[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;542805]Of course, it couldn't [I]possibly[/I] be for any other reason.

Jeremy Corbyn said [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/14/we-won-the-argument-but-i-regret-we-didnt-convert-that-into-a-majority-for-change"]here[/URL] that Labour had "won the arguments" in the last campaign and that Labour's policies were popular. Unfortunately, Labour got clobbered in the election.[/QUOTE]

I am just asking the questions here mate. How about engaging with the points I raise instead of deflecting. And glad that you bring Corbyn up as the latest reporting from Old Blighty is showing that the right wing of the Labour party actively wanted Corbyn to lose in 2017 and worked against him. The general secretary of the party - a Blairite by the name of Iain McNicol - sat on legitimate anti-semitism complaints for months in order to make Corbyn look bad. And the British press really did go to town on the whole anti-semitism controversy portraying someone who has fought against racism and prejudice all his life as a "vile anti-semite".[URL="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/15/labour-must-turn-its-back-on-factionalism-says-keir-starmer"] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/apr/15/labour-must-turn-its-back-on-factionalism-says-keir-starmer[/URL]
So if 20% of your party including those high up inside the party machinery are actively sabotaging you and rooting for you to lose, and you have a compliant press - it's not that unthinkable.
[QUOTE][COLOR=#121212][FONT=&quot]The report includes allegations that some officials set up a secret project during the 2017 general election to funnel campaign funds to selected candidates’ seats, including that of the then deputy leader, Tom Watson – and were disappointed at the party’s unexpectedly strong performance.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
Money was diverted away from close fought seats in order to make the party lose.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;542817]And, of course, the voters are slavishly obedient to whatever "the mainstream media" says.
I'm glad to see that nobody in the [I]alternative[/I] media ever trashes good ol' Bernie. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Ah but weren't "Bernie Bros" supposed to be a cult?

And thank you all for the warm welcome. I missed being here.

[QUOTE=garo;542846]And thank you all for the warm welcome. I missed being here.[/QUOTE]
So, how was your time in one of the following?[LIST=1][*]Cruising in nuclear sub slowly and endlessly beneath the polar icecap.[*]At the South Pole Station studying penguin feces. [*]In the secret module of the space station testing gamma ray weapons on gerbils.[*]In solitary confinement.[*]On an extended spy mission.[*]In the double super sekret lab developing COVID-19 for the Saudi government.[*]Cloistered by the Pope for the unspeakable crime of actually telling Catholics what is in the Bible.[/LIST]

lolz| 4 out of 7. Not bad. I can say no more.

[quote=garo;542844]How about engaging with the points I raise instead of deflecting.[/quote]

I addressed your [i]faulty argumentation[/i], [quote]Is it because he is not likeable? Or is it because he was subjected to relentless negative propaganda by the mainstream media?[/quote] known as a false dichotomy.

I would say that part of good ol' Bernie's problem is that, yes, people like things such as "Medicare for all" [i]in theory[/i], but don't think there's any way to implement them [i]in practice[/i].

I pointed out Corbyn's "we won the arguments" line because Bernie Sanders more recently said something very similar, while admitting that millions of Democrats and independents had told his campaign workers that they liked his policy positions, but didn't think he had a chance of being elected. I posted about that a while back.

I would point out that Jeremy Corbyn was not exactly an unknown quantity in the last general election. Even I'd been hearing about him for years. So to assert that he was suddenly trashed by the Evil Press in the last campaign strains credulity to the breaking point. In addition, in the last election Labour lost districts they'd held since dinosaurs ruled the earth. It may not be a coincidence that people in those districts had voted for Brexit, and that Labour had, in effect, told them "You were wrong."

News flash, that's no way to win an election. So when I see Bernie Sanders' supporters saying, in effect, "Anyone who doesn't think he could win the general election is simply being manipulated by the media," I think to myself, "That is one of the reasons [i]why[/i] people don't think he could win a general election." You don't win elections by telling the people you're trying to woo that they're a bunch of gullible idiots, or children. Or that only We, the Enlightened, know the Truth. I believe the word for that is "elitist."

Then, too there's the attitude [quote=ewmayer;542800]Sanders supporters over on NC saying precisely that they would vote Trump just to stick it to the corrupt DNC, who "deserve another 4 years of Trump", that sort of thing. This is what I referred to as the [i]Schadenfreude[/i] demographic in 2016: Given 2 horrible options, go with the one that gets the knickers of the corrupt establishment duopoly and their MSM shills in the greater twist.[/quote]They seem not to care a whit about whether the [i]whole country[/i] "deserves" another four years of [i]Il Duce[/i]. In particular, another four years of him appointing federal judges, and likely more Supreme Court justices. Those are [i]lifetime[/i] appointments.

Imagine someone facing a difficult decision regarding family member X acting like these people. On the one hand, they might say, "I don't like [i]any[/i] of the options available, so I'm just walking away." On the other hand, they might say, "What's going to cause (the insurance company, Medicare, or whatever their [i]bête noire[/i] might be) the most trouble?" Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but I think the proper question would be, "What's the best option for family member X?"

I'm not happy about Biden being the presumptive nominee. I'm real curious about who he'll pick for VP. He can't pick good ol' Bernie unless he reneges on his commitment to pick a woman.

Hmm, maybe he could pick Mrs. Sanders. Then, if he wins the election, on Inauguration Day, he resigns for reasons of health, and good ol' Bernie's [i]wife[/i] is President.

I agree with the points you raise but I think you aren't taking the influence of media into account. Corbyn was very ambivalent and vague on his Brexit position until he was more or less forced to adopt a Remainer position in mid-2019. I thought it would help him and before the election thought it was a good move. Obviously I was wrong. And he did come close in 2017 despite the best efforts of the right wing in his party to undermine him. But do you really think that constant tabloid coverage portraying him as a terrorist sympathizer had no effect at all? That BBC background showing him with the Kremlin with a red tinted border and cap cropped to look like a beret had zero impact? If the media is so useless at convincing people why does big money try to control it so hard?

So here's a question: Why do people consistently vote for politicians who advocate positions that would harm them personally? Are they idiots - cue Carlin's famous line about average person? Or does propaganda actually work? If neither, what is your explanation for people agreeing with Bernie's policies but not supporting him because they think he is unelectable and won't be able to implement those policies? Why do they think he is unelectable? Who tells them that? Who manufactures that consent to being screwed over?

And regarding your example of family member X, I will say again this is a repeated game. Voting for the lesser evil for the past 20 years has only made things worse for the working class in the US. Your threats of Mutually Assured Destruction have to be credible to get the other side to take you seriously. And to get the Democratic Party to stop being so hostile to the left wing within the party maybe a demonstration is needed. Now maybe I am wrong and another four years of Trump would be ruinous beyond belief. But somehow I don't feel that a Democratic party that gave him $750b to spend on the military is putting up much of a resistance. So maybe I'll just wait until they provide a real alternative and not a DINO.

[QUOTE=garo;543047]<snip>
If neither, what is your explanation for people agreeing with Bernie's policies but not supporting him because they think he is unelectable and won't be able to implement those policies? Why do they think he is unelectable? Who tells them that? Who manufactures that consent to being screwed over?
<snip>[/quote]
Never mind the Evil Press, propaganda, or whether folks are even paying attention to what the Mainstream Media is saying. Why do people think good ol' Bernie is unelectable? In a word, [i]socialism[/i]. He openly proclaims himself to be a Democratic Socialist. Good on him for being honest, but as far as being elected president is concerned, not a chance. I would be so bold as to say that the very notion of a self-proclaimed Socialist as President is [i]anathema[/i] to a large majority of Americans. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand how an awful lot of Americans actually think. I would advise you to read [url=https://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=541244&postcount=110]this post[/url] carefully. You certainly won't agree with a lot its author says, but I assure you, in a lot of the opinions about government he expresses, he speaks for many.
[quote]Now maybe I am wrong and another four years of Trump would be ruinous beyond belief. But somehow I don't feel that a Democratic party that gave him $750b to spend on the military is putting up much of a resistance. So maybe I'll just wait until they provide a real alternative and not a DINO.[/QUOTE]
"Ruinous beyond belief?" If [i]Il Duce[/i] gets re-elected, and if I were a leftist in the good ol' USA, I would make sure my passport was up-to-date, and I had a way to get out of the country.

[QUOTE=garo;543047]So here's a question: Why do people consistently vote for politicians who advocate positions that would harm them personally?[/QUOTE]Harm in what way?

It would be financially beneficial for me if, say, the government granted me, and me alone, an annual tax-free pension of £1M per annum. Should I vote for it, or should I recognize that considerations other than personal economics come into play?

In debates with Remainers who generally stressed the supposed economic gains of remaining in the EU, I've often asked whether monetary considerations are the only ones of importance. Invariably they have replied that that is not the case and that other matters are of importance. In my view, they are not significantly different from Leavers in this respect. The difference lies almost entirely in [B]which[/B] matters are of greater or lesser importance than others.

A personal aside. I voted to remain in the Common Market in 1975. I was unable to vote in the Brexit referendum as I was out of the UK and my postal vote did not arrive before I left. If it had done so, I would have voted Leave. I, and I believe many other Leavers, would have been staunchly pro-Remain had the EU been solely a free trade area. It was all the other accoutrements which made so many people so antagonistic. "Ever closer union" was the particularly objectionable catchphrase for many. The short-hand "frog-boiling" also cropped up.

You have a point Paul that economic considerations aren’t the sole factor in voting decisions. But of course the economic impact of Brexit won’t be borne by people of your demographic. Out of curiosity would you still vote leave knowing what you know now and seeing the dogs dinner being made of Brexit? And how it has elevated to power a guy who doesn’t work weekends and thinks holidays are more important than pandemics?

@ Dr. Sardonicus: So Americans like socialist policies but they just don’t like anyone who calls themselves socialist? And if you doubt my statement about support for socialist policies read the linked article in my previous post. A bit like we have the best healthcare system in the world yet people die because they can’t afford insulin.

PS: Funny seeing Ken quote von Mises at Ernst who used to be a yuuuge fan until he found religion I mean NC.

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/us/politics/bernie-sanders-voters-biden.html[/url]
The attached snippet from this article is an example of what I am talking about. There is a generational element to this too. Most people over 45 just aren’t aware how badly the current Democratic Party has sold out the young and the poor. So the lesser evil argument is less likely to work on younger voters.

Also the last para of this piece:

“The younger people, they’re not used to having their dream crushed as we are.”