Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

[Padawanbater2]

So what do you think his underlying agenda is with all this twisting of the facts? He's obviously completely misrepresenting Bernie's record and positions in order to stuff him into some prefabricated box.

Why?

And why do it with the one sitting politician closest to his own espoused political positions?

Is he just terrified of the threat to the establishment Democratic Party? And why would he think that's a bad thing?

The denial and disbelief of mainstream Democrats after the Chump won the election strikes me as unreal- as in, they refuse to recognize the realities of what they did and how they've failed to make their case to the voters they say they they speak for. The disconnect is palpable to me. They NEED to be shaken up and if it takes an outside insurgent campaign to do it, so what?

I think he genuinely believes, despite the evidence, Sanders supporters were somehow responsible for Clinton's loss, so I'm sure there is a fair amount of resentment and spite entering into the equation. That's most likely his motive overall. The reason he uses the smear tactics is because Sanders has a solid progressive record any way you slice it (which is why GOP attacks would have been extremely weak against him), and arguing against it is difficult, especially if you're trying to make the case that it proves he's "socially conservative". I would also guess he gets a fair amount of his info from MSNBC, the Democratic establishment propaganda network in the same way Fox News is the Republican establishment propaganda network. I've seen 3 different arguments pretty much word for word as Fogdog has argued them from Joy Reed and Howard Dean. Not very creative..

And I'm sure, now, he's pretending like he's always supported Sanders and his positions because he's extremely popular among progressives - and he claims he's progressive.

 

[Justin-case]

I think he genuinely believes, despite the evidence, Sanders supporters were somehow responsible for Clinton's loss, so I'm sure there is a fair amount of resentment and spite entering into the equation. That's most likely his motive overall. The reason he uses the smear tactics is because Sanders has a solid progressive record any way you slice it (which is why GOP attacks would have been extremely weak against him), and arguing against it is difficult, especially if you're trying to make the case that it proves he's "socially conservative". I would also guess he gets a fair amount of his info from MSNBC, the Democratic establishment propaganda network in the same way Fox News is the Republican establishment propaganda network. I've seen 3 different arguments pretty much word for word as Fogdog has argued them from Joy Reed and Howard Dean. Not very creative..

And I'm sure, now, he's pretending like he's always supported Sanders and his positions because he's extremely popular among progressives - and he claims he's progressive.

Good job, you should post a you tube vid to really drive your point home.

 

[Fogdog]

Im a moderate republican? You diagnosed after reading a dozen or so posts of mine on 3 topics?

Man did you miss. By american liberal/democrat standards i am a full blown communist.

My first reaction when I meet a jerk is to lump them in with the group that contains most of the ones I met before. You may be a communist jerk or a liberal jerk. Most of the jerks I know are Republicans. They talk about minorities the same way too. You'll have to excuse me if I'm wrong. It's completely possible that you are a different kind of jerk.

I'm so glad you told me about minorities being coddled. I've only heard of that from racist jerks, not that I know you are racist. Because you know, racism in the US has nothing to do with color.

tty and pad think they are radical leftists too. LOL

 

[Fogdog]

I think he genuinely believes, despite the evidence, Sanders supporters were somehow responsible for Clinton's loss, so I'm sure there is a fair amount of resentment and spite entering into the equation. That's most likely his motive overall. The reason he uses the smear tactics is because Sanders has a solid progressive record any way you slice it (which is why GOP attacks would have been extremely weak against him), and arguing against it is difficult, especially if you're trying to make the case that it proves he's "socially conservative". I would also guess he gets a fair amount of his info from MSNBC, the Democratic establishment propaganda network in the same way Fox News is the Republican establishment propaganda network. I've seen 3 different arguments pretty much word for word as Fogdog has argued them from Joy Reed and Howard Dean. Not very creative..

And I'm sure, now, he's pretending like he's always supported Sanders and his positions because he's extremely popular among progressives - and he claims he's progressive.

I've said it many times, it was Clinton's job to convince Sanders voters to vote for her. I first cast blame for losing the election on her. She wasn't a good candidate and as Sanders said, people are tired of political correctness. "They were exhausted after 8 years of Obama". That said, 12% who voted for Sanders also voted for Trump. Some argue that their votes turned the election but I'm not going there.

Can you explain from your perspective why Sanders did not get more than 20% of the African American vote and only 35% of the Hispanic American vote? I'll be disappointed if you say it was because rigged. I hope you don't break that direction.

 

[Gquebed]

My first reaction when I meet a jerk is to lump them in with the group that contains most of the ones I met before. You may be a communist jerk or a liberal jerk. Most of the jerks I know are Republicans. They talk about minorities the same way too. You'll have to excuse me if I'm wrong. It's completely possible that you are a different kind of jerk.

I'm so glad you told me about minorities being coddled. I've only heard of that from racist jerks, not that I know you are racist. Because you know, racism in the US has nothing to do with color.

tty and pad think they are radical leftists too. LOL

There you go again... claiming i said something that i didnt....becuse you know nobody will find the posts that make you a flat out liar.

I never said racism in the US has nothing to do with colour. I said racism is found in all colours. Every race has racists who discriminate against other colours. I went to great pains to make that clear in several posts several different ways. I listed a handfull of examples and you found only one example that you disputed, pathetically.

But you are either to stupid to understand that or you refuse to and twist it so you can label me a racist.

Who is the jerk?

 

[Gquebed]

Can you explain from your perspective why Sanders did not get more than 20% of the African American vote and only 35% of the Hispanic American vote? .

Can you name any democrat or repub who had more support from the black and hispanic, aside from Obama?

Suddenly the word "only" in your post appears grossly out of place.

 

[Fogdog]

So what do you think his underlying agenda is with all this twisting of the facts? He's obviously completely misrepresenting Bernie's record and positions in order to stuff him into some prefabricated box.

Why?

And why do it with the one sitting politician closest to his own espoused political positions?

Is he just terrified of the threat to the establishment Democratic Party? And why would he think that's a bad thing?

The denial and disbelief of mainstream Democrats after the Chump won the election strikes me as unreal- as in, they refuse to recognize the realities of what they did and how they've failed to make their case to the voters they say they they speak for. The disconnect is palpable to me. They NEED to be shaken up and if it takes an outside insurgent campaign to do it, so what?

Dude, Sanders has all along been the white man's candidate. The primary post election polls show very clearly that he did not have support of African Americans or Hispanic Americans. It's not exactly a leap of faith to say he's never had much support nor given much support to those groups. His voting record is good no minority rights but he's never shown leadership in this area.

I think you are over-estimating your guy regarding "shake up Democrats". From what he's said, issues you think are a lock aren't. Like single payer healthcare. He's going to submit a bill but it's not going anywhere until control of Congress passes to Democrats and some Republicans come on board with the idea. He's as much said that too.

Except for campaign finance reform. I think he's solid on that policy issue. And even that is going to be a real fight to get passed. Not because of Democrats but because of Republican resistance. But here, it's possible to divide Republicans. Which would be nice.

"Our Revolution" reform policies are good liberal policies but they aren't new or particularly radical left wing policies.

This is where you call me a hypocrite.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I've said it many times, it was Clinton's job to convince Sanders voters to vote for her. I first cast blame for losing the election on her. She wasn't a good candidate and as Sanders said, people are tired of political correctness. They were exhausted after 8 years of Obama. That said, 12% who voted for Sanders also voted for Trump. Some argue that their votes turned the election but I'm not going there.

Can you explain from your perspective why Sanders did not get more than 20% of the African American vote and only 35% of the Hispanic American vote? I'll be disappointed if you say it was because rigged. I hope you don't break that direction.

Because African American voters tend to be moderate. Look at the demographics, Sanders did well with younger people across the board. Because of name recognition at the time. Because of Democratic establishment propaganda. Probably a combination of reasons, none of them being because his policies aren't supported by minority communities or they don't benefit minority communities, as you suggest

 

[Fogdog]

Can you name any democrat or repub who got had support from the black and hispanic, aside from Obama?

Suddenly the word "only" in your post appears grossly out of place.

Are you stupid or ignorant or both? There isn't even doubt that Hispanic Americans and African Americans support Democratic party candidates. Republicans have even been caught out in court for gerrymandering districts to fence in Hispanic and African Americans by drawing contorted district lines according racial lines.

Hillary Clinton pulled about 75% of the African American vote in the primary and 88% of the African American vote in the general election.

I can't find numbers on Hispanic vote for the primary. Clinton pulled about 65% of the Hispanic vote in general election.

Coddled minorities. (not even a dog whistle, full on racist BS). I'm not speaking for minorities anywhere else but African Americans endure racism in one form or another in most cities and most any time of day. Driving while black can be a fatal act.

Your passport photos. Probably the most interesting thing you've said since you started posting. That was boring though.

 

[Gquebed]

Are you stupid or ignorant or both? There isn't even doubt that Hispanic Americans and African Americans support Democratic party candidates. Republicans have even been caught out in court for gerrymandering districts to fence in Hispanic and African Americans by drawing contorted district lines according racial lines.

Hillary Clinton pulled about 75% of the African American vote in the primary and 88% of the African American vote in the general election.

I can't find numbers on Hispanic vote for the primary. Clinton pulled about 65% of the Hispanic vote in general election.

Coddled minorities. (not even a dog whistle, full on racist BS). I'm not speaking for minorities anywhere else but African Americans endure racism in one form or another in most cities and most any time of day. Driving while black can be a fatal act.

Your passport photos. Probably the most interesting thing you've said since you started posting. That was boring though.

Nope.
C) Im high. I thought i read that you were disputing the multi racial support for Bernie.

But see... thats the problem with you... you swing both ways so often its hard to tell what youre saying...

Hypocrisy tends to do that. As does flat out lying...

 

[Fogdog]

Because African American voters tend to be moderate. Look at the demographics, Sanders did well with younger people across the board. Because of name recognition at the time. Because of Democratic establishment propaganda. Probably a combination of reasons, none of them being because his policies aren't supported by minority communities or they don't benefit minority communities, as you suggest

I agree with this mostly.

What Democratic propaganda are you talking about? Examples you can point to? Please don't tell me you still think there was a smear campaign in West VA.

Bernie didn't do much outreaching to African American or Latino communities. He made a few gaffes when he did (re: Flint MI). That might be something to consider. I do say that it was Clinton's job to convince Sanders voters to vote for her in the general election. I can't see any benefit in crying over 12% who didn't and voted for Trump. It was Clinton's job to win their vote and she did not.

Can we not say the same for Bernie? Nobody can win the nomination without winning a majority of the African American and Hispanic American vote. It was Bernie's job to win their vote and he didn't even come close. I don't give room for Clinton to make excuses. Why should I give Bernie room too?

I don't disagree with your analysis that African Americans (older ones) tend to more moderate and pragmatic positions. The thing is, Bernie's policies didn't seem all that wildly risky, do they seem that way to you?

 

[Fogdog]

Nope.
C) Im high. I thought i read that you were disputing the multi racial support for Bernie.

But see... thats the problem with you... you swing both ways so often its hard to tell what youre saying...

Hypocrisy tends to do that.

You said: "Can you name any democrat or repub who got had support from the black and hispanic, aside from Obama?"

Citing facts that prove otherwise is hypocritical?

Bernie did not have multi racial support in 2016. He was completely taken out of the race in California by a big loss in the latino vote. Nationwide and especially in the South, Bernie barely managed more than 20% of the African American vote.

Approve/disapprove or "like"/"dislike" polls where one person is named and approval or disapproval is registered aren't good at predicting an election. Indisputably, Sanders is doing well in opinion polls. Elections are the only polls that matter.

Now, about that coddling you think African Americans experience. Exactly what coddling do you claim we are committing?

The whole 10 minutes is great. At 7:50, Jon sums up a very good perspective about how African Americans in this country face obstacles every day with grace and understanding that white people never experience.

 

[Padawanbater2]

What Democratic propaganda are you talking about?

Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours
Behind The Media Surge Against Bernie Sanders
The New York Times, bias and Hillary Clinton

Bernie didn't do much outreaching to African American or Latino communities. He made a few gaffes when he did (re: Flint MI). That might be something to consider. I do say that it was Clinton's job to convince Sanders voters to vote for her in the general election. I can't see any benefit in crying over 12% who didn't and voted for Trump. It was Clinton's job to win their vote and she did not.

Can we not say the same for Bernie? Nobody can win the nomination without winning a majority of the African American and Hispanic American vote. It was Bernie's job to win their vote and he didn't even come close. I don't give room for Clinton to make excuses. Why should I give Bernie room too?

Clinton failed to win over many progressive voters because she didn't have strong policy positions on the things that mattered the most to them, like campaign finance reform or universal healthcare. The same cannot be said for Bernie Sanders or the policy positions he espoused during the primary. Of course he shares in the blame of not creating a message that resonated with minority communities, but on policy, I don't think you can argue his positions wouldn't benefit them.

I don't disagree with your analysis that African Americans (older ones) tend to more moderate and pragmatic positions. The thing is, Bernie's policies didn't seem all that wildly risky, do they seem that way to you?

You've held that his position on universal healthcare is in fact "wildly risky", that the American people don't support it despite the poll numbers. I don't think adopting a system of universal coverage is all that risky, every other major country on Earth has one, so I'd say it's pretty standard. But Sanders is a Jewish atheist/agnostic, that matters to someone whose religious. I believe a majority of African Americans hold some form of religion, many of them Southern Baptists. Hence the suggestion from the DNC leadership to smear him in WV for it to garner more votes for Clinton. It wouldn't have even been brought up if there were no basis for it to begin with. Keep in mind, African Americans in CA were primarily responsible for the passing of Proposition 8.

 

[Fogdog]

@Padawanbater2

You ask: Why do I vote for politicians who don't address systematic racism in their policies?

I don't know of any presidential candidates other than Obama who did. I always vote. So, I plead guilty of voting for candidates who didn't address systematic racism. Along with about a hundred million other people. Black, brown and white.

Too many people died for my right to vote and I won't disrespect them by not voting or wasting my vote. Clinton wasn't great on this issue but much better than Trump. So I voted for Clinton. Not this reason alone but it was a big factor.

I remind you that I voted for Bernie. Regarding racial policies, I thought he was a wash with Clinton. To me, voting is about making a choice. Not about litmus tests. I will always vote and so I always have to make a choice. I will consider him when/if the time comes. He's not running for an office at this time, so my "support" is for his policies, not the man.

He's said some things recently that have caused me to change my mind about his trustworthiness regarding racial politics. This is of no matter to anybody else. Or shouldn't be.

Believe it or not, I've enjoyed the passionate dialogue this day. I hope you and tty had fun too.

Something else I've noticed. A small detail that made an interesting difference to me.

You rarely if ever use the word hypocrite. I try not to use the word myself. In this regard you are better than me.

 

[Fogdog]

Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours
Behind The Media Surge Against Bernie Sanders
The New York Times, bias and Hillary Clinton

Regarding "evidence of propaganda". Do you regard those articles as evidence of a widespread propaganda campaign? It doesn't look like that to me. The first one is an observation that is true. On that day 16 negative articles were printed about Sanders. From WaPo. Overall, Clinton had many times more negative stories in 2015 and 2016 printed about her than did Sanders. This one day during the campaign was a bad one for Sanders. I don't see this as evidence of a propaganda campaign.

Regarding the second article. That wasn't even published during the campaign. It came a year later. So, it's not evidence of propaganda during the primary. Toss it.

The third one. Claims bias against Bernie. I read it. Yeah, the Times printed some stories that the guy didn't like. Were they false? Nope. Is the Times in fact biased against Bernie? I saw a complaint but not convinced. It is true that NY Times ran more articles about Clinton in 2015. So, OK. I'll buy that the Time was biased in number of stories towards Clinton in 2015. A lot of those stories in 2015 about Clinton were negative. I don't have the breakdown on the Times specifically although stories about Benghazi and the e-mail scandal had to account for a large number of them.

Clinton got more media attention in 2015 than Sanders. She got way more negative attention. I don't see how this is proof of a propaganda campaign. Media bias towards Clinton? Yes but not in a good way.

It's late. I'll deal with the other stuff tomorrow.

 

[Padawanbater2]

@Padawanbater2

You ask: Why do I vote for politicians who don't address systematic racism in their policies?

I don't know of any presidential candidates other than Obama who did.

Can you explain why you feel president Obama succeeded in addressing systemic racism? What did he do differently than, Bill Clinton for instance? Clinton had a significantly high approval rating among African Americans while in office, what do you attribute that to, especially in light of harsher criminal justice sentencing and welfare reform?

I feel like both, Clinton and Sanders espoused policy positions during the primary that addressed the issue of racism effectively. I'm curious why you feel differently?

I always vote. So, I plead guilty of voting for candidates who didn't address systemic racism. Along with about a hundred million other people. Black, brown and white.

Too many people died for my right to vote and I won't disrespect them by not voting or wasting my vote. Clinton wasn't great on this issue but much better than Trump. So I voted for Clinton. Not this reason alone but it was a big factor.

How do you believe Clinton's message was lacking in regards to addressing systemic racism?

I remind you that I voted for Bernie. Regarding racial policies, I thought he was a wash with Clinton. To me, voting is about making a choice. Not about litmus tests. I will always vote and so I always have to make a choice. I will consider him when/if the time comes. He's not running for an office at this time, so my "support" is for his policies, not the man.

Pretty much agree

Believe it or not, I've enjoyed the passionate dialogue this day. I hope you and tty had fun too.

Why do you think it was more enjoyable than usual?

Something else I've noticed. A small detail that made an interesting difference to me.

You rarely if ever use the word hypocrite. I try not to use the word myself. In this regard you are better than me.

We have to be able to talk about these things honestly

 

[Padawanbater2]

Regarding "evidence of propaganda". Do you regard those articles as evidence of a widespread propaganda campaign? It doesn't look like that to me.

What do you mean by "a widespread propaganda campaign"?

It became apparent to me midway through the primary the mainstream media coverage that focused on the Democratic primary always gave the edge to Clinton in some way. This is all anecdotal evidence and my own personal observations, but as that third story mentioned, it was subtle things;

"Consider the headlines on the paper's stories about the four Democratic candidates debates to date:

Oct. 13: Hillary Clinton Turns Up Heat on Bernie Sanders in a Sharp Debate
Nov. 14: Rivals at Democratic Debate Attack Hillary Clinton
Dec. 19: In Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton's Focus Is on G.O.P.
Jan. 17: In Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton Challenges Bernie Sanders on Policy Shifts

In addition to dominating the headlines, Clinton's name led off all four stories. Three of the four gave her the last word, as well."

Things like adding the superdelegate number to the total pledged delegate count when they hadn't pledged yet, pushing the idea that the primary was already over after super Tuesday, etc. There are many different ways the media, as well as the DNC, were biased against Sanders in favor of Clinton during the primary.

If you're asking if I think it was an active conspiracy involving multiple mainstream media outlets devised by a central authority for the sole purpose of getting Hillary Clinton elected.. then no, of course not.

 

[SneekyNinja]

What do you mean by "a widespread propaganda campaign"?

It became apparent to me midway through the primary the mainstream media coverage that focused on the Democratic primary always gave the edge to Clinton in some way. This is all anecdotal evidence and my own personal observations, but as that third story mentioned, it was subtle things;

"Consider the headlines on the paper's stories about the four Democratic candidates debates to date:

Oct. 13: Hillary Clinton Turns Up Heat on Bernie Sanders in a Sharp Debate
Nov. 14: Rivals at Democratic Debate Attack Hillary Clinton
Dec. 19: In Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton's Focus Is on G.O.P.
Jan. 17: In Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton Challenges Bernie Sanders on Policy Shifts

In addition to dominating the headlines, Clinton's name led off all four stories. Three of the four gave her the last word, as well."

Things like adding the superdelegate number to the total pledged delegate count when they hadn't pledged yet, pushing the idea that the primary was already over after super Tuesday, etc. There are many different ways the media, as well as the DNC, were biased against Sanders in favor of Clinton during the primary.

If you're asking if I think it was an active conspiracy involving multiple mainstream media outlets devised by a central authority for the sole purpose of getting Hillary Clinton elected.. then no, of course not.

She'd a 12% lead amongst Democrat voters excluding super delegates...

The Primary was over, Bernie lost fair and square.

Hillary then won the popular vote in the election by between 3 and 4%.

And yet here you people who claim to be Democrats are not saying anything about the Electoral College and saying Clinton was a shitty candidate despite the fact in every other country in the world she'd have been elected.

EC has given us two Republican presidents against the popular vote in 20 years but you idiots keep ignoring it and blaming Clinton.

 

[st0wandgrow]

But Sanders is a Jewish atheist/agnostic, that matters to someone whose religious. I believe a majority of African Americans hold some form of religion, many of them Southern Baptists. Hence the suggestion from the DNC leadership to smear him in WV for it to garner more votes for Clinton. It wouldn't have even been brought up if there were no basis for it to begin with. Keep in mind, African Americans in CA were primarily responsible for the passing of Proposition 8.

I agree with this 100%. I was ripped by the ball washer crew relentlessly for saying it, but I believe it none the less.

 

[Fogdog]

What do you mean by "a widespread propaganda campaign"?

It became apparent to me midway through the primary the mainstream media coverage that focused on the Democratic primary always gave the edge to Clinton in some way. This is all anecdotal evidence and my own personal observations, but as that third story mentioned, it was subtle things;

"Consider the headlines on the paper's stories about the four Democratic candidates debates to date:

Oct. 13: Hillary Clinton Turns Up Heat on Bernie Sanders in a Sharp Debate
Nov. 14: Rivals at Democratic Debate Attack Hillary Clinton
Dec. 19: In Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton's Focus Is on G.O.P.
Jan. 17: In Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton Challenges Bernie Sanders on Policy Shifts

In addition to dominating the headlines, Clinton's name led off all four stories. Three of the four gave her the last word, as well."

Things like adding the superdelegate number to the total pledged delegate count when they hadn't pledged yet, pushing the idea that the primary was already over after super Tuesday, etc. There are many different ways the media, as well as the DNC, were biased against Sanders in favor of Clinton during the primary.

If you're asking if I think it was an active conspiracy involving multiple mainstream media outlets devised by a central authority for the sole purpose of getting Hillary Clinton elected.. then no, of course not.

You were calling media attention given to Sanders as propaganda. Now you are pointing at individual stories. Are you then agreeing that there wasn't a propaganda campaign against Sanders?

Yes, she got more media attention. Do we need to pull up old discussions on this? The chart shows in blue the percentage of all major media stories during primaries devoted to issues that each candidate received. Practically every story printed about Clinton that covered an issue was negative in tone.

Yes, a candidate who had been in the public arena at the national level for 30 years received more media attention than the senator from Vermont who was not well known until the summer of 2015. 85% of the time, the story was negative. When Sanders got coverage, 85% of the time it was good.

The recent stories, such as the ballpark shooter who had spent time working for Sanders campaign and the ongoing investigation into something his wife did. They sound pretty much like the same stuff Clinton got non stop by the right wing cottage industry that grew up around her. Perhaps they are looking for work. Not only that but the investigation was triggered by his Vermont Republican Senator-rival. The first one was pretty flimsy and the second one I don't think will go anywhere either. If you want to point at those single articles as bad, I have to ask how much bad press is Sanders really getting compared to favorable? I can cite plenty of positive stories about Sanders too. Where do you want to go with this?