Is "Bernie wing" a term as stupid as "Reagan Democrats"?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Absolutely.

First of all, the Democratic Party did not undergo a radical realignment in 2016 splitting into two distinct factions where there is a direct correlation with what faction a person aligns with with whoever they voted for in the 2016 primary. Are urban DSA supporters in the same wing of the party and aligned with rural Democrats in West Virginia and thus likely to always support the same candidate in any other primary, with whether a candidate endorsed Bernie or Hillary being the #1 issue? For that matter is some gay Wall Street lawyer in Manhattan in the same "wing" of the party as senior citizen black church ladies in the rural south and them always going to support a candidate in opposition to the candidate of the former coalition? Yes you can see odd coalitions in plenty of elections, but we saw this in 2008 as well, but no one was acting like there was now a permanent contrast of the "Obama wing" and "Hillary wing".

Furthermore, lots of people who voted for Bernie are actually closer ideologically to lots of people who voted for Hillary than they are to many fellow Bernie supporters. A lot of Bernie supporters are just stock liberal Democrats who liked the issues Bernie was bringing to the table (it's kind of bizarre how some leftists are under the impression that liberals who like Bernie Sanders don't exist), and not some stereotypical raving against "the establishment" socialist activist or anti-Hillary rural Blue Dog. Such as, ahem, *points to self* Meanwhile a lot of Hillary supporters actually agreed with those Bernie supporters on the issues as well but still supporter Hillary out of other concerns, perhaps they were still staunch supporters of Obama and saw Hillary as a continuation of his legacy, or had concerns about his electability (wrong in hindsight but that's always 20/20) or thought Sanders was good at bringing this issues to the party but wouldn't be effective in implementing his agenda, etc. etc. These voters can easily find common ground in primaries supporting other candidates.

And if by "Bernie wing" you mean groups like Our Revolution and other progressive grassroots organizations, they literally do not care who candidates they back endorsed in 2016. Are they rallying around Dan Lipinski now? Lots of OR-endorsed candidates supported Hillary in 2016. So maybe "Bernie wing" isn't the best phrase to describe this movement, and people shouldn't speculate that endorsing Bernie or Hillary in 2016 is the #1 issue that they'll judge 2020 candidates or candidates for any other office by.

So yeah. It's a stupid stupid term.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No, it's more stupid.

[RINO Tom]

"Reagan Democrats" is at least a somewhat relevant term that is often used to describe the wrong types of voters ... the "Bernie Wing" and "Clinton Wing" largely don't exist, ideologically speaking.

[Figueira]

Not quite, but it's up there.

[bgwah]

Not at all. Now, if people are still saying "Bernie wing" in 30 years...

[Santander]

"Reagan Democrats" is a great term because it triggers both sides.

[RFayette]

If it's used to describe all Sanders voters, yes.

But I think "Berniecrat" has its uses in describing someone on the Democratic Party's left (and generally anti-establishment) flank.

[IceSpear]

Not quite as stupid, but still very stupid.

There's a nonzero chance I of all people could become a Berniebro in 2020, lol.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm still unclear on why you guys call him "Bernie" rather than "Sanders".  Most politicians are referred to by their last name folks. 

And if by "Bernie wing" you mean groups like Our Revolution and other progressive grassroots organizations, they literally do not care who candidates they back endorsed in 2016. Are they rallying around Dan Lipinski now? Lots of OR-endorsed candidates supported Hillary in 2016. So maybe "Bernie wing" isn't the best phrase to describe this movement, and people shouldn't speculate that endorsing Bernie or Hillary in 2016 is the #1 issue that they'll judge 2020 candidates or candidates for any other office by.

Wait, now I think you're mixing together two separate issues.  I would interpret "Sanders wing" of the party to mean voters who would tend to favor a Sanders-esque candidate.  That is, they supported him last time, and support other candidates in that mold.  That is a different question from whether these voters will decide who to vote for in future elections on the basis of whether a candidate endorsed their candidate of choice in the past election.  I don't think that's really a thing that tends to ever happen in large numbers, but that in itself doesn't imply that factions within a political party don't exist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm still unclear on why you guys call him "Bernie" rather than "Sanders".  Most politicians are referred to by their last name folks. 

And if by "Bernie wing" you mean groups like Our Revolution and other progressive grassroots organizations, they literally do not care who candidates they back endorsed in 2016. Are they rallying around Dan Lipinski now? Lots of OR-endorsed candidates supported Hillary in 2016. So maybe "Bernie wing" isn't the best phrase to describe this movement, and people shouldn't speculate that endorsing Bernie or Hillary in 2016 is the #1 issue that they'll judge 2020 candidates or candidates for any other office by.

Wait, now I think you're mixing together two separate issues.  I would interpret "Sanders wing" of the party to mean voters who would tend to favor a Sanders-esque candidate.  That is, they supported him last time, and support other candidates in that mold.  That is a different question from whether these voters will decide who to vote for in future elections on the basis of whether a candidate endorsed their candidate of choice in the past election.  I don't think that's really a thing that tends to ever happen in large numbers, but that in itself doesn't imply that factions within a political party don't exist.

I see people saying things here all the time (especially in the 2020 forum) like "I don't see the Bernie wing getting behind *potential candidate* because they endorsed Hillary."

[Santander]

I consider myself a member of the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party and we are growing everyday.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm still unclear on why you guys call him "Bernie" rather than "Sanders".  Most politicians are referred to by their last name folks. 

And if by "Bernie wing" you mean groups like Our Revolution and other progressive grassroots organizations, they literally do not care who candidates they back endorsed in 2016. Are they rallying around Dan Lipinski now? Lots of OR-endorsed candidates supported Hillary in 2016. So maybe "Bernie wing" isn't the best phrase to describe this movement, and people shouldn't speculate that endorsing Bernie or Hillary in 2016 is the #1 issue that they'll judge 2020 candidates or candidates for any other office by.

Wait, now I think you're mixing together two separate issues.  I would interpret "Sanders wing" of the party to mean voters who would tend to favor a Sanders-esque candidate.  That is, they supported him last time, and support other candidates in that mold.  That is a different question from whether these voters will decide who to vote for in future elections on the basis of whether a candidate endorsed their candidate of choice in the past election.  I don't think that's really a thing that tends to ever happen in large numbers, but that in itself doesn't imply that factions within a political party don't exist.

I see people saying things here all the time (especially in the 2020 forum) like "I don't see the Bernie wing getting behind *potential candidate* because they endorsed Hillary."

Well yes, that's dumb.  But you already made a thread about that here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=273562.0

It seemed like you were trying to say something different with this thread, but maybe not.  It's not totally clear.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I mean, "Reagan Democrats" are essentially republicans today. And the Bernie coalition isn't exactly "consistent". I mean Birmingham voted for Hillary in the primary by a whopping margin but Woodfin, a Bernie endorsed candidate won the mayoral election so things aren't set in stone.

[Mr. Smith]

I consider myself a member of the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party and we are growing everyday.

The Monarchist-Libertarian thing wasn't working out for ya' then?

[IceSpear]

I consider myself a member of the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party and we are growing everyday.

lmao

[Dr. MB]

It's still fairly useful, but will vanish by 2019 or 2020 (unless Sanders runs again of course).

[junior chįmp]

I consider myself a member of the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party and we are growing everyday.

$15 an hour, a union, and a organic, non-GMO chicken in every pot!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm still unclear on why you guys call him "Bernie" rather than "Sanders".  Most politicians are referred to by their last name folks. 

And if by "Bernie wing" you mean groups like Our Revolution and other progressive grassroots organizations, they literally do not care who candidates they back endorsed in 2016. Are they rallying around Dan Lipinski now? Lots of OR-endorsed candidates supported Hillary in 2016. So maybe "Bernie wing" isn't the best phrase to describe this movement, and people shouldn't speculate that endorsing Bernie or Hillary in 2016 is the #1 issue that they'll judge 2020 candidates or candidates for any other office by.

Wait, now I think you're mixing together two separate issues.  I would interpret "Sanders wing" of the party to mean voters who would tend to favor a Sanders-esque candidate.  That is, they supported him last time, and support other candidates in that mold.  That is a different question from whether these voters will decide who to vote for in future elections on the basis of whether a candidate endorsed their candidate of choice in the past election.  I don't think that's really a thing that tends to ever happen in large numbers, but that in itself doesn't imply that factions within a political party don't exist.

I see people saying things here all the time (especially in the 2020 forum) like "I don't see the Bernie wing getting behind *potential candidate* because they endorsed Hillary."

Well yes, that's dumb.  But you already made a thread about that here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=273562.0

It seemed like you were trying to say something different with this thread, but maybe not.  It's not totally clear.

I'm talking about something a bit broader. Putting every person who voted for Bernie into the same "wing" of the party is very very stupid. Putting every person who voted for Hillary into a different "wing" is perhaps even dumber.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I consider myself a member of the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party and we are growing everyday.

You have weird views.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm still unclear on why you guys call him "Bernie" rather than "Sanders".  Most politicians are referred to by their last name folks. 

And if by "Bernie wing" you mean groups like Our Revolution and other progressive grassroots organizations, they literally do not care who candidates they back endorsed in 2016. Are they rallying around Dan Lipinski now? Lots of OR-endorsed candidates supported Hillary in 2016. So maybe "Bernie wing" isn't the best phrase to describe this movement, and people shouldn't speculate that endorsing Bernie or Hillary in 2016 is the #1 issue that they'll judge 2020 candidates or candidates for any other office by.

Wait, now I think you're mixing together two separate issues.  I would interpret "Sanders wing" of the party to mean voters who would tend to favor a Sanders-esque candidate.  That is, they supported him last time, and support other candidates in that mold.  That is a different question from whether these voters will decide who to vote for in future elections on the basis of whether a candidate endorsed their candidate of choice in the past election.  I don't think that's really a thing that tends to ever happen in large numbers, but that in itself doesn't imply that factions within a political party don't exist.

I see people saying things here all the time (especially in the 2020 forum) like "I don't see the Bernie wing getting behind *potential candidate* because they endorsed Hillary."

Well yes, that's dumb.  But you already made a thread about that here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=273562.0

It seemed like you were trying to say something different with this thread, but maybe not.  It's not totally clear.

I'm talking about something a bit broader. Putting every person who voted for Bernie into the same "wing" of the party is very very stupid. Putting every person who voted for Hillary into a different "wing" is perhaps even dumber.

Putting everyone who voted for him in the same category is silly, sure.  But I would say that Sanders distinguished himself from Clinton largely by 1) sitting to her left in terms of policy positions, and 2) being more skeptical of the Democratic Party as an institution, and for that matter, more skeptical of institutions in general.  There are plenty of voters in that same category, and that’s what I think of as the “Sanders wing”, to the extent there is such a thing.  Looking ahead, I would not expect many such folks to have, say, Cory Booker as their first choice in 2020, though voters in other factions of the party might.

[James Monroe]

 


I would say the term is very adjustable in the current political climate. Bernie wing has become increasingly hostile to party interests, while "Reagan Democrats" are all living in tombstones.

[TheLeftwardTide]

I would say the term is very adjustable in the current political climate. Bernie wing has become increasingly hostile to party interests, while "Reagan Democrats" are all living in tombstones.

lol

[junior chįmp]

I would say the term is very adjustable in the current political climate. Bernie wing has become increasingly hostile to party interests, while "Reagan Democrats" are all living in tombstones.

lol

Can anyone even answer what the party interests of the Democrats are? Everytime they win, they don't know what to do with themselves

[James Monroe]

I would say the term is very adjustable in the current political climate. Bernie wing has become increasingly hostile to party interests, while "Reagan Democrats" are all living in tombstones.

lol

Can anyone even answer what the party interests of the Democrats are? Everytime they win, they don't know what to do with themselves

Social equality for all Americans is the Democratic way. Whenever you fell discouraged by the white patriarchal society we have your back.