing to save the SCOTUS from the Republicans because Obama is just going to let it happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom