I’ve become pretty skeptical we know where the majority is. The question determines the outcome of the survey. The measuring stick is flawed and error bars are many times larger than the difference being measured. Frankly, the thing being measured has more dimensions than are being measured.
And it’s worth remembering how the party got here. The left and labor coalition failed to beat Nixon twice, Ford’s losing had little to do with the left, and it utterly fell apart against Reagan. The Democrats only started to get traction at the national level by going to the center, using the DLC playbook. I’m as angry about the abandonment of labor by the Democratic party as anyone, but the reason for it is not a mystery. By the same token if the left doesn’t build the structure for a more left leaning Democratic party to operate no one should expect the party to move.
The hard thing is, I don’t know what that structure looks like, but it’s not enough to be “correct”.
Certainly not in numbers that got him nominated. And of course the DNC boogyman that is fronted here had nothing to do with that turn out whatsoever. The superdelegates didn’t even matter his numbers were so low and she beat him by a factor of two in Texas. So much for the canard of progressiveness in red states.
Hey look it’s old info that came out before all the stuff I linked!
Cool find, but there’s the entire rigging of the primary by the DNC (who don’t legally have to show legitimate vote counts) that you seem to have missed.
Go read my links and catch up with the rest of us.
If you don’t feel like engaging with reality and whining at me then I’m done here
I did read your links, they reflect the reality that Bernie didn’t have enough votes, particularly in red states. Conspiracy theories and upset delegates simply cannot paper over that.
I’ve become pretty skeptical we know where the majority is. The question determines the outcome of the survey. The measuring stick is flawed and error bars are many times larger than the difference being measured. Frankly, the thing being measured has more dimensions than are being measured.
And it’s worth remembering how the party got here. The left and labor coalition failed to beat Nixon twice, Ford’s losing had little to do with the left, and it utterly fell apart against Reagan. The Democrats only started to get traction at the national level by going to the center, using the DLC playbook. I’m as angry about the abandonment of labor by the Democratic party as anyone, but the reason for it is not a mystery. By the same token if the left doesn’t build the structure for a more left leaning Democratic party to operate no one should expect the party to move.
The hard thing is, I don’t know what that structure looks like, but it’s not enough to be “correct”.
YOU’RE skeptical.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/27/majority-of-americans-support-progressive-policies-such-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html
Stop projecting because you are too lazy to go learn about the world around you.
I’ve read it. Many times from many outlets reporting on more than one survey. The first time I found it comforting.
However it’s not hard to find conflicting data. Methodology determines outcomes of these surveys, every time.
Today I’m less comforted. But ultimately, for what it’s worth, I don’t think we’re that far apart.
deleted by creator
Saving. That survey is hard to find if you don’t search the right terms.
And yet they would not turn out to nominate Bernie… Talk about lazy.
They did vote for him
So much so that the DNC threatened him into dropping out. The emails from the DNC got out and it caused the head of the DNC to resign in shame.
This is public information that you should probably have already known.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sanders-supporters-walk-off-convention-floor-blame-rigged-system-for-his-loss
Certainly not in numbers that got him nominated. And of course the DNC boogyman that is fronted here had nothing to do with that turn out whatsoever. The superdelegates didn’t even matter his numbers were so low and she beat him by a factor of two in Texas. So much for the canard of progressiveness in red states.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html
Hey look it’s old info that came out before all the stuff I linked!
Cool find, but there’s the entire rigging of the primary by the DNC (who don’t legally have to show legitimate vote counts) that you seem to have missed.
Go read my links and catch up with the rest of us.
If you don’t feel like engaging with reality and whining at me then I’m done here
I did read your links, they reflect the reality that Bernie didn’t have enough votes, particularly in red states. Conspiracy theories and upset delegates simply cannot paper over that.
Ok bye
Hey I know the feeling and voted for the guy; it’s a damn shame Clinton doubled his vote share here.