Would Bernie supporters still be as terrible if it was Warren vs Sanders?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:03:00 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Would Bernie supporters still be as terrible if it was Warren vs Sanders?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Poll
Question: Let's assume Clinton never ran, and instead Warren and Bernie faced off. Would Bernie supporters still be as insufferable / delusional?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
#3
Slightly less, but still intolerable
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 54

Author Topic: Would Bernie supporters still be as terrible if it was Warren vs Sanders?  (Read 1378 times)
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 24, 2016, 09:39:26 PM »
« edited: April 24, 2016, 09:41:22 PM by Virginia »

What if it was Warren, or someone else respectable instead of Clinton? Think about it - Clinton makes the perfect villain for bernbots. Endless vectors to attack her from and lots of cover for them to spew hate 24/7. It makes me wonder if they are only so disgusting right now because Clinton is, well, Clinton. Also please be aware I'm not calling all bernie supporters crazed delusional lunatics, obviously, but we all know there are many of them.

If you haven't noticed, I didn't pay much attention to the 2008 election at all, so I'm unaware of how competitive Democratic primaries usually play out. Clinton has so many weaknesses that I have to wonder if the hate of her is unique, or if it would generally be applied in similar fashion to the opposition candidate(s) no matter what.

Discussion is mandatory!
Logged
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2016, 09:41:31 PM »

Probably. There wouldn't be as many of them, though, and Sanders likely wouldn't have run against Warren.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2016, 09:42:40 PM »

Probably. There wouldn't be as many of them, though, and Sanders likely wouldn't have run against Warren.

It does not have to be Warren - Someone else respectable would also fit my question, but for argument's sake, let us just assume that scenario did happen.
Logged
YPestis25
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,372


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2016, 09:43:37 PM »

Eh, probably a bit less. I think most of the perception of large amounts of vitriol has less to do with Hillary Clinton, though that certainly plays a part, and more to do with many of Bernie's supporters being big social media users so their opinions are much more easily broadcast, than say Hillary's older voter base.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2016, 09:43:57 PM »

I can't imagine a scenario where Bernie and Warren would run against each other.

Otherwise, if it was Bernie vs. some generic mainstream Democrat, I think some people could get nasty (that's true for every campaign). That said, complete Blue Dogs aside, there are few candidates that provide as many openings for criticism as Hillary.
Logged
Oak Hills
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2016, 09:45:40 PM »

Probably. There wouldn't be as many of them, though, and Sanders likely wouldn't have run against Warren.

Well for argument's sake, let us just assume that scenario did happen. In fact, it does not have to be Warren. Someone else respectable would also fit my question.

I'll expand on my earlier comment. I imagine that all insurgent campaigns attract insufferable supporters who make a lot of noise. Really, I think those people would act like that with Sanders running against any "establishment" figure.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2016, 09:48:20 PM »

If Bernie's opponent wasn't so terrible, there wouldn't be as much criticism of his opponent. Also, Hillary tends to run negative campaigns. If was Bernie vs. O'Malley, it would be a much more positive election.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2016, 09:55:48 PM »

If Bernie's opponent wasn't so terrible, there wouldn't be as much criticism of his opponent. Also, Hillary tends to run negative campaigns. If was Bernie vs. O'Malley, it would be a much more positive election.

Maybe, but I don't mean the campaigns/elections themselves. I mean the supporters.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2016, 09:57:43 PM »

Of course. They'd be calling her a neoliberal shill, using gendered slurs against her, dismissing her as unqualified, denouncing her as a neocon warmongerer... it's all about angry masculine hatred and resentment with these kids.
Logged
psychprofessor
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,293


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2016, 09:59:09 PM »

The media never let Hillary and her surrogates get away with any perceived racial undertones from her campaign in 2008. The media has let Sanders and his campaign get away with racial undertones throughout this entire cycle.

For hypothetical sake - if Obama was running his 2008 campaign now against Bernie, he would go after him for Wall Street and fundraising. I don't think the media would let Bernie off the hook with all of those "the south votes don't matter" mantras.

I also think some of Sanders' supporters traffic in sexism, which wouldn't be an issue if he were running against a male.

But I think underlying all of this is a basic arrogance that Sanders and his supporters have that they are the true purists. And that arrogance would have come across against anyone, no matter who he was running against. Remember, he didn't think Obama was progressive enough in 2012, so essentially, no one is really to the left of Sanders economically in the Senate, so I think he would have attacked whoever was running. It jus happened to be Clinton this time.
Logged
Lyin' Steve
SteveMcQueen
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,310


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2016, 09:59:47 PM »

Yeah they would be worse.  As you point out, the Sanders campaign likely wouldn't want to run against Warren because she's too ideologically close and difficult to criticize.  So if they did both run, Sanders would have to find a way to ideologically distance himself from her and criticize her, which would almost certainly involve lurching even further to the left, perhaps fully embracing socialist figures like Fidel Castro the way he did in the 1980s, and instead of just a bunch of self-righteous occupy-lite supporters you'd have a bunch of self-righteous communist-lite supporters.

For example, he might propose seizing the assets of Wall Street executives and employees of Goldman Sachs, Countrywide, AIG, etc. who were proven after audit to have made decisions leading to the subprime mortgage crisis, and using those assets to pay back investors or whatever.  Maybe he'd propose giving everyone who went bankrupt due to the crisis the option to reset to a 620 credit rating.  Both of those are idiotic ideas that Warren would never go along with, but they would also appeal to Bernie's base.  So we'd get basically the same scenario we have now, where Bernie runs to the left and hits his opponent by saying the only reason she doesn't agree with him is because she's too close to Wall Street.  The main difference would be that his insufferable supporters and irritating rhetoric would be defending and promoting even more boneheaded policies than what he has now.  As psychprofessor said, this would become the true purism, because that's Bernie's brand, and he would still get 30-40% of the far left, because those are the true purists, and they would go along with whatever he said and behave exactly as they do now.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2016, 10:13:27 PM »

I won't address the fact that not all of us are horrible. Tongue Anyway, Warren vs. Sanders would be a tough race to predict, since they'd attract a very similar contingency, and I'm not positive who Clinton's supporters would be backing (more would probably be backing Warren, just a guess.) Still, just about any long, drawn-out primary brings out the worst in both sides, and I'm pretty sure no matter who Sanders' opponent was, we'd see some awful Sanders supporters. The 2008 election was the first one I could vote in, and I can tell you, it was much nastier than this one, even though Obama and Clinton are ideologically even more similar than Sanders and Clinton.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2016, 10:24:38 PM »

Bernie would not have run if Warren did.

But if for whatever reason he did, yes, the insufferable ones would've been just as insufferable. The undercurrent of sexism would still be there. They'd call her a corporate shill, attack her for being a Republican in the 90s, or for lying about being a Native American (they use right wing talking points against Hillary, why not Warren too?)
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2016, 11:33:24 PM »

Bernie would not have run if Warren did.

But if for whatever reason he did, yes, the insufferable ones would've been just as insufferable. The undercurrent of sexism would still be there. They'd call her a corporate shill, attack her for being a Republican in the 90s, or for lying about being a Native American (they use right wing talking points against Hillary, why not Warren too?)

Do you have a source (not that I don't believe you)?

Voted no in the poll.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2016, 12:32:43 AM »

If Bernie's opponent wasn't so terrible, there wouldn't be as much criticism of his opponent. Also, Hillary tends to run negative campaigns. If was Bernie vs. O'Malley, it would be a much more positive election.

Maybe, but I don't mean the campaigns/elections themselves. I mean the supporters.

I was mostly talking about the supporters. Anyone who thinks that Bernie is running a particularly negative campaign is seriously deluded.
Logged
RaphaelDLG
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,688
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2016, 01:56:23 AM »

You can attack Warren for being too left-wing but you can't really attack her in any sane way as being too right-wing, and she less baggage than Hillary, so yes, she would be much, much less criticized by Sanders' supporters, though some level of illogical sexist criticism is inevitable.
Logged
dax00
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,422


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2016, 02:04:32 AM »

I certainly wouldn't be as up-in-arms. I would have loved for it to have been a Warren v Sanders race. I would be fully supporting either Warren or Sanders for the DNC nomination. Warren is a great person, unlike the hag.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2016, 02:12:11 AM »
« Edited: April 25, 2016, 02:16:01 AM by Ogre Mage »

In a Warren vs. Sanders race, the majority of establishment support would likely move towards Warren and as a result she would immediately be tagged as corrupt by the Sandernistas crowd.  Warren doesn't have the decades of political battles scars and baggage that Clinton does so it is true there would be less in her past to attack.  But in some ways it would actually be more vicious because Warren and Sanders are quite close on the issues, so the differences would most likely be about leadership style and personality.  That kind of debate can get REALLY nasty.  And of course she would be subject to the sexist attacks that Clinton endured.

Because she is new to politics, Warren would be open to charges about her readiness for the presidency in a way Clinton isn't.  Sanders' "unqualified" charge flopped against Clinton badly because her political experience has been so longstanding and high-profile in the national consciousness, but that isn't true with Warren.  The "not ready for prime time" attack might work against Warren and it could potentially be even more damaging against a younger woman like Kirsten Gillibrand.  Various research has suggested that female candidates for high political office have a higher bar to clear in terms of public perception of their readiness.  For all her other problems, Clinton is unique in that she is virtually immune to this attack.
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,117
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2016, 09:48:11 AM »

It is very rare to find a terrible Sanders' supporter or a Clinton supporter who is not an obnoxious hateful, hypocritical, smug arrogant jerk. There are some nice Clinton supporters out there and I know a few. I would not be surprised if I never meet a terrible Sander's supporter.

Clinton supporters are doing their very best to help Trump win the election by alienating Sanders' supporters as much as possible even though the majority of Sanders' supporters will vote for her. How stupid is it to call Sanders' supporters terrible when most of them will vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination, rather than Trump? VERY VERY STUPID
Logged
°Leprechaun
tmcusa2
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,117
Uruguay


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2016, 10:05:21 AM »

Some Sanders' supporters even here have given up and say he has no hope so making broad generalizations about Sanders' supporters is not nice. Of course, nobody ever accused atlas posters of being nice. Politics always brings out the worst in people.
Logged
BlueSwan
blueswan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,290
Denmark


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -7.30

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2016, 10:24:20 AM »

No, because Sanders is a fairly likable, but completely unremarkable candidate, mostly spewing superficial left populist talking points with little to no depth to them. He has gained a cult of personality mostly because he has been the progressive antithesis to Clinton. Had Warren run, most of the Sandernistas would have supported her as she is frankly a stronger candidate.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2016, 10:25:53 AM »

Bernie hacks =/= All Bernie supporters

Hillary hacks =/= All Hillary supporters
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2016, 11:58:19 AM »

Bernie would not have run if Warren did.

But if for whatever reason he did, yes, the insufferable ones would've been just as insufferable. The undercurrent of sexism would still be there. They'd call her a corporate shill, attack her for being a Republican in the 90s, or for lying about being a Native American (they use right wing talking points against Hillary, why not Warren too?)

Do you have a source (not that I don't believe you)?

Voted no in the poll.

Check her Wiki page under "personal details." She switched to the Democrats in 1996.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2016, 12:03:40 PM »

If Bernie's opponent wasn't so terrible, there wouldn't be as much criticism of his opponent. Also, Hillary tends to run negative campaigns. If was Bernie vs. O'Malley, it would be a much more positive election.

Maybe, but I don't mean the campaigns/elections themselves. I mean the supporters.

I was mostly talking about the supporters. Anyone who thinks that Bernie is running a particularly negative campaign is seriously deluded.

You don't really have much room to talk here considering you think Hillary is running a negative campaign. Someone who has lived through 2008 and watched the 2016 Republican clownshow has no excuse for such a ridiculous opinion.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2016, 12:05:41 PM »

I have to wonder if the hate of her is unique

True enough.  

Like tmc, I haven't met any really obnoxious Sanders supporter, but maybe pointing out Clinton's many faults makes us all obnoxious.  

I voted no because I think that Warren doesn't provide the fodder.  When she is shrill, it is about the same sort of stuff that Sanders is shrill about:  Wall Street executives destroying the economy and the widening income gap.  Both Warren and Sanders were for marijuana and single-payer before it was cool.  On foreign policy, Warren not as far from Sanders as Clinton is.  She favors a Palestinian state, is anti-war, and has long opposed continuing US involvement in Afghanistan.  All three have similar positions on campaign finance reform, but Sanders has actually collected all his 182 million dollars from 7 million individual donors, whereas Clinton has collected about a third of her 260 million from political action committees.

More importantly, Warren didn't hire private investigators and thugs to follow women around, back when was First Lady of Arkansas, to bully them into silence because she put her husband's (and her) career ahead of the benefit of the people.  I don't know quite as much about Warren, but I've never thought she had a criminal psychology and she doesn't exhibit symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder.  I do know that she is an an old-fashioned girl from Oklahoma and a blue-collar background.  She started waiting tables as a teenager and worked to put herself through university and law school.  

If you think it's vicious now, wait till the general election.  By then it won't just be the supporters but the campaigns who will go negative.  The GOP will manage to nominate Trump, who has about the same level of integrity as Clinton, but who lacks the filter.  The reason I think it will be especially negative is because unlike in previous years, when the Republican establishment could put its many millions of dollars into making advertisements for their candidates, this year they have a candidate that they can't sell.  Their only choice will be to spend money going negative.  The same situation will be the case in the Democrat national party.  Both parties will go negative early and often, and because Clinton and Trump are both so dirty by the end of it, we will have an exhausted and cynical electorate and a very low voter turnout.  I do not think this would be the case if the Democrats nominated someone other than Clinton and the Republicans nominate someone other than Trump.  

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 15 queries.