Sanders campaign has become a classic example of the phenomenon of "group polarization"

[DCBob]

Commentary from the Chicago Tribune..

The Sanders campaign has become a classic example of the phenomenon of "group polarization," arguably more so than any campaign in recent memory — even Donald Trump's, which has greatly benefited from the same phenomenon.

Research on group polarization finds that when like-minded people get together, they will tend to go to extremes. If group members favor Britain leaving the European Union, or an increase in the minimum wage, or stricter sentences for drug offenses, their conversations with one another will lead them to greater extremism. Echo chambers are a breeding ground for polarization — and political campaigns often end up as echo chambers, especially in their late stages.

Part of what drives group polarization is that people care about their reputations: If people in your group think that climate change isn't occurring, or that Clinton is a captive of the banks, you risk their good will if you disagree. And if people hide their private misgivings, and don't tell others what they think, the group as a whole is likely to end up in a more extreme position.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-bernie-sanders-supporters-extreme-20160609-story.html

============

I think this dynamic is also tremendously enhanced by social media.

[NurseJackie]

1. Great analysis.

Thanks for sharing this.

[beachbum bob]

2. the problem with this, this group believes they represent a majority view because of their elevated

"self-importance" view and why the outrage of losing is so much harder to deal with....and why all the conspiracy theories....on why the lost runs rampant in their circles.. Almost like a mass hysteria....

[DCBob]

4. Also like "mob mentality" or "herd mentality".

The Trumpsters are an even better example of this.

[Armstead]

38. Funny, I see the sane thin in Clinton or busters

[DCBob]

40. I dont think so.

As I posted earlier Hillary supporters tend to think more individually. They dont go to large rallys or congregate on social media sites like Bernie supporters do. This allows them to think in a more practical, rational, realistic and logical way.

[Armstead]

52. You are stereotyping again -- Same stuff was said about Obama and his campaign

He was tarred as a Messianic leader and his supporters as mindless, nasty cultlike robots.

[DCBob]

65. As I said in previous post.. there was some of same stuff with Obama 2008.

We were thinking he would solve all the nation's and world's problems. That was a bit extreme. He did do great but not what many of us were hoping for. I do blame alot of that on the recession and the GOP however.

[Armstead]

69. That's because there is the same widhunger for substantial change -- It's not just about D v. R

Perhaps the Democratic Party institutionally out to recognize what has powered both the Sanders and Obama campaigns, and realize that the same old stale crap is not the solution, and needs to be reformed.

[DCBob]

71. It is about D vs R.

They are truly the enemy. If you cant see that in what has happened in the past 16 years I cant help you.

[Armstead]

73. If you can;t see what has happened since 1980 I can't help you

Both parties have become slaves to Big Business, Wall St. and the conservative worldview

[DCBob]

79. See this..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2174808

[Armstead]

91. We're holding a conversation in different scattered posts...It gets a little confusing.

[DCBob]

94. Yeah, but its a good conversation.

I do hear what you are saying. I hope we (the Hillary/Obama side) can learn something from what Bernie has said and done and use that to improve things and at the same time beat the GOP. I think thats doable.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

96. What Bush did to this country can never be allowed to happen again....

[DCBob]

98. I was an Independent in the late 90's.. Bush convinced me forever Democrats are the good guys.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

83. Yes - I felt like I wanted to retch every time I came on here as a Hillary supporter.

I felt that all you Obama supporters were cultists! I eventually voted for Obama - there was no other alternative and eventually grew to like him but he always frustrated me because he was too wimpy.

[auntpurl]

70. Yes, and look what happened.

He was vilified almost the moment he got into office by the far Left. He has never, and could never, live up to their expectations. NO ONE is pure enough.

[Armstead]

78. That's a gross simplification

He basically told many of the people who supported him that they were just a fringe when it came to certain issues and decisions.

If Obama had followed through on his professed principles instead of trying to emulate The Clintons once in office, I'm sure a lot of people -- including myself -- would have given him a lot more slack.

And you also are making the error of mistaking criticism of "vilification." People are allowed to disagree. I disagree with some of what Obama has done, but I still think Obama is a great President, and if he could run for a third term, I''d be fine with that.

[auntpurl]

82. No, not mistaking criticism for vilification

There was both. A certain "used car salesman" post comes to mind.

I didn't want him, voted for him anyway, and was pleasantly surprised. The 08 Hillary supporters on DU weren't the ones lining up to take their shots when Obama started getting torn down. It was the most violently partisan 08 Obama supporters, many of whom self-identify as very liberal/left, who got out the pitchforks.

[TheKentuckian]

150. Of course not he was on your side ideologically and promoted your people to the plum posts

We didn't want a Turd Way administration, fought like hell to avoid one and as soon as the voting was done we got one anyway.

Clinton people lost their figurehead from the top post but far from out of power and got an administration in their own mold.

The dynamic is not surprising, what other outcome could be expected? All the capitulation to the TeaPubLieKlans it seems would frustrate everyone but apparently lots are ideologically devoted to "meeting in the middle" and giving in to right wing terrorists throwing tantrums (though quick with the iron heel for liberals making any noise, get tons of brass then).

I was also taken aback some by the comfort with "look forward", it seems a dangerous mentality to have in the situation that would seem to be beyond the left/right paradigm but overall responses are pretty natural.

[Hortensis]

146. The far left does have a little problem that way,

doesn't it? Far left leaders may be pure enough for them, but those're usually either incompetent or disastrously competent in their "purity" (they too often end up trying to puritee everyone they suspect opposes them).

But mostly they don't get elected at all, sticking the far left to suffer impurity of method and purpose, i.e., the "corruption" of using negotiation and compromise to get half-assed things accomplished.

I suspect a bunch of the life-is-misery philosophers and holy men were perennially disappointed extremists.

[uponit7771]

174. +1

[Baitball Blogger]

88. I see a tremendous amount of projectionism in that article.

The Chicago Tribune is often viewed as a conservative paper. It owns the Orlando Sentinel, which was the first paper to call for Bill Clinton to step down in the nineties.

[sufrommich]

93. The Chicago Tribune didn't write the article, Cass Sunstein did.

Cass Sunstein from Wiki:


Sunstein's 2004 book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, advocates the Second Bill of Rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Among these rights are a right to an education, a right to a home, a right to health care, and a right to protection against monopolies; Sunstein argues that the Second Bill of Rights has had a large international impact and should be revived in the United States. His 2001 book, Republic.com, argued that the Internet may weaken democracy because it allows citizens to isolate themselves within groups that share their own views and experiences, and thus cut themselves off from any information that might challenge their beliefs, a phenomenon known as cyberbalkanization.

[Baitball Blogger]

103. You're blaming this on the internet, really?

A place where people are free to express views that are rejected by a community that forces people to conform?

I would think that the push for private schools and home schooling has had more of an impact of creating groups of differing viewpoints and experience than the internet.

It's obvious that there is a push to marginalize the beliefs of the people that supported Bernie. Good luck with that.

[sufrommich]

107. Do you think I'm Cass Sunstein?

[Baitball Blogger]

110. I was under the impression that you posted in support

of her position. My mistake.

[DCBob]

121. Cass Sunstein is not a woman.

Cass Robert Sunstein[1] (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.[2] For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School.[3] Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor[4] at Harvard Law School.

A study of legal publications between 2009 and 2013 found Sunstein to be the most frequently cited American legal scholar by a wide margin, followed by Erwin Chemerinsky and Richard A. Epstein.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

[Ash_F]

197. Or they watch a lot of TV which has been going HARD for Clinton.

[DCBob]

198. True.. RW media especially Faux has been pounding her ever since this election began.

Its no wonder many believe so much of this crap.

[Ash_F]

200. I meant supporting Clinton hard. Barring Fox.

[CrowCityDem]

50. "Clinton or bust" was never a thing, which is the whole point.

As the campaign rolled along, the narrative of Bernie fans went from "Bernie is great" to "Hillary's the lesser EVIL" to "Hillary is a corporate whore" to "I can never vote for that MONSTER".

All the while, she was mostly avoiding saying anything negative about him, so there was no reason for the hatred to be rising like that.

[Armstead]

51. You are making the mistake of seeng this as a Tiger Beat Beauty Contest

Yes there is personality involved.

But in a larger sense, Bernie and Cinton are simply symbols of much bigger and deeper issues and social political forces and differences that existed long before this primary, and will continue long past it.

[liberalnarb]

172. Stick to the facts

No one said "Hillary is a corporate whore."
They were talking about certain Congressmen. Which makes sense considering Congress is completely bought and paid for.

[uponit7771]

175. +1

[kerry-is-my-prez]

95. I don't think there is such a thing. I think that most of us would have gladly voted for Sanders at

the beginning. Right now, I would vote for him if he were the nominee, but with trepidation. I feel that temperamentally he is better as an outside agitator rather than a "team player/leader." Hillary quite honestly does not generate that kind of fervor. As a woman who was/is a feminist I do feel excited that we will probably have our first female president. It's about damn time!

[brush]

109. Clinton or busters?

That is absolutely my first time reading or hearing that term.

We all know very well that most Clinton supporters have repeatedly said they would vote for Sanders if he won.

That commitment to voting blue doesn't exist anywhere near as strongly in the Sanders camp. We all are very familiar with the term Bernie or bust.

[Armstead]

117. I just made up that term,...

But it was safe for Clinto9n supporters to say "of course I'd vote for Bernie if he's the nominee" because they did not believe thatwas a possibility.

It's like me saying "Oh course if someone gave me a million dollars I'd give it all to charity." It aint ginna happen so I can make the claim easily.

But of somehow it did become a possibility that Bernie could upset her for the nom......many Clinton or Busters would be singing a different tune.

[brush]

136. Not buying it at all. Most Clinton voters are actual Dems who believe in voting blue . . .

no matter who.

We are for the most part, not indies who dropped in just to vote for Sanders, or this cycle's version of pumas. We believe in the benefit of what belonging to a party can do — witnessed by the superbly coordinated roll out on Wednesday of endorsements for Clinton once the delegate threshold was reached.

First the President, then Elisabeth Warren and Joe Biden, all on national TV platforms seen by multiple millions of voters.

That's powerful. A party concentrating all its resources together and targeting them on a goal is sort of like what unions do for workers. Collectively you are much stronger than individually.

Too bad it took Sanders so long to realize that. He stayed an independent too long, never benefiting from being part of a party, and once he did, he was way behind in super delegates and familiarity and solidly formed relationships which engender loyatly in the party, as any newbie would be.

And then he started fighting the party — not good.

[Armstead]

138. A well oiled machine is not the same as actually working for people

The GOP also had a very well oiled machine, until sand got thrown into the gears.

If the Democratic Well Oiled Machine was more clear working to represent the actual population -- instead of its schizo split between Big Money and its professed goals -- many more peope would be inclined to enthusiastically join and support it.

[brush]

143. Eh, it worked. Try joining it and working within it to change it . . .

not fighting it from within like Sanders tried though.

That doesn't work — you know, you attract more bees with honey instead of vinegar — that sort of thing.

[Armstead]

148. If one disagrees with something, one has to express disagreement

That's the problem .

Anytime the Democratic Establishment rolls out something that people disagree with, they are dismissed as whiners, disagreeable malcontents, etc.when they try to change it.

[brush]

154. Come on. You've lived life. You, just as I have, have learned that the way to get . . .

what you want is to not alienate people but to get them on your side somehow.

And that can be done, if you're smart, without sacrificing principle. You might have to give a little to get a lot, but you learn how to operate. Digging in your heels and being unyielding never cuts it.

[Armstead]

157. In real life I'm a very nice guy

I get along fine with people.

But sometimes one has to push.

[brush]

159. I agree with that. Sometimes you have to push, sometimes to yield.

[bonemachine]

207. Yup. And the Democratic party has been yielding for 25 years

That's why some of us wanted a candidate who would push instead...

[swhisper1]

194. I think you have that backwards. The Party fought him

they did not assist him, they put up obstacles, they laughed at his policy. That is not support. For 30 yrs he has supported the party in legislation and votes, and they kicked him in the teeth.

If he had gone Indy, the DNC would be third in line for the presidency. Progressives will not make that mistake again.

The Super delegates were bought and paid for before Bernie even declared. That is bushwacking the voters and should be banned in the future

[brush]

201. Here are some quotes from Sanders and a links that makes one wonder why ran . . .

as a Dem. Because to a lot of us, he started off as saying he would not run a negative campaign, but once he started losing, all he did was trash the "Democratic Party Establishment".
How do you do that if you're a Democrat?

"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."

"The Democratic and Republican parties are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, they both adhere to an ideology of greed and vulgarity."

“Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/15/1409803/-Introducing-Bernie-Sanders-the-Hypocrite

https://panampost.com/nelson-albino/2016/02/17/why-doesnt-bernie-sanders-get-called-out-as-a-hypocrite/

[swhisper1]

204. being a democrat is pointing out corruption, even within a party

corruption by definition is negative, Negativity is name calling such as "fringe candidate. one issue candidate, will never come to pass, " should I go on? I do not recall any namecalling or misrepresenting from Bernie. He did say he did not agree with some of her issues, and did speak some facts like she voted for Iraq. That is not negative, that is factual well known stuff.

When asked about her scandals, he always said "We'll see". That is not negativity. Why should he defend her mistakes and foot in mouth disease? His center is anti corruption and you want him to defend a most corrupt opponent?

You expect too much

[brush]

205. Other Dems don't publicly trash the party, maybe their opponent, or the repugs.

If you have problems with the party, work internally to change it, or leave it if you can't square it with your principles.

He's been a Dem for a year and has been trashing it for half that time, which gives repugs talking points. Not good.

And Trump has repeatedly used some of the Sanders campaign's own words against Clinton.

[swhisper1]

206. voice leads to change, silence does not, I would think you would know that

[brush]

210. I said work internally within the party. Did you miss that?

We don't need to give Trump and the repugs an advantage by publicly tearing down our own party.

That's not smart.

[swhisper1]

216. the movement is against all corruption in DC, not just DNC corruption

he will be tearing down the RNC as well, in fact, he already started. He didnt tear down the DNC. He just let us realize DWS was a fraud and criminal before he said anything. The DNC piled on him, why do you think he is the trouble maker? Because he defended himself? Thats not very democratic of you to suggest otherwise

[brush]

218. Okay, he joined the party. You don't publicly tear down your party . . .

then expect your party to give you the nomination over the person who got more votes and more delegates.

That's actually what one would call undemocratic, and going against the will of the majority of the voters.

But this is all water under the bridge. Sanders lost, let him continue with his movement outside the Democratic Party, especially since he's filed his papers to run for the Senate again in 2018 — as an independent.

Guess that's what's called covering your as_ if you don't win the Democratic nomination.

Was he ever really a Democrat, or just using the Democratic brand for name recognition and TV debate exposure? I don't know of any other Democrat that trashed the party like he did. And if he's so against corruption in the Democratic Party why the hell did he join a corrupt organization?

[swhisper1]

219. Christ, you will never understand. Goodbye, have a nice day

You might ask what the DNC has done for you lately

[TeacherB87]

151. There's no evidence to back that up.

Every poll on the issue I've seen showed that far more of her supporters were willing to vote for him than visa versa. Nice try though.

[Lord Magus]

160. What group would that be?

I don't recall anybody threatening to vote Trump or not vote or vote third-party if Hillary doesn't get the nomination.

[roguevalley]

186. I rather think of it as the group that is allergic to corruption.

[tecelote]

3. But Hillary's supporters don't fit this model?

Demonizing Sander's supporters is such sport!

[DCBob]

5. Hillary supporters think and react more individually than Bernie supporters who prefer "groupthink".

The huge Bernie rallies versus Hillary's smallish ones are a perfect example of this.

[tecelote]

8. If it makes you feel better to think that, go ahead and delude yourself.

If any group fits the group think model, its...

Oh never mind. You can believe in your superiority. Don't let me ruin your party.

[Blanks]

39. The difference is...

That I haven't seen a single Hillary support even float the idea that they wouldn't vote for Sanders in the general election if he won the nomination.

Of course, I'm not around here every day, but every Hillary supporter I've seen around here and on Facebook would gladly vote for Bernie.

That's the big difference IMHO.

[apcalc]

80. Hillary voters see the danger that is Trump.

[AgadorSparticus]

139. That's not true. I have seen hillary supporters repeatedly say they will vote for Bernie if he

Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Takes the primary. In fact, many hillary supporters even state that they like Bernie. Well, that was a couple months ago. The last couple of months has made it more difficult to like what he is doing.

[Blanks]

155. Ahem, you're agreeing with me. eom

[AgadorSparticus]

156. Just keeping you on your toes! 😜 lol sorry. Supposed to be under a different post upthread..

[Blanks]

191. Thanks...

If someone isn't keeping me on my toes, I'm worthless.

[mythology]

189. I remember at least one who proudly said she would vote for Trump over Sanders

There were definitely some who said they wouldn't vote for Sanders. But as somebody else said, it was easier for Clinton supporters to say they would vote for Sanders as it was so unlikely Sanders would get the nomination.

That said, I think like most of the PUMA movement in 2008 ended up voting for Obama, I think most of the "Bernie or Bust" movement will end up voting for Clinton. The primaries cause a lot of hard feelings and that doesn't get turned off immediately when the primary ends.

[Blanks]

190. I expect you are right...

Most Bernie supporters wil vote for Hillary. At least the ones that aren't trolls and wouldn't have voted for Sanders anyway.

[Armstead]

41. Thats because we're all Communists

You discovered our dark secret.

We are all part if a mindless Stalinist advance group of the Red Hordes who soon plsn to invade your shores.

Jesus sometimes I think Rush Limbaugh ought to join the Democratic Party these days. He'd fit right in.

[DCBob]

42. Finally you admitted it!

[Armstead]

47. yeah I'm also a Scientologist and Moonie on the side

[sufrommich]

44. Some of you have a lot of delusions that you're seen

as sexy,dangerous radicals too.

[Armstead]

46. Unlike Clintonites who see themselves as part of the powerful "in crowd" of insiders

Vicarious "cool kids"

[sufrommich]

48. I see myself as a voter,a democratic voter.

I have no delusions that I'm feared by huge swaths of the U.S..

[tecelote]

53. " I have no delusions that I'm feared by huge swaths of the U.S."

Me either.

In fact, Bernie supporters are superior to Hillary supporters when it comes to violence. We want moral and ethical approaches to the quagmire in the Middle East and your candidate is a hawk. Hillary can rival any Republican in her use of the military to solve other nations problems.

[Armstead]

58. I can't even respond to such dismissive smug stereotyping nonsense

[sufrommich]

62. Because you meant "vicious cool kids" as a good thing?

[Armstead]

67. That was in response to your characterization

Maybe you should accept that the supporters-of both candidates are simply massive collections of diverse and ordinary people who have differing political opinions.

[apcalc]

81. Not quite

The insiders with the real power in this country have never been women, POC, or LGBT...
We are fighting for representation, and have NEVER been part of the "in" crowd.

[auntpurl]

84. Well said.

I've genuinely never understood how the Hillary supporters as a group have been described as elitist, when they largely consist of the poorest, most denigrated and disenfranchised members of our society.

I've also never understood how the Bernie campaign as a whole could describe itself as being representative of a progressive movement when it never had the majority support of women and POC (not sure about LGBT), the absolute FOUNDATION of any progressive movement.

[Armstead]

97. One can't defeat decades of identification in a single year

Problem is people don't change habits or identification easily. Butuo against a power and entrenched political machine he attracted almost half of the participants in the primary. That matters.

Bernie has attracted many people among those groups you mention.The below is a campaign commercial targeted to a demographic -- but it aptly represents the inclusive spirit many people have had.

[auntpurl]

99. In my opinion, Bernie did not do enough to enfranchise people

The economic message does not resonate with some as strong as it does others. He wasn't able to effectively differentiate between economic injustice and racial injustice. The one AA kid who got shot lived in a gated community. They got shot because they were black, not poor.

And when you walk down the street every day worrying you might get shot, what Wall Street is up to is not in your top 5 priorities.

Again, this is my opinion as an observer.

[Armstead]

104. I said you don''t change Rome in a day...

That false division was a marketing strategy by the Clinton campaign.

There is NO reason to say one can't support racial/social justice and economic justice simultaneously. They are all interconnected.

[auntpurl]

113. You can say it simultaneously, but Bernie didn't really say it at all.

He didn't talk about racial/social justice very much. At least not that I heard. I listened to his speeches, and I heard a lot about economic injustice and not much else. Hillary made it inclusive in her speeches from the beginning.

I disagree strongly that it was a false division OR that it was promoted by the Hillary campaign. It was a real difference. Bernie started behind the 8 ball with POC because he'd been very critical of Pres Obama, and he never made up the ground. It's probably the number one reason his campaign wasn't ultimately successful.

[Armstead]

120. You just didn't listen then

He had that as one of his major positions in his speches and elsewhere, and he did engage in active outreach. Buthe had a lot of overcome for that to break through.

Frankly the assumption that AA's all think alike strikes me as somewhat racist.

If someone has disagreements with a president on certain issues, that is not automatically a reason to oppose them based on group identification. Clinton exploited that.

Nobody was paying attention to Benie before, so its not like he was already known as some big Obama hater. The Clinton campaign used Bernie's disagreements with Obama on some issues and mischaracterized it and encouraged the image that Bernie was a string opponent of the first AA president.

So Sanders actual beliefs and values and goals was distorted from the start.

[auntpurl]

122. Well, we'll agree to disagree.

I see from your sig line that you will prioritise the good of the country (and the world!) in November, so thank you for your vote.

[DLCWIdem]

161. Armstead your thinking its false division but sometimes its not

Let me tell you a true story. 20 years ago, when I was as Marxist as Bernie in school we had a speaker come and talk to us. One of the first things he said was that we whites had a " privilege patch" which we carried around with us. I being the Marxist that I was said that I didn't agree with that , that it was the intersection of race and class that was the real problem, etc... All the good Marxist philosophy. But he wasn't buying it.
And I thought sure he is right, race or ethnicity have their own special issues as does gender. This was 20 years before HC. She didn't make those divisions, they are already there.

[Armstead]

163. First I am not a Marxist. Second I am well aware that race is not an issue invented for this campaig

I am actually more like Obama in an ideal sense. I agree with every word of some of his better speches, and I appreciate his 3D thinking.

However, I'm more towards socialism in the democratiuc socialist sense. Capitalism is fine with me. But within it, capitalism contains the seeds of tyranny, if it is left to its own devices. Money feeds power feeds money feeds power..in an escalating spiral -- unless the larger public interest is also imposed to keep it within bounds.

As for race and Clinton. It's similar to Trump in reverse. Trump certainly did not invent bigotry. But he capitalized on it, and is using it to attract that side of people.....Similarly. Clinton (her campaign and supporters) are capitalizing on divisions among races from the other side. Bernie's message is "let's come together to assert the intersts of the majority against the small number of elites at the top." Clinton has tried to defuse that by creating a false division between "social issues" and "economic issues" as if you can't be equally concerned about both.

[DLCWIdem]

168. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree

The point of that story is that the divisions exist before HC. She didn' t create them, the divisions were there before. As much as Bernie is trying to say that economics is the most important issue and it will solve the social issues of racism, AA are not buying it. Just like that speaker in my story didn't buy it from me 20 years ago.

[Armstead]

185. I agree that economics will not solve all racial problems.

But its also ridiculous to say that we can't deal with economic justice until the world is totally free of racism and bigotry either.

It is possible to work on both simultaneously. It's necessary. And they are not unconnected.

[uponit7771]

177. +1, I said the exact same thing the other day... WS was bad but not the top 5 of PoC and LGBT and..

.... women who were already economically insecure

[Armstead]

90. Depends on which in crowd one refers to

A wealthy white person who is a member of the economic and political elite class andspends Christmas with henry Kissigner at Ralph Lauren's mansion, and is backed by Goldman sachs is part of the in crowd.

Perhaps the reasons for supporting her may be different, but apart from the obvious (and positive) aspect of being the first woman president is just one aspect of the package.

[uponit7771]

176. +1

[deathrind]

54. It will never compute...

For some, because issue were not of importance. It is/was all about broken glass and history...principals be damned.

...and you are right about how far right the "left" has gone.

[seabeyond]

106. You are wrong. Clinton's policies are better than Sanders. Nt

[deathrind]

114. I guess if you think

These are good policy positions...

1- healthcare for all is impossible.
2- support for war
3- support for fracking / keystone
4- support bailing out banks
5- support the TPP
6- support SOPA
7- support border fence
8- support offshore / arctic drilling
9- support loss of civil liberties
10- support economic inequality

A few of the glaring differences between the two.

[seabeyond]

118. And this would be the group think. Create a caricature not of fact, to easily tear the person down.

[TeacherB87]

152. I thought Rush already found a secret way in through the Sanders campaign.

What, with all of the right-wing conspiracy theories being bandied about by his supporters.

Also setting up a straw man like "we are all Communists" is pointless because virtually no one thinks Sanders supporters are that extreme. Sure, there are people who label them as "pie in the sky," but thats about it.

[Armstead]

56. I'll remember you said that when Obama and Clinton hold big rallies

My God! Do you remember the 2008 campaign? Including the General, when Obama attracted huge crowds to massive high powered rallies.

That was seen as a positive sign of his appeal. Were you riping how mindless the Obama campaign was compared to those sane individualist Mccain supporters?

Get a new meme. This one isn't going to work.

(Ironically, as I recall, Cass Sundstein was/is a big Obama supporter.)

[DCBob]

59. No doubt they will... the issue will be defeating Trump and the GOP.. a worthy and rational cause.

Dont you agree?

[Armstead]

64. Please stop for a moment and think about what you're saying

Obama holds huge rallies and attracts large masses of enthusiastic supporters -- one of the most gifted politicians of out time, and someone who is leading a movement that is revitalizing politics.

Bernie Sanders does the same thing and he is just leading a group of brainwashed cultists.

[DCBob]

68. Obama was the real deal. Bernie is great but his focus is way off target.

Thus his followers have gone off the deep end with him.

[Armstead]

72. Okay obviously you are locked into that template

Perhaps, just perhaps, you might consider the remote possibility that systemic corruption does exist, and that the cause and effects of that are worth addressing in the political system.

I'm saying that as a 64 year old fart who is not looking for the revolution, but has been appalled at our slide away from basic liberalism, and the principles of common sense and common decency that has occurred steadily -- and continued unbroken -- since the election of Reagan.

[DCBob]

77. Yeah, I see the systemic corruption.. anyone can see that.

The question is how to deal with it and keep the wolves at bay at the same time. There are multiple battles going on here. The biggest one is keeping the GOP from taking over this country lock stock and barrel. Then the "systemic corruption" you mention will seem like a rose garden once the GOP implements their agenda on us. We dont have the luxury of focusing on "wish list" items when there is a monster at the door.

[Armstead]

85. That has been said consistently by the Democrats since the rise of the Clintons and DLC

Yes, the sun rises in the east and the GOP are absolutely awful. They need to be blocked at every turn. That's true this year and it has been true since the Nixon era.(Before that they were a mixed bag, and one can't compare Ike to Goldwater)

But the problem is that it also has to go beyond that. HOW can the GOP best be blocked? And, just as important, the GOP should not be emulated, in "kinder and gentler" form.

The Democrats have just as actively smacked down efforts to prevent concentrations of wealth and power as the GOP. They have been just as complicit in marginalizing liberalism and painting what used to be core principles as "fringe left."

Democrats have also been steadily politically weakened by not offering a clear message and policies and actions that distinguished them from the GOP. Occasionally a gifted politician may capture the WH, but otherwise the GOP Conservative Advance has rolled on, regardless of which party has had "control."



That's just as big a problem as keeping out the GOP.

.

[DCBob]

87. "Keeping out the GOP" is by far and away the most important issue.

They will tear down most everything we hold dear if they take full control of the three branches of government.

Bernie's focus on how corrupt the Democrats are is not what is needed now.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

108. You have to change the people's minds. That is how real change happens. There's a lot of angry

fed up people out there. It's too bad there isn't a JFK - someone who is appealing to the entire Democratic Party and enough Republicans. The Republicans have been manipulated and so infused with hatred against minorities, I think it's going to have to take a lot to straighten out the party of angry white men.

[Armstead]

112. What I honestly wish is the Obama had listened more to his "inner Bernie" as President instead of ..

his inner Clinton as President.

I think if he had done that from the beginning, he could have been a real ass kicker. Yes the GOP and RW would have still opposed him -- but in a larger sense, he could have gotten more accomplished, and more importantly reshaped the basic context of politics and government with strong popular backing.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

140. I can agree with you there. He was too chicken, afraid he would be seen as an "angry black man."

If you look at his past, he had always been conciliatory and one who didn't make waves. The label of "change" was something that others hoisted upon him and hoped for. I didn't believe it at all, to be honest.

I really do think that we have more of a chance with Hillary because she does have a past of being an "ass kicker" who doesn't care if people hate her guts - she's very used to it and is capable of dealing with it.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

131. Can one choose to rip both? I could not stand the Obama adulation and the Dean adulation before

that. I thought that people were projecting all kinds onto Obama and Dean and that they weren't really these "great messiahs." I don't think Bernie is a "great Messiah." I do think that the McCain people were less fervent but they did have their head up their asses to vote for another Republican after BushCo and to put up with having Palin on the ticket. Not the brightest bulbs in the tree.

Honestly, I think this country is majorly screwed up and I would just like to move to the Netherlands to be with my relatives. But even there, the US still has the power to screw up the world. It will take forever to change this country because the majority of people are just too far to the right. I don't see anyone out there who can bring everyone together and the Republicans have done a great job of brainwashing and creating a bunch of haters.

I will vote for Hillary, however, since she is the best option. She is saying things that make her look too far to the right, but I do believe that a lot of this is not the real Hillary. I hope the real Hillary is more the Hillary from Arkansas and the Hillary when she was an attorney. The Hillary who tried to get health care through and was resoundingly thumped for it. I hope the story about her telling Bill not to go with NAFTA is true.

Hillary has been beat up by the Republicans so many years that I like to think she is going smack them down - but in a smart way where they won't see it coming. I hope she has been pushed to the left by Bernie and Elizabeth Warren.

But then again, I could be wrong....

[Dustlawyer]

60. I have been thinking for myself for 52 years. I have been for Publicly Funded Elections

way before Bernie decided to run. When corporations and the wealthy are allowed to legally bribe our politicians the Clinton camp thinks, "What could go wrong, she said that all of that money didn't influence her one bit!" That's the group think that I don't understand.

Call it whatever you want, but Sander's supporters are tired of the corruption and the 99% of Americans getting ripped off by the 1% who control our government. Hillary group think says she will suddenly become the champion of the 99% over the desires of her benefactors. Now that is extreme!

[AgingAmerican]

128. Bizarre

You are attempting to reconcile what you see, with what you believe. The term for this is 'Cognitive dissonance'.

[lumberjack_jeff]

144. An odd phenomenon, don't you think? Most young democrats rallying round an old, fringe, outsider?

I wish you all would make up your minds. You bounce from excuse to mutually-exclusive excuse faster than I can keep track.

[DCBob]

147. He has tapped into their anger.

Similar to how Trump has tapped into RW anger.

[Miles Archer]

179. Huh? Did you actually just say all of that?

I'm a Sanders supporter and that's because I believe in his platform, not because I want to sit under a tree and hold hands with "like-minded people."

You have a pretty narrow view of life.

You have no idea what I "prefer," but that doesn't stop you for speaking for me.

And don't pretend for a minute that there's a total absence of "groupthink" among some of the Clinton supporters on this site.

Did you like that word "some?"

Did you notice how I didn't call out every Clinton supporter on this site?

Consider this a learning experience.

[DCBob]

188. Of course I didnt mean to imply all Sanders supporters.

But it does seem to have affected a large percentage of them. Many do believe in some of the strangest extreme things.

[auntpurl]

15. This isn't demonisation.

Group polarisation can happen to ANY group. It's aligned with ideas like confirmation bias. Everyone does this, to smaller or greater degrees. Bernie's supporters aren't mindless drones!

The internet intensifies the effect, as the article/the OP mention. More Bernie supporters gather together on the internet - they are generally younger and more tech-savvy than Hillary supporters. Therefore, they are more susceptible to the polarisation effect.

[DCBob]

23. Well said.

[Armstead]

49. This "cultlike" meme was thrown at supporters of Obama in 2008 too.

You are making the mistake of putting "Bernie supporters" into a separate category, rather than seing it as millions of people engaged in a political campaign.

yeah, we're looking for something different than an endless attempt to go back to the 90's, and think things need to be re-examined. So yeah, it doesn't fit into the corporate friendly "centrist" template. And people get passionate about that.

But overall we're simply average people who represented close to half of the participation in the primaries -- and will continue to be part of the political mix after the election.


.

[DCBob]

61. There was some of that.. me included. I thought he was going to save the world.

He has done great but not to the level that many of us had hoped for.

[seabeyond]

116. I remember that idealism way back then and it didn't make sense, any more than this one.

Which to me is even more extreme with even more extreme policy. More then anything during that time I worked toward reality, not the "Save the world" mentality because, well hell, politicians in a nation with differing ideas and an utopia just is not going to happen. What we feel so strongly about, the other side feels just as strongly with the opposite opinion. I can't see the world in that way, and it merely leads to disappointment and incrimination. An inability to see any accomplishment because the whole was not accomplished leaving people disappointed.

It is interesting. I think with Clinton, most Clinton supporters see the good, bad and ugly. A politician. When pretending Sanders is not a politician when he is no more than that, really sets people up for disappointment, but it also allows a blindness that so strongly has to be defended at all costs.

[DCBob]

125. I was hopeful back then.

I dont think he could have done alot more has the great recession hot happened and the GOP had not fought him tooth and nail every time he tried to do something.

[seabeyond]

141. Hopeful, sure. I was hoping he would legally go after Bushco though not seeing it. The difference

Between the two candidates, for me, was:

1. More chance to legally go after Bushco, TSA, NSA, ATT. Just a smidge, but hopeful. For integrity, I felt we needed to draw the line as a nation.

2. OK, black man can have before woman. I think it was an important issue to have optic of black family for 8 yrs. Obama and family have not only excelled, but did it all in such an easy dance, beautifully.

The rest were policy and I pretty much expected the same position as Democrats

Democrats are consistently on the right side and all have proven themselves. So. When we walk to blindly bash, it tells me the person stopped thinking. That is the only way it can happen. They stopped listening.

[Blanks]

43. We are all vulnerable to it...

and it's difficult to know yourself when you've been 'drawn in'. Theres an expectation that those who are effected will be angry when confronted with it.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

75. Yes - I hero- worshipped Clark. I was more susceptible to it when I was young - McGovern and JFK.

But luckily, they were more positive and upbeat. With Bernie, there's a lot of anger and feeling like outsiders.

[Lil Missy]

145. Actually, no. Berners did it to themselves with their behavior.

[treestar]

170. they aren't getting more extreme

or making unlikely claims, like voter fraud. Or making up a version of Bernie that is not real and repeating it over and over.

[auntpurl]

6. I've been saying this on DU for months now.

I think they got this from me.

Sincerely, your friendly expat psychologist

[DCBob]

7. You were right-on auntie!

I have been thinking about this in the past also and trying to figure it out. This article explained it quite well.

[auntpurl]

9. The other point the article mentions

about how supporters will ostracise other supporters if they don't conform to the more extreme group norms (even more so than they would an outsider!) is another psychological phenomenon called "subjective group dynamics".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565188

(Sorry, it's a journal article, but you can read the abstract)

You can see that here on DU too. Bernie supporters who weren't willing to go to the more extreme positions of "I'll never vote for Hillary!" or the like, were demeaned even more than the "outsider" group (Hillary supporters).

[DCBob]

17. Yeah, a bit like the French Revolution..

which became so extreme they began to devour themselves.

[auntpurl]

21. At the end of the process, no one ever passes the purity test

That is in ANY "revolutionary" process, not specific to the Bernie campaign.

[sufrommich]

33. "no one ever passes the purity test"

How many liberals who were once loved this board have we seen vilified for not supporting Bernie,I've seriously lost count? Another phenomena I've noticed here is people bragging that they have hundreds on ignore for not believing the same as them,what an odd thing to brag about.

[auntpurl]

36. Yes, this leads to more polarisation

and confirmation bias.

There's a similar thing in drug trials. Many drug trials use a sample group of people who are already likely to die because of their illness. If this patient attrition (participants dropping out because they are too ill to continue, or because they die) is not counterbalanced in the data, what happens is the results start to look better and better by the end of the trial. "This drug worked for 100% of the patients!" Yeah, that's because the ones for which it didn't work died.

The DU version is, "How could this horrible thing (Hillary getting nominated) have happened? Everyone I know agrees with me that Bernie is better! It must be rigged!"

I saw someone say in GD yesterday "Every horrible thing you think about Hillary Clinton originated in some Republican's mouth."

Now, that's obviously hyperbole. She's made mistakes, some pretty terrible, but I submit that the RW smears of Hillary have sunk so deep into the public consciousness that no one has a "clean" opinion of her.

[TwilightZone]

102. That's been particularly evident the past few days.

Those who weren't willing to throw Elizabeth Warren under the bus, for example, were berated by the diehards.

[auntpurl]

11. PS. Here's my post on it from back in March

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110770936

and it mentions what the article/you mention, which is that the internet tends to intensify the effect.

[DCBob]

19. I didnt see that post back then but you were spot on.

[beachbum bob]

10. its not hard to figure it out...the perfect "zealot" mentality and why sanders supporters so

dumbfounded as why their guy lost....social media exacerbates this....as sanders rallies were more "a social event" than a political rally and why those rallies did not lead to more votes....

[auntpurl]

13. It's important to remember that they aren't "zealots" in their individual selves

The group is bigger than the sum of its parts. In other words, real people are still in there. We've seen on DU in recent days Bernie supporters who are thinking deeply about the long-term implications of this election and have come to the conclusion that getting a Democrat into the WH is more important than their personally-held beliefs. These posters are less susceptible to the group polarisation effect. Quite a lot of them got hammered by other Bernie supporters for expressing their views.

When the new rules come into effect, the group will be broken up. The extreme views will not be allowed to be expressed anymore, and the polarisation effect will wane. If we leave them alone (and, I might add, not call them names like "zealot&quot , they will have the opportunity to examine their own feelings.

[beachbum bob]

24. z***** mentality as a "group"...with a few real z***** mixed in. Pretty normal group behavior

and why in most cases 85-90% of sanders people (like hillary's in 2008) will support the nominee.

[auntpurl]

26. Yes, I think that's a very fair characterisation. nt

[justiceischeap]

14. or that Clinton is a captive of the banks, you risk their good will if you disagree.

And I think this is why so many Sanders supporters couldn't figure out Hillary's numbers. Those supporters that were silent on some of the more extreme conclusions were silently deciding to vote for Clinton. Or some Clinton supporters decided to keep their intentions quiet so as not to be harassed by the more extreme Sanders supporters.

[aikoaiko]

16. This is a one-sided and therefore polemic analysis

What Cass is leaving out is that group polarization theory predicts that Hillary supporters also shifted to extreme degrees in supporting Hillary and denigrating Bernie.

He probably doesn't realize it because I suspect he is a HRC supporter and plagued by "Us versus Them" biases.

[DCBob]

20. As I posted earlier Hillary supporters tend to think more individually.

They dont go to large rallys or congregate on social media sites like Bernie supporters do.

[redstateblues]

29. I also think a lot Hillary's supporters never thought she was the perfect candidate

just the best one of the available choices. I was not a Hillary supporter in 08. I started this primary season feeling like she was the most qualified. I also started out being OK with Bernie-he didn't wear well with me however I would have voted for him if he had won.

[DCBob]

31. Exactly.. me for one.

I wish Obama would have run a third term. That would have been my preference.

[redstateblues]

34. I am gonna miss that guy a lot. He has been an outstanding President

and from all indications he is a fine human being.

[DCBob]

37. Yep.. we all are.

Hillary has some very big shoes to fill.

[uponit7771]

180. +1

[CorkySt.Clair]

220. +1

[sufrommich]

35. What "extreme degrees"? Name some.The Bernie group

here has literally villianized every once beloved politician or group that dared to endorse Hillary,every single one.

[aikoaiko]

126. For one, mere criticism of a HRC endorsers becomes villianization

It also include most of the sentences that begin with, "I like Bernie, but..."

It includes statements about Bernie's true motives to be to destroy the Democratic party or help Trump.'

It includes statements about Bernie's mental health or ego-maniacal motives.

It includes suggestions or statements that he is a racist, sexist, or anti-LGBT.

It includes creating parody sites based of DU members at JackpineRadicals.

It includes creating an alternative site where one could trash Bernie and his supporters in ways that would lead to legitimate hides if expressed on DU.

While there haven't been many if any documented cases of death threats, there was a case where a HRC supporter committed an act of actual violence against a Bernie supporter because of their pro-Bernie stance.

Much of that wouldn't have happened but for the polarization process working in the opposite direction of the polarization described in the article.

[DLCWIdem]

124. this might have been because HC supporters found themselves under attack

I only started here 2 months ago and before I started I was actually on the fence. The reason why I jumped off the fence for HC was that Sanders started floating the idea of overturning vote with SDs. I am from WI and I am really concerned with this issue (you know Walker). I was immediately set upon my first OPs and called "Brock" etc... Also during that time, I couldn't find a single OP in GDP which didn't degrade Clinton. There was even a OP that said she was to blame for apartheid. Don't tell me there wasn't polarization.

[aikoaiko]

127. I'm not saying there wasn't polarization, I'm saying by definition it goes in both directions.

That is the group process effect regardless of topic.

[Surya Gayatri]

18. Excellent analysis. K & R

Echo chambers are a breeding ground for polarization — and political campaigns often end up as echo chambers, especially in their late stages.

[workinclasszero]

22. Definitely fits the berners

The extremists took over that movement early.

[betsuni]

25. K&R

[Ruby the Liberal]

27. This isn't about Bernie. it never was.

This is about the groundswell of people on both sides of the aisle completely fed up with the whole DC drama scene. Politics as usual. Shutting down the damn government over partisan hissy fits. Declaring Mission #1 to be keeping the President from a second term before he even has a chance to move into the White House. Pols campaigning on "change" and then bringing in the same old economic hit teams to run things. People are tired of being fed bullshit while waiting on the last 30 years of flawed economic policy to trickle down to them.

My prediction is that this is going to keep on until it is addressed - and whoever wins in November will be a 1 term president while this undercurrent bubbles away to be resurrected in 2020.

Electing Bernie wouldn't fix it either - this isn't about who sits in the WH. This is a systemic issue that needs to be resolved and I don't think anyone has the answers.

[DCBob]

30. And the question is: Is the tremendous anger with the "whole DC drama scene" justified and rational?

We all know there are problems with the system and things need to be fixed but is it really a complete "disaster" as Bernie and Trump supporters think? Do we need to just completely trash the system and start over?

I think its more like "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". We need to be careful and cautious and deliberate with the changes or we risk doing more harm than good. IMO.

[Ruby the Liberal]

45. The answer to that likely depends on your situation

Wall Street is doing great. Barely a hiccup since the bailout. Upper middle class took some hits, but pretty much coasted through and are back on the upswing. Meanwhile, for the rest of the country, unemployment (and underemployment) has gotten to the point that record numbers of people have given up even looking for work. Wages have stagnated and people are going backwards, not forwards. Kids are leaving college with $50-$100k in debt for an average 4 year degree and taking $25k jobs to start paying off the debt. Just the other day, CDC reports came out talking about the skyrocketing suicide rates in the country over the last 15 years.

It is easy to be okay with the status quo when you haven't been negatively impacted by the last 30 years of economic policies. But those who are in that position need to look outside the bubble and realize that they aren't the majority of the country. For every winner, there are x losers - and x is growing. There are a lot of people hurting out there. Underemployment can be a bigger soul killer than unemployment.

You may not see it first hand, but I appreciate your willingness to consider that it is happening.

[DCBob]

57. My company went bankrupt during the recession.

We were on half salary for about two years and never got that money back. I was unemployed for about 3 months but was able to land a decent job with a former colleague. I am doing ok now but I took a big hit financially.

I feared what would have happened if I didnt get that job. I was in my upper 50's and an IT guy.. not a good situation looking for work. I can imagine though many like me who didnt get that next job. They are clearly in bad shape.

My point is, no doubt there are many struggling and that needs to be taken seriously but there are many who made it through the worst and doing fairly well and improving their situation albeit slowly. President Obama has made great progress in spite of the GOP trying to sabotage his efforts at every turn. I think Hillary will and can continue this progress.

[redstateblues]

111. The idea that someone would borrow $100,000 to get a degree in a field

that would only lead to a $25,000 job is madness. I scrimped and saved so my daughter could commute to an affordable public university so I know it is possible to get a degree without taking on a mountain of debt. There are always more ways to accomplish things.

[Squinch]

28. It is a terrifying phenomenon and has led to the truly awful things in history. I am in no

way comparing the Sanders campaign to those, but it does seem to fit the process if not the result.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Group think on a grand scale.

[blackspade]

55. Oh bullshit.

No one in the Sanders camp is hiding their personal misgivings. There is nothing extreme about Sanders positions. All of the topics he campaigns on are all very popular among mainstream Americans. They are only extreme to the elites and pundant classes.

[DCBob]

63. His positions are not necessarily extreme.. its his followers.

They have demonized Hillary Clinton in a very irrational way.

[auntpurl]

66. The group polarisation has been much less about "pro-Bernie" than about "anti-Hillary"

Which is reflected very clearly in the threads on DU. When was the last time you saw a pro-Bernie post in GDP? Ok, maybe here or there, but a proliferation of them? This has been true for weeks, if not months.

Sanders' positions are not at issue. The extreme hatred of Hillary is what the article is discussing.

[AgadorSparticus]

149. Exactly. The anti Hillary movement took on a life of their own.

To the point that it almost seemed calculated.

[tom-servo]

74. Minimization through classification...

... "group polarization" is one of the ways a group decides its priorities... like the cumulative firing of neurons.

[Baitball Blogger]

76. I remember a time when this country respected minority views

and rights because there was a belief that sometimes the majority can be wrong.

Maybe that was back when we had those Liberal activist judges.

[auntpurl]

86. "minority views"

In that Hillary has had the majority support of POC (and women, who are not a minority but have been treated like one always), what do you think's being represented by her nominee status? It could not be clearer that the "minority view" is being represented fairly and clearly this primary.

[Baitball Blogger]

89. This might come as news to you, but "minority" has legal meaning

that doesn't just pertain to PoC.

[auntpurl]

92. Yes...and?

[Baitball Blogger]

100. Well, it is an American legal principle.

I see by your flag why it still isn't connecting.

The Liberal courts used legal reasoning to support many of the Civil Rights actions that helped PoC. That's why they were called activist Liberal judges.

The sixties were a time for revolution. Essentially, a minority group that felt wronged by the status quo of this country rebelled and actively protested, and was essentially heard by our governing system.

Not much different by what we see with the Bernie group. The beliefs are real. The Chicago Tribune article is trying very hard to marginalize them. Just what we would expect from that paper.

[auntpurl]

101. I am an American.

But you've clarified your point now, thank you for that. Your original post wasn't clear (to me. But then I'm old, so who knows?).

The article isn't discussing people's fervor in re: Bernie's beliefs/platform. It's discussing SOME Bernie supporter's fervor in hating Hillary Clinton. They aren't saying the pro-Bernie sentiment is group polarisation. They're saying the anti-Hillary sentiment is.

There is nothing wrong with being fervent in your political beliefs. There is something wrong with demonising a politician to the extent you would vote against your own (and EVERYONE's) interests just to tear the system down because you hate her so much. Not you personally, obviously.

[Baitball Blogger]

105. They don't hate Hillary.

They despise her politics.

[auntpurl]

115. Oh, they hate her.

I suggest having a peek around the site that's been set up for Bernie supporters who've left DU and are free to speak their mind about Hillary without fear of reprisal. It's hatred on a par with Free Republic.

[Baitball Blogger]

119. I've heard some pretty nasty things said by Clinton supporters here

on DU regarding Bernie, so I guess it's all a wash.

[auntpurl]

123. How many Clinton supporters have you seen/heard say they'll vote for Trump if Bernie is the nominee?

I've never seen a single one. But I've seen a LOT of Bernie supporters say the reverse. THAT is the effect of group polarisation. That a group of people who self identify as progressive would vote for a bigoted fascist.

[Baitball Blogger]

129. They could be blowing off steam.

I, for one, do not think it's productive to push articles that try to trivialize a movement that has valid points. It will backfire. The push for conformity is strange to see on a progressive website, because conformity is not a forward-moving concept.

[auntpurl]

130. I don't think it's trivialising the movement at all!

I'm a psychologist. I think group dynamics are fascinating. I don't think it says anything bad about the Bernie supporters who engaged in it - it's natural, and if you haven't experienced it before, it's very difficult not to get sucked into.

Really, I thought this was a very interesting discussion - and at no point did I think the aim or the outcome was trivialising the movement or Bernie supporters.

I live in hope that they are blowing off steam. We all need to remember that Trump is one man - but the Republicans grew him. If they are in charge of all 3 branches of government, everyone gets hurt.

[AgingAmerican]

132. Show us one Sanders supporter saying they will vote for Trump

Thanks in advance

[auntpurl]

134. I don't want to link it directly

because I don't want to promote a site that engenders so much hatred. I'm PMing you now.

[AgingAmerican]

133. This OP is a pisspoor exercise in cognitive dissonance

IN the classic sense

[Agnosticsherbet]

135. It is easy to point at Republicans and say, that's polarization, difficult to admit

our polarization.

Confirmation bias exaggerates the echoes.

[PowerToThePeople]

137. Nothing wrong with being polarized against neoliberalism & war.

[bluedigger]

142. There was never anything extreme about Sanders' positions.

Many, many progressives continue to consider them desirable goals.

[DCBob]

167. It not so much Sanders himself, its his supporters who have gone off the deep end.

[CorkySt.Clair]

153. We've definitely seen that at DU from Sanders followers.

[Betty Karlson]

158. more dismissive bashing of Sanders supporters.

Great effort on the reach-out, guys! Keep them coming, and you will keep them going away - maybe for ever.

[eastwestdem]

162. I agree with you that the influence of social media is all the difference in modern elections.

While it's okay for those spouting politically correct/non-offensive views to do so on the MSM or in person, those who have radical ideas have really been able to find each other, unify, and intensify on social media.

[insta8er]

164. Works out the other way as well, Racist, sexist just to name a few what we have been called.

[andym]

165. There is value in group polarization

That's how dedicated partisans who will give their all to a cause are made. Bernie sparked more group polarization than any other candidate for the Democrats in a long time, with strong ideological stands. That is good for the Democratic party as it has essentially become a least common denominator party, trying to appeal to a very diverse set of voters, from moderate conservatives to ultra liberals. The downside is that Bernie's most adamant supporters will not support the Party's standard bearer for President, because she has been demonized as a non-believer/non-ideologue pragmatist.

Demonization of the opposition is a common element of group polarization and is often based on appeals to moral superiority. But this effect goes way beyond Bernie among political partisans. The tea party demonizes Democrats. Progressives demonize Republicans, etc. DU itself is the perfect breeding ground for group polarization where members try to out "progressive" each other. But in all cases, this motivates people to get things done.

[DCBob]

166. The point of the article is that group polarization..

has caused Sanders supporters to believe some ridiculous extreme stuff about Hillary Clinton.

[andym]

169. That goes with the territory

Partisans often will buy into conspiracies and defamation. Such beliefs are nearly impossible to undo. I'm sure a poll of DUers would find many believing in a "Bush crime family" conspiracy too. Various slanders about Obama and his church (Rev Wright) were strongly believed by some right here on DU in 2008, and so it goes.
This is just part of the cost for activism.

[Vattel]

171. Taking this sort of editorial seriously requires group polarization

[DCBob]

173. The author is credible.. worked in the Obama admin.

Cass Robert Sunstein (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School. Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School.

A study of legal publications between 2009 and 2013 found Sunstein to be the most frequently cited American legal scholar by a wide margin, followed by Erwin Chemerinsky and Richard A. Epstein.

[Vattel]

178. Don't worry, I know who Sustein is.

[DCBob]

187. Sunstein.

[Vattel]

193. thaks

[Number23]

181. K&R I always remember that iceberg photo the Sanders supporters were always waving around

That the tiny bit of the iceberg you could see, which was dwarfed by the considerably much larger bit of the iceberg under the water that you couldn't see, was somehow the embodiment of Sanders' support.

They clung to that illusion until the very bitter end.

Instead of seeing the two as representing different strands of the party, Sanders supporters have increasingly argued that their own candidate is on the side of the American people while Clinton isn't.

We see this garbage every single day.

[brewens]

182. Yes, we were all chanting, "it's Bernie's turn", "It's time for a socialist in the White House"!

Brainwashed ourselves into a frenzy that we could not be talked down from.

[840high]

183. .+1

[Lord Magus]

184. Nice strawman you've got there.

?itok=0fT9pHnw

[Maven]

192. "I think this dynamic is also tremendously enhanced by social media."

Yes, and also "protected" candidate forums on political websites.

[pat_k]

195. But the "echo chamber" inside the beltway sphincter is no problem, eh?

Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:04 AM - Edit history (2)

The REAL problem is DC group think.

To beltway Dems, any notion of actually standing up for the principles they claim to be committed to is immediately crushed by echos of "backlash" or "can't win, so don't fight."

The editorial is just part of the push to shut down any thoughts about the meaning of the Sanders campaign that might -- heaven forbid -- lead to changes in how they conduct themselves.

They want to go back to their belief that advocating "socialist" programs equals political death, even though the Sanders campaign has demonstrated the OPPOSITE.

Heaven forbid they even consider the notion that fighting for real economic and social justice is "good politics."

Nope. Can't go there. Better to write it all off as some sort of transitory, dysfunctional phenomenon.

[DCBob]

196. I think the author's main point refers to the extreme irrational negative view of Hillary...

... that many Bernie supporters have.

[pat_k]

202. Seems to me he's painting the campaign with a broader brush.

Last edited Mon Jun 13, 2016, 04:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Perhaps I'm being oversensitive. There has been a profusion of efforts to marginalize the Sanders campaign in one way or another. Anything to avoid having to acknowledge the actual significance. Sunstein's piece accomplishes the goal by defining the campaign as dysfunctional. He tells us:

The Sanders campaign has become a classic example of the phenomenon of "group polarization," arguably more so than any campaign in recent memory — even Donald Trump's, which has greatly benefited from the same phenomenon.

Gee, that sure sounds terrible. Sanders people are victims of "group polarization" so bad they're even worse than the Trump people!

Sunstein is painting with a pretty broad brush. He doesn't say "many of them." He doesn't say "some of them." He says "The Sanders campaign" (which encompasses millions).

The article is devoid of anything that would give the reader an inkling of what the campaign is about. Absolutely no acknowledgment that all those "afflicted" people came together for a purpose.

What we're up to is pretty simple. We are calling on the nation to recognize its illnesses; we are advocating effective, and available, treatments. That's what we were doing throughout the primary as we worked to get Sanders the nomination. That's what we are continuing to do.

Instead of acknowledging that the group he is talking about exists for a purpose, he just turns his lens on the group, finds some who hold beliefs he thinks are problematic, and then presents his diagnosis.

Easy peezy. It's not the nation that's ill, it's the Sanders campaign that's sick. Dysfunctional dynamics have turned them into a bunch of raving extremists. It's not the nation that needs curing, it's the campaign.

And what's the cure? if the group is the problem, the group needs to go. Efforts to make us "go away" are in full force.

Of course, group think is a real, and powerful social force. The beliefs of an insular group keep drifting further and further away from reality, as those inside the group reinforce the increasingly irrational beliefs. Group polarization is just a form of group think Examining how it may operate within the Sanders campaign is all well and good. But the purpose of Sunstein's article is not to analyse, the purpose is to denigrate. By defining the group as being afflicted by a problem that causes extremism, you get to write off the group as a bunch of extremists.

One of the beliefs Sunstein cites as being the product of group polarization is the belief that "Clinton is a captive of the banks." The problem here is that Clinton IS too cozy with them. It's understandable. She was a New York Senator, the home of Wall Street. It was her job to be a friend to the financial institutions. They may have brought down the world economy, but they were constituents.

The fact her coziness is understandable doesn’t erase its existence. To be sure, a vast majority of Sanders supporters have an extremely negative view of Clinton’s ties to the financial sector. The anger runs deep. Perhaps group polarization plays some role, but in my experience, the causal link is reversed. Anger at the state of affairs brought about by financial institutions, and anger at Clinton's ties to the perpetrators, brought people to the Sanders campaign. They arrived with the "extreme negative view," no "group polarization" needed.

There's certainly a vocal contingent of Sanders supporters who echo the vilification of Clinton we've heard from the Republican noise machine for years. On the other hand, there are plenty of supporters who push back and take care to distinguish legitimate criticism from propaganda.

Those expressing antipathy toward Clinton are doing it very noisily, but they don't represent the majority. Sunstein's article leaves the opposite impression -- that a majority of supporters are "off the rails."

Polls on the subject generally find that 30% of Sanders supporters say they won't vote for Clinton. At this time in 2008, 20% of Clinton supporters said they wouldn't vote for Obama. The difference is really not all that great.

The real "poster child" for the power of group think is the beltway. Inside the halls of power, irrational notions that are the product of, and reinforced by, group think, constitute an almost insurmountable barrier to progress. Ironically, the Sanders campaign itself is perhaps the number one threat to that edifice.

It’s a "given" within the beltway that advocating "socialist" notions like universal health care, billionaire’s tax, and so on, is political suicide. The successes of the Sanders campaign constitute overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's not just Sanders voters who would love to see a New, New Deal, Clinton supporters would love it too. Tragically, they've internalized the most insidious meme of all: "Can’t win, so don’t fight."

Hillary is the current "Can’t win, so don’t fight" standard bearer, but it's nothing new. That meme has kept Democrats from doing anything truly significant for decades.

Sunstein explains that group polarization is characterized by an absence of exposure to other perspectives. The image evoked is that all us Sanders supporters do is sit around egging each other on. It’s a picture that has little to do with reality. Perhaps there are a few supporters living in caves connected to the internet, but I’m guessing that most either live, or work, or socialize with Hillary supporters. We are a diverse group. Unlike DC, where group think pervades the entire social scene, Sanders supporters are found in every corner of the country.

Outrage at Clinton, as expressed by some, is personal and extreme. But for most, the outrage she provokes is no more extreme than our outrage at the Democratic Members of the House who worked to "put down" the effort to impeach Bush for torture. It’s no more extreme than our outrage at the Democrats who refused to Filibuster Alito when more than enough of them were committed to voting against him. We were baffled when Senators expressed the bizarre notion that, after refusing to join a filibuster that would actually stop Alito, their losing vote on the floor constituted "opposition." It's like they were speaking another language. Such a twisted notion can only be sustained though the power of group think.

The list goes on and on. The point is, much of the outrage expressed by Sanders supporters has roots that go deep -- roots that have absolutely nothing to do with the effects of group polarization.

[DCBob]

203. I think you misinterpret the author's main point.

He used the words "has become" meaning is has devolved into extreme beliefs due to group polarization. I dont think he is criticizing the main legitimate issues the campaign has focused on from the beginning. He is talking about the extreme irrational goofy stuff that has come out towards the end such as "Hillary is liar, corporatist, owned by Wall Street"; "the election is rigged"; "Hillary bribed those who endorsed her"; "Bernie can flip the enough superdelegates to win at the convention".. I could on and on. There are all sorts of bizarre things many Bernie supporters believe and its likely due to group polarization.

[Orsino]

199. Extreme inequality is the driver of extreme viewpoints.

But it's easier to pretend that Sanders invented yelling, I know.

[Live and Learn]

208. What a stupid commentary. It much better describes Hillary supporters than Bernie supporters.

Bernie supporters only supported Bernie because he supported their issues.

Unless all Hillary supporters support big banks and corporations, unfair trade agreements, more incarceration and war, I hardly think they can say the same.

[DCBob]

209. I think the author has alot more credibility than you do..

Cass Robert Sunstein (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School. Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School.

A study of legal publications between 2009 and 2013 found Sunstein to be the most frequently cited American legal scholar by a wide margin, followed by Erwin Chemerinsky and Richard A. Epstein.

[Live and Learn]

212. I know a lot of stupid people that graduated from elitist schools. Dubya for one.

I don't really care what you find credible. It is obvious that we don't share the same values.

[DCBob]

213. Comparing this author to Bush??

[Live and Learn]

214. Yeah, that is exactly what I did.

[MaggieD]

211. This is spot on

[Live and Learn]

215. Wrong again. nt

[anigbrowl]

217. This dynamic is not just enhanced by social media, but exploited by it. nt