6 ms·

I cannot imagine that many who were in favor of Bernie would switch to Trump. The positions of the two were so far apart, that you'd have to not actually believ

I cannot imagine that many who were in favor of Bernie would switch to Trump. The positions of the two were so far apart, that you'd have to not actually believe in any of Bernie's positions in order to vote for Trump.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
I cannot imagine that many who were in favor of Bernie would switch to Trump. Believe it. People did not like the idea of voting for Hillary, and voting third party has its own issues. Also, there was the X factor. People didn't really know what they were going to get with Trump.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Again, I need more than "not Clinton" to believe that. I find it quite difficult to believe that someone who was supporting Sanders would be able to vote for a border wall, repealing the ACA, a Muslim ban, someone who bragged about sexual assault on tape, and general deregulation of business.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  You don't think he was predictable? I bet this continues to hold up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12920911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12920911 (posted Nov 10 2016)
  - takeda 9y ago
    The thing about social media is that if after election Trump would turn out to be the best president in our history. Instead of you, someone else would now cited the post that they said that in November. The truth is, no one knew at the time. People had their theories, some were proved right, some were proven wrong. The people who you were responding to are example that your opinion was just one of many. There was hope that perhaps Trump's ego would motivate him to be better than previous presidents. Sadly that didn't happen.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      That's a fair criticism. And I guess it still applies even though I was more specific than good vs bad. Because you just need a few dozen predictions for one to be right.
dragonwriter 9y ago
Trump and Sanders both campaigned against neoliberal “free trade”, and both justified that opposition in terms of jobs for the American working class. The Trump camp repeatedly highlighted this fact.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Trump also campaigned on a lot of highly regressive points, ones which just about any Bernie supporter would reject. Things like the border wall, repealing the ACA, and reducing regulation on business.
  - jonny_eh 9y ago
    Unfortunately people don't think through their choices so carefully. They either go with a whim or vote based on a particular issue they are passionate about.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  There an interesting thing there. Bernie, believe or not, was very much against globalization, TPP and open borders in general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 Listen to how he says it, it's a thing he really hates. This is not fluke or anything, Chomsky another leftist thinker also has been anti-NAFTA well, since it was signed pretty much: https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ Notice how he correctly predicted an influx of poor South American farmers who are pretty much forced to abandon their family to come and wash toilets and pick crops here.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Pretty much all leftists figures (and even most Democrats) were against NAFTA when it was signed; it was an sign of the serious rift in the Democratic Party at the time that Clinton had to rely on unanimous (or nearly so) Republican support and weak support from his own party to secure NAFTA passage. > Notice how he correctly predicted an influx of poor South American farmers who are pretty much forced to abandon their family to come and wash toilets and pick crops here. Mexico is not South America, and the basically linear increase in Mexicans coming to the US started before NAFTA.
mikebenfield 9y ago
It is absolutely bizarre, and I had a hard time believing it too, but it does seem to be true that many would-be Sanders voters voted for Trump. I think what it comes down to is that most people of any political persuasion are basically politically illiterate and vote their feelings. Sanders and Trump are both: * not Hillary Clinton; * male; * very different from the other options. For some people, that's apparently enough.
- ouid 9y ago
  I don't think swing voters are very common. Elections are decided on turnout. Voting is terribly inconvenient.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    A lot of the targeted online advertising focused on turnout. Discouraging some voters and riling others up.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  Perhaps those factors resonated with people, however, that glosses over the unique populist appeal of both candidates. Many people were dissatisfied with the status quo and Clinton was the embodiment of it. Do you think her message "America is already great" resonated with the working class?
vim_wannabe 9y ago
Both talked about not doing another regime change in the Middle East, so the opposite of Clinton. That was a pretty big deal in quite a few people's minds. Now obviously that's just campaign talk, but I would go with the smallest glimmer of hope of not killing and displacing another million people in the process.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Except Trump was known for saying, "Bomb the crap out of em." Not to mention, there's the current situation he's in with N. Korea.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Yes, Trump was shifting and incoherent on a lot of policy issues; this led lots of people to decide to believe the position they liked while discounting the others on the same issue. This probably wouldn't work with a candidate that wasn't both a political unknown and running against an opponent with very high negatives where people were (perhaps subconsciously) looking for an excuse to vote elsewhere, but it did work in the situation that actually existed in 2016.
  - vim_wannabe 9y ago
    Yes, about ISIS. I do agree the US has no place bombing people but that wasn't about regime change. And what can I say, there's not much to expect from campaign talk, but when there are millions of lives at stake you may not want to go with mrs. "We came, we saw, he died".
revmoo 9y ago
If your chosen party is revealed to have literally sold you out and subverted democracy, voting Trump kinda makes sense. Let's not forget, the DNC actively worked against Sander's campaign. It was borderline treason.
Glyptodon 9y ago
I think it's easy to look past positions and want to punish someone, or anyone, who you believe has used corrupt practices to unrightfully squash your candidate's chances. Especially after some of the perceived chicanery at some of the caucuses, some of the emails, etc. There's a very real tendency to say "oh, so you think you can not play fair and square, try to manipulate me, and take it for granted like I'm some pawn? Well then, I'm going to let it all burn. Serve you right." That said, I don't think I know any people who were in favor of Bernie who did vote for Trump. Whereas I do know decent numbers of "conservative-ish" type people who were disgusted with Trump, but never in 10 million years would vote for a Clinton, but would maybe have been willing to vote for Sanders over Trump, mostly because he wasn't Trump or Hillary and sort of overlapped a bit with Joe Biden type blue-collarism while being an outsider. But given the choice between Hillary or Trump, they'd all feel sick and go Trump. Tangentially, I think there's a large chunk of Democratic party die-hards who still just do not understand how much the Clintons are hated, or who focus on such dislike being unfair rather than just seeing it as reality to contend with.
- mercer 9y ago
  I've always been sympathetic to the concerns of Hillary fans around me (misogyny, partisan smearing, etc.), but for me one good reason I wouldn't have voted for her, and one that I'm kind of surprised I don't hear more often, is that it just strikes me as fundamentally wrong for the partner of a former president to become president. We're talking about the USA, not some small village with ten inhabitants, or North Korea. Am I wrong about having so much difficulty with this?
  - uncletaco 9y ago
    I think there's room for nuance; particularly because the partners are both of the same political organization and each has governing experience under their belts: one as an executive and the other as a legislator and high-level appointee. Now if we had a situation like in Alabama where George Wallace used his dying wife to get around term limits then I would call it grade A fuckery; but the Clintons were both qualified to hold the office on their own merits, marriage not withstanding.
takeda 9y ago
Many people who were pro Bernie were against status quo. Hilary was basically continuation of old policies. You're also forgetting that one doesn't have to vote for Trump to have an effect, many democrats also stayed home or voted 3rd party (especially since media guaranteed that Hilary will win)
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I can totally buy them staying home. But I just cannot believe that someone who believed in Bernie's ideals would vote for someone who represented essentially the antithesis of those ideals. The only thing the two of them had in common was that they were against the status quo. That's it. After that, Sanders and Clinton have far more in common than Sanders and Trump.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

I cannot imagine that many who were in favor of Bernie would switch to Trump. Believe it. People did not like the idea of voting for Hillary, and voting third party has its own issues. Also, there was the X factor. People didn't really know what they were going to get with Trump.

s73ver_ 9y ago
Again, I need more than "not Clinton" to believe that. I find it quite difficult to believe that someone who was supporting Sanders would be able to vote for a border wall, repealing the ACA, a Muslim ban, someone who bragged about sexual assault on tape, and general deregulation of business.
maxerickson 9y ago
You don't think he was predictable? I bet this continues to hold up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12920911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12920911 (posted Nov 10 2016)
- takeda 9y ago
  The thing about social media is that if after election Trump would turn out to be the best president in our history. Instead of you, someone else would now cited the post that they said that in November. The truth is, no one knew at the time. People had their theories, some were proved right, some were proven wrong. The people who you were responding to are example that your opinion was just one of many. There was hope that perhaps Trump's ego would motivate him to be better than previous presidents. Sadly that didn't happen.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    That's a fair criticism. And I guess it still applies even though I was more specific than good vs bad. Because you just need a few dozen predictions for one to be right.

dragonwriter 9y ago

Trump and Sanders both campaigned against neoliberal “free trade”, and both justified that opposition in terms of jobs for the American working class. The Trump camp repeatedly highlighted this fact.

s73ver_ 9y ago
Trump also campaigned on a lot of highly regressive points, ones which just about any Bernie supporter would reject. Things like the border wall, repealing the ACA, and reducing regulation on business.
- jonny_eh 9y ago
  Unfortunately people don't think through their choices so carefully. They either go with a whim or vote based on a particular issue they are passionate about.
rdtsc 9y ago
There an interesting thing there. Bernie, believe or not, was very much against globalization, TPP and open borders in general: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 Listen to how he says it, it's a thing he really hates. This is not fluke or anything, Chomsky another leftist thinker also has been anti-NAFTA well, since it was signed pretty much: https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ https://chomsky.info/secrets03/ Notice how he correctly predicted an influx of poor South American farmers who are pretty much forced to abandon their family to come and wash toilets and pick crops here.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Pretty much all leftists figures (and even most Democrats) were against NAFTA when it was signed; it was an sign of the serious rift in the Democratic Party at the time that Clinton had to rely on unanimous (or nearly so) Republican support and weak support from his own party to secure NAFTA passage. > Notice how he correctly predicted an influx of poor South American farmers who are pretty much forced to abandon their family to come and wash toilets and pick crops here. Mexico is not South America, and the basically linear increase in Mexicans coming to the US started before NAFTA.

mikebenfield 9y ago

It is absolutely bizarre, and I had a hard time believing it too, but it does seem to be true that many would-be Sanders voters voted for Trump. I think what it comes down to is that most people of any political persuasion are basically politically illiterate and vote their feelings. Sanders and Trump are both: * not Hillary Clinton; * male; * very different from the other options. For some people, that's apparently enough.

ouid 9y ago
I don't think swing voters are very common. Elections are decided on turnout. Voting is terribly inconvenient.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  A lot of the targeted online advertising focused on turnout. Discouraging some voters and riling others up.
alexanderstears 9y ago
Perhaps those factors resonated with people, however, that glosses over the unique populist appeal of both candidates. Many people were dissatisfied with the status quo and Clinton was the embodiment of it. Do you think her message "America is already great" resonated with the working class?

vim_wannabe 9y ago

Both talked about not doing another regime change in the Middle East, so the opposite of Clinton. That was a pretty big deal in quite a few people's minds. Now obviously that's just campaign talk, but I would go with the smallest glimmer of hope of not killing and displacing another million people in the process.

s73ver_ 9y ago
Except Trump was known for saying, "Bomb the crap out of em." Not to mention, there's the current situation he's in with N. Korea.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Yes, Trump was shifting and incoherent on a lot of policy issues; this led lots of people to decide to believe the position they liked while discounting the others on the same issue. This probably wouldn't work with a candidate that wasn't both a political unknown and running against an opponent with very high negatives where people were (perhaps subconsciously) looking for an excuse to vote elsewhere, but it did work in the situation that actually existed in 2016.
- vim_wannabe 9y ago
  Yes, about ISIS. I do agree the US has no place bombing people but that wasn't about regime change. And what can I say, there's not much to expect from campaign talk, but when there are millions of lives at stake you may not want to go with mrs. "We came, we saw, he died".

revmoo 9y ago

If your chosen party is revealed to have literally sold you out and subverted democracy, voting Trump kinda makes sense. Let's not forget, the DNC actively worked against Sander's campaign. It was borderline treason.

Glyptodon 9y ago

I think it's easy to look past positions and want to punish someone, or anyone, who you believe has used corrupt practices to unrightfully squash your candidate's chances. Especially after some of the perceived chicanery at some of the caucuses, some of the emails, etc. There's a very real tendency to say "oh, so you think you can not play fair and square, try to manipulate me, and take it for granted like I'm some pawn? Well then, I'm going to let it all burn. Serve you right." That said, I don't think I know any people who were in favor of Bernie who did vote for Trump. Whereas I do know decent numbers of "conservative-ish" type people who were disgusted with Trump, but never in 10 million years would vote for a Clinton, but would maybe have been willing to vote for Sanders over Trump, mostly because he wasn't Trump or Hillary and sort of overlapped a bit with Joe Biden type blue-collarism while being an outsider. But given the choice between Hillary or Trump, they'd all feel sick and go Trump. Tangentially, I think there's a large chunk of Democratic party die-hards who still just do not understand how much the Clintons are hated, or who focus on such dislike being unfair rather than just seeing it as reality to contend with.

mercer 9y ago
I've always been sympathetic to the concerns of Hillary fans around me (misogyny, partisan smearing, etc.), but for me one good reason I wouldn't have voted for her, and one that I'm kind of surprised I don't hear more often, is that it just strikes me as fundamentally wrong for the partner of a former president to become president. We're talking about the USA, not some small village with ten inhabitants, or North Korea. Am I wrong about having so much difficulty with this?
- uncletaco 9y ago
  I think there's room for nuance; particularly because the partners are both of the same political organization and each has governing experience under their belts: one as an executive and the other as a legislator and high-level appointee. Now if we had a situation like in Alabama where George Wallace used his dying wife to get around term limits then I would call it grade A fuckery; but the Clintons were both qualified to hold the office on their own merits, marriage not withstanding.

takeda 9y ago

Many people who were pro Bernie were against status quo. Hilary was basically continuation of old policies. You're also forgetting that one doesn't have to vote for Trump to have an effect, many democrats also stayed home or voted 3rd party (especially since media guaranteed that Hilary will win)

s73ver_ 9y ago
I can totally buy them staying home. But I just cannot believe that someone who believed in Bernie's ideals would vote for someone who represented essentially the antithesis of those ideals. The only thing the two of them had in common was that they were against the status quo. That's it. After that, Sanders and Clinton have far more in common than Sanders and Trump.