The notion that Bernie is more popular among "both parties and among independents" is fantasy. Sanders is bonafide far left. He is a brilliant person and has wonderful ideas, but he had 0 chance in a general.
But I get where the "more popular among both" myth comes from. Loads of right wingers talked him up because they think this is their clever divide and conquer approach, and it is simply amazing that anyone actually falls for. It's the same way the guy above -- a guy who a couple of days ago was commenting on here about the Democratic party deep state in the federal government trying to railroad poor innocent Trump -- talks up RFK Jr. That absolute nutter RFK Jr gets 100% of his airtime by the far right who have made him their current Bernie. He's their Token "Democrat", now that Tulsi Gabbard has gone so far off the far right deep end that she can't play the part anymore.
> The notion that Bernie is more popular among "both parties and among independents" is fantasy. Sanders is bonafide far left. He is a brilliant person and has wonderful ideas, but he had 0 chance in a general.
Your assumption seems to be that people's political preferences fall on a single dimension dictated by the Establishment's Overton Window. I see now reason to assume that.
Noam Chomsky has gotten standing ovations in places like deeply rural and xenophobic California. Even though he's an anarchist.
(Sanders' policy preferences, on the other end, aren't even far left—they're only “far left” because the Overton Window of American politics is far right.)
> But I get where the "more popular among both" myth comes from. Loads of right wingers talked him up because they think this is their clever divide and conquer approach, and it is simply amazing that anyone actually falls for.
I hate how people denigrate "conspiracy theories". Of course people can conspire: a small group of people with a lot of power can definitely get together in smoke-filled backrooms.
But this theory of yours is much more unlikely: a lot of right-wingers seemingly organically cheering on people like Bernie Sanders in order to divide-and-conquer the Left (whatever "the Left" is). That kind of mass astroturfing is much harder to pull off.
What's more likely? That many right-wingers simply like Sanders, or that thousands of them got together and decided to, against all of their instincts, fake enthusiasm in public in order to own-the-libs?
>Your assumption seems to be that people's political preferences fall on a single dimension dictated by the Establishment's Overton Window
There are many dimensions, from healthcare to social security to immigration to wealth redistribution to law and order to "backing the blue" to the military to taxes, and on all of them Bernie is the absolutely diametric opposite of Trump. The idea that if Bernie were the candidate people would switch their vote from Trump to Bernie is simply preposterous, and I am in awe that anyone actually fell for this. On the flip side if Bernie were the candidate it would have been incredibly easy for the right to fear-monger and denigrate.
And regarding the definitions of left and right, clearly this is in the context of the US.
>What's more likely? That many right-wingers simply like Sanders, or that thousands of them got together and decided to, against all of their instincts, fake enthusiasm in public in order to own-the-libs?
You surely realize that "loving the adversary of my most potent adversary" (e.g. the enemy of my enemy is my friend) is like a fundamental human trait, right? That it is seen across society, for the duration of mankind's existence. From geopolitics, to sports, to billionaires and MMA matches. This is a foundational human trait.
The "right" tends to be more engaged and ego-attached to politics, so their machinations in this regard tend to be much, much louder.
> The idea that if Bernie were the candidate people would switch their vote from Trump to Bernie is simply preposterous, and I am in awe that anyone actually fell for this.
I am such a person, and back then there were plenty of others who expressed similar sentiments. All it takes for you to be literally incorrect is two people.
There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"
Pretty convenient that he wasn't the candidate, right? Suddenly you could pat yourself on the back, convince yourself that your hand was forced.
There are loads of situations where people try to rationalize their own behavior through mechanisms like this.
Two fish are swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way. The older fish nods and says "Morning boys. How's the water?" The younger fish beat the older fish to death and take his wallet. "He should have known I'm allergic to water!" one lamented. "He made me do that".
> Pretty convenient that he wasn't the candidate, right?
Convenient for some (roughly: the better off), not so convenient for others.
>Suddenly you could pat yourself on the back, convince yourself that your hand was forced.
Provided one has an adequately powerful imagination I suppose.
>There are loads of situations where people try to rationalize their own behavior through mechanisms like this.
Or their beliefs!
> Two fish are swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way. The older fish nods and says "Morning boys. How's the water?" The younger fish beat the older fish to death and take his wallet. "He should have known I'm allergic to water!" one lamented. "He made me do that".
I'm not sure I understand the anecdote, could you explain?
