With Trump in mind, some progressives online turn against anti-Harris leftists(www.nbcnews.com)

I linked you to what the votes in that primary actually were, feel free to observe the facts if your ego isn’t too fragile for it. I’m not happy about it, I am just trying to not have a cognitive bias in the same why that you do. It’s insane. We agree on the desired outcome in these elections but you’re so focused on being mad about how the votes went in the 2016 primary that you accuse me of being happy they chose Clinton. Get a grip.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world

0 points

4 months ago

I linked you to what the votes in that primary actually were

And implicit in that is the assumption that the 2016 primaries were fair. I also pointed out that the party leadership was all in on Clinton before a single vote was cast. They had no way of knowing where the votes were. They saw that Obama, who ran to Clinton’s left, was popular with voters. But they wanted Clinton. So they put the cart before the horse.

Maybe they should have taken the votes of people in swing states into account when they totally decided to follow the votes instead of just moving to the right.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

barsquid@lemmy.world

1 point

4 months ago

What swing states? AZ? NV? PA? FL? Somehow I suspect the DNC should have thrown out those votes and listened to only CO and WI, right?

Do you fact check anything you write or you’re just all in on cognitive bias all the time?

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world

1 point

4 months ago

Again, you’re assuming a fair primary. You’re also assuming that Sanders would have fewer votes in the general.

There was no public sentiment clamoring for the party to move to the right in 2016. Just the unfounded assumption that Clinton was the strongest available candidate because the party had bullied all other candidates save one out of the race.

She lost to Trump because she didn’t have enough votes. She had more than Trump did, sure. But it wasn’t enough votes. Enthusiasm matters. Railroading the voters with a candidate they resent voting for kills enthusiasm.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

barsquid@lemmy.world

0 points

4 months ago

Enthusiasm matters, so ignore what the majority of the voters want? Insane.

They didn’t “bully” anyone, they had a bias with funding. They preferred her going in, maybe because Clinton was literally neck and neck with Obama in the 2008 primaries and Obama did really fucking well in the general.

Voter turnout in the '08 primaries was like 35 million. Voter turnout in '16 was like 30 million. If people were that enthusiastic they could have easily overridden the DNC’s bias towards Clinton.

Which, again, is what that person was saying, you cannot move the needle by sitting aside and letting them choose. Again, try to get beyond your profound cognitive bias and look at what actually started this chain. Holy fuck. It is exhausting.

You are doing some revisionist history. You are too biased to even speak with. You literally want them to ignore what their voters are voting for while claiming that you want the opposite. Come on.

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News