Political Discussion

Indymisanthrope said:
I think there are two flaws to this argument, one of which @jaycee has already outlined. I do think Bernie's Bizarro-World logic takes over a bit, in the sense that after Warren said, when asked point-blank, that her memory was Bernie saying a woman couldn't win the election, the Bernie camp came out in force to assure us there was no way he said that, or that he meant it in the way Warren understood it. That has been followed by recent weeks of the Bernie camp telling us that Warren must drop out of the race because she can't win and her campaign is threatening the future of America (because she's hurting Bernie's chances).

The other part is this assumption that all voters are predictably rational actors who, given the withdrawal of one progressive candidate, will automatically revert to the other progressive candidate. But, and I think someone else had maybe pointed this out last night, there were polls showing that while Warren was a popular 2nd choice for Bernie voters, Bernie tended not to be the 2nd choice of many Warren voters.

The last element is that Warren deserves all the credit for ruining Bloomberg at the Las Vegas debate just *two weeks ago.* She's been a pivotal force in this primary, even if the net result wasn't more delegates in her column.

Somewhat tangentially, I thought this Vox writeup on Warren's popularity ceiling was a huge bummer for a few reasons:
www.vox.com

Why Elizabeth Warren is losing even as white professionals love her

Many college grads are living in the Warren bubble.
www.vox.com www.vox.com

We've previously had a conversation around how Bernie and his activists are cognizant of the fact that he will have to make compromises on his agenda if elected, because he won't have a cooperative legislative majority. Why is foreknowledge that Bernie will eventually bend on progressive ideals once he's in office not a problem when other candidates bending on progressive ideals to get into office, is?
Click to expand...

Warren, no doubt, deserves all the credit in the world for beheading Bloomberg. I’m also not sure why @jaycee feels the need to bring up her gender. As I’ve said, I would have been calling for Sanders to drop out prior to Super Tuesday if he had been in that situation. (Of note, nobody from the center seems to be doing anything other than praising the protesters that sparked Amy’s canceling of her rally and prompt dropping out).

Warren is who I wanted to run against Clinton in 15’. I also donated to her campaign twice last fall. I’m bummed she didn’t get momentum and that this didn’t turn into Bernie vs. Warren vs one centrist which would have allowed for a nuanced discussion of the benefits of each candidate and, potentially, the formation of a united ticket.

Also, nobody in Bernie’s camp was calling on her to drop out until after South Carolina. And most people didn’t even think to bring it up until the centrists consolidated. Bernie himself, yesterday called such demands disgusting— an assessment I clearly disagree with, but that’s the stance he has chosen to take.

I’m also not sure what compromising on policy while in office has to do with boosting Biden (Beto endorsement) and an accusation that served no purpose but split the progressive base (Warren) and make each side less likely to support the other candidate. And by the way, I think you’re right— there I think Warren base will be a bit split on where to take their support. It should still be the majority going to Sanders but where as polling at the start of the year indicated that majority of Warren supporters had Bernie as their #2 choice (and most the rest Pete it Amy)— there was a sharp decline in that support post-accusation.

Which is sort of the point. Warren has every right to run her campaign how she sees fit. She is a damn smart woman with a long track record of accomplishments and I’m grateful for her service. But as somebody who has viewed beating Joe and ensuring that the progressive base game out of this process united as vital- a number of the choices she has made, including not dropping out after Pete and Amy did and taking super pac money from sources reportedly tied to big oil has been deeply disappointing.
 
Last edited:
DownIsTheNewUp said:
I’m also not sure why @jaycee feels the need to bring up her gender.
Click to expand...

What?
I quoted your "women can't win" and kneecapping Sanders comment. Nothing else I said had anything to do with gender.

Stop making up stories or quote what you are referring to.

If the Sanders campaign was so weak that it impacted the results on Super Tuesday then enthusiasm was not what the camp was claiming. Period.
 
Last edited:
wokeupnew said:
Warren would have made a great president, damn.

I'd be 100% on board a Biden/Warren ticket. I think she'll endorse Biden even though that goes against all of her beliefs.
Click to expand...
If the Dems are smart, they'll push for this if they've decided they don't want Sanders. It's a good way to cover two "extremes" and give people a little more hope for change...............just my 2 cents.
 
AnthonyI said:
If the Dems are smart, they'll push for this if they've decided they don't want Sanders. It's a good way to cover two "extremes" and give people a little more hope for change...............just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Getting ahead of ourselves, but its not far fetched to think Warren could run after Biden finishes his first term. Biden will be 82 in 2023 if he makes it to a second term. Warren will be 74. She’d be younger than Bernie and Biden are currently.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
I’m also not sure what compromising on policy while in office has to do with boosting Biden (Beto endorsement) and an accusation that served no purpose but split the progressive base (Warren) and make each side less likely to support the other candidate. And by the way, I think you’re right— there I think Warren base will be a bit split on where to take their support. It should still be the majority going to Sanders but where as polling at the start of the year indicated that majority of Warren supporters had Bernie as their #2 choice (and most the rest Pete it Amy)— there was a sharp decline in that support post-accusation.
Click to expand...
I don't think we'll ever find out who leaked the story to the press in the first place. You could be right that it was someone in Warren's campaign. But I think it ended up being a Rorschach test for a lot of people: for some, it was Warren making an accusation "that served no purpose." But for others, it was Bernie making the accusation, and it was summed up by that post-debate hot mic moment when Warren told Bernie that he had just called her a liar on national TV. That, to me, after having refused to get into the weeds on it during the debate itself, was the signal to me that she a) really believed that he had said it, and b) didn't want to make a campaign issue out of it, but c) was genuinely upset by his response to it.

At the same time, the majority of the public is low-info enough that what plays as big moments to political junkies (The Accusation) is just more back-and-forth to a lot of voters. Frankly, it didn't even seem like that big of a deal to me until I saw some of the reactions to it here and on Twitter. Of all the minutiae and wrangling and salient moments of this campaign season, it's a little hard for me to believe that that's the one that resonated so hard with the general public that it fractured Bernie's support. And I don't mean that to sound like I'm condescending or telling you that you're wrong -- it's just truly a difficult concept for me to get my head around.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
At the same time, the majority of the public is low-info enough that what plays as big moments to political junkies (The Accusation) is just more back-and-forth to a lot of voters. Frankly, it didn't even seem like that big of a deal to me until I saw some of the reactions to it here and on Twitter. Of all the minutiae and wrangling and salient moments of this campaign season, it's a little hard for me to believe that that's the one that resonated so hard with the general public that it fractured Bernie's support. And I don't mean that to sound like I'm condescending or telling you that you're wrong -- it's just truly a difficult concept for me to get my head around.
Click to expand...

This is complete in the moment feeling and speculation:

If the Sanders campaign is putting that much weight into that accusation thing then they knew they had a misogyny issue, were worried about said issue, and knew that it was making a difference for some voters. Instead of addressing the male rage at the heart of the problem within the ranks, which Bernie had 4 years to do btw, it was allowed to fester and continues to fester. Not that it could've been stamped out completely but I feel like it isn't out of the question that Sanders' campaign new that the impotent rage in their camp is not completely dissimilar to the Trump version, and that equated to a negative but still enthusiastic minority within the ranks.

Blaming Warren for fucking up Bernie's chances is not just a bad look but pointless and unproductive. It's crying about things that had a net zero impact on results instead of looking inward to fix the issues.... The much bigger issue for Sanders moving forward is that the coalition of union and black folk whose support you desperately need is waning everywhere but on the coasts. That's not a tenable nomination path and it's definitely not a tenable general path and because of that Sanders is no more likely to beat Trump in the general than Biden at this point, which is so so so very sad and disappointing.

I haven't looked at the delegate estimates but this all feels completely dead in the water to me. If there is some inkling that Bernie can come out as the nominee I do think the "diverse youth base" will turn-out and enough other people will vote against Trump... but it's just as likely that moderate Dems stay home and the fear of communism further energizes the Republican base.

I can't help but feel that all of this Warren's fault, she should've known, she's not really a progressive narrative that has been on full display is setting the "movement" back, which is even more sad and disappointing.

See you all in 2032 when there might be a chance again.
 
Last edited:
It kills me to see people blaming everyone but the Sanders campaign for his Tuesday showing. Super Tuesday killed him in 2016 and the campaign in 4 years has never meaningfully adjusted their outreach to Southern black voters. Black Southern Democrats are not "low information" voters. They are "low trust of white people" voters, and calculate that there is a better chance of a status quo Dem attracting middle class and higher white folk in the Presidential election than someone further left. I have read/listened to Sanders supporters since 2016 explaining that Sanders in no way damaged Clinton by staying in the race months past viability, and that their own continuous vilification of Clinton and the DNC had no impact because they reluctantly cast their votes for her in November. That it was up to HER to attract and persuade voters (which she did, in the majority), and her loss was because she was a bad candidate. But now it's Warren's fault that Sanders didn't deliver the voter turnout he's been campaigning on for his "revolution" because she didn't drop out when only 4 states had voted? Ludicrous.
 
GritNGlitter said:
It kills me to see people blaming everyone but the Sanders campaign for his Tuesday showing. Super Tuesday killed him in 2016 and the campaign in 4 years has never meaningfully adjusted their outreach to Southern black voters. Black Southern Democrats are not "low information" voters. They are "low trust of white people" voters, and calculate that there is a better chance of a status quo Dem attracting middle class and higher white folk in the Presidential election than someone further left. I have read/listened to Sanders supporters since 2016 explaining that Sanders in no way damaged Clinton by staying in the race months past viability, and that their own continuous vilification of Clinton and the DNC had no impact because they reluctantly cast their votes for her in November. That it was up to HER to attract and persuade voters (which she did, in the majority), and her loss was because she was a bad candidate. But now it's Warren's fault that Sanders didn't deliver the voter turnout he's been campaigning on for his "revolution" because she didn't drop out when only 4 states had voted? Ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Preach. They’re actually very pragmatic and strategic with their voting. And it’s not just black southerners, many white activists my wife and I know who still live in the south made the same decision.
 
It's a huge bummer to see how upset Sanders supporters have made many people. I hope there's something his campaign and non-aggressive Sanders supporters can do to heal the wedge in a meaningful way. Sanders has spoken out against it and there are Sanders supporters who aren't part of a mob or online troll army who are good examples but every day I hear from new friends and people online about long, deep, strong negative feelings toward him/his supporters. I can't keep up with all of it and I don't identify with or agree with any of the behavior described, so it's disorienting and overwhelming and I haven't really figured out how to discuss my support in a way that doesn't incite that hurt/anger/pain.

I try to support friends and listen and affirm their feelings when they express their frustrations about Sanders but I haven't really seen an opening to discuss Sanders without Bernie Bros being the one and main focus. I think, right now, I'm resigned to just not discussing politics unless someone approaches me about it and asks me specific questions. I don't know if that necessarily helps but I'm trying not to add to the hurt.
 
GritNGlitter said:
It kills me to see people blaming everyone but the Sanders campaign for his Tuesday showing. Super Tuesday killed him in 2016 and the campaign in 4 years has never meaningfully adjusted their outreach to Southern black voters. Black Southern Democrats are not "low information" voters. They are "low trust of white people" voters, and calculate that there is a better chance of a status quo Dem attracting middle class and higher white folk in the Presidential election than someone further left. I have read/listened to Sanders supporters since 2016 explaining that Sanders in no way damaged Clinton by staying in the race months past viability, and that their own continuous vilification of Clinton and the DNC had no impact because they reluctantly cast their votes for her in November. That it was up to HER to attract and persuade voters (which she did, in the majority), and her loss was because she was a bad candidate. But now it's Warren's fault that Sanders didn't deliver the voter turnout he's been campaigning on for his "revolution" because she didn't drop out when only 4 states had voted? Ludicrous.
Click to expand...

I understand your anger / annoyance / insert-word-here.

People like me are in no way discounting Sanders failures this cycle which are many- particularly not pivoting towards party unity after Nevada and not turning out the under 35 vote at the rates his volunteers expected. The problem that I see with your analogy is that a) there was no option of voting for Bernie when we held our nose and voted for Clinton. It was a two person choice between Trump and Clinton. And b) the reason we swallowed our pride was because the gap between Trump and Clinton was so large. (Unlike if it had been Clinton / Jeb Bush). I'd argue the ideological gap between Joe and Warren / Sanders is almost as big. I mean, hell, Warren first burst onto the national scene while taking Biden to task over his bankruptcy bills.

Realists among Sanders supporters knew Biden was going to run away with this precisely when Warren decided to not follow the tactics of the centrists and drop out. That's why it was frustrating. And one can vent about that frustration- and the sense that preventing Joe should have been the top priority (because the top priority for many of us)- without the implication being that all of this is on Liz. Only an idiot would think that (though I'm sure there are some idiots that have chosen to go there).

It's easy to flip the script here-- and point out that Clinton supporters and Dem centrists have spent many a sour grapes blaming Nader and Jill Stein of being spoilers. In reality, it's always a mixture of both. The "spoiler" did snag votes that likely would have allowed for a victory BUT it's also on the candidate who lost because the failures in their campaign are on them.
 
swamp jazz box set said:
It's a huge bummer to see how upset Sanders supporters have made many people. I hope there's something his campaign and non-aggressive Sanders supporters can do to heal the wedge in a meaningful way. Sanders has spoken out against it and there are Sanders supporters who aren't part of a mob or online troll army who are good examples but every day I hear from new friends and people online about long, deep, strong negative feelings toward him/his supporters. I can't keep up with all of it and I don't identify with or agree with any of the behavior described, so it's disorienting and overwhelming and I haven't really figured out how to discuss my support in a way that doesn't incite that hurt/anger/pain.

I try to support friends and listen and affirm their feelings when they express their frustrations about Sanders but I haven't really seen an opening to discuss Sanders without Bernie Bros being the one and main focus. I think, right now, I'm resigned to just not discussing politics unless someone approaches me about it and asks me specific questions. I don't know if that necessarily helps but I'm trying not to add to the hurt.
Click to expand...

It's been a(nother) major failure of his campaign. For sure. The Chapo Trap House guys get under my skin for precisely that reason. They might be funny, but their tactics on Twitter are counterproductive. Honest question though- how much of that is based off real life interactions versus what they read about or see via the press?

It is worth noting that as a part of canvassing training for Bernie this go round- volunteers were specifically instructed not to attack other candidates and to instead focus on their “Bernie story” aka why they support him. During the staff hiring process, they also cut ties with some VERY strong grassroots infrastructure in certain states (Michigan, Nevada, California, Iowa) specifically because those camps were very anti-DNC by nature. It was even a part of the actual vetting process- which pissed several former staffers I know off since they had done good work in 2016 but have also spent much of their careers battling the DNC on issues like fracking and foreign policy.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
It's been a(nother) major failure of his campaign. For sure. The Chapo Trap House guys get under my skin for precisely that reason. They might be funny, but their tactics on Twitter are counterproductive. Honest question though- how much of that is based off real life interactions versus what they read about or see via the press?

It is worth noting that as a part of canvassing training for Bernie this go round- volunteers were specifically instructed not to attack other candidates and to instead focus on their “Bernie story” aka why they support him. During the staff hiring process, they also cut ties with some VERY strong grassroots infrastructure in certain states (Michigan, Nevada, California, Iowa) specifically because those camps were very anti-DNC by nature. It was even a part of the actual vetting process- which pissed several former staffers I know off since they had done good work in 2016 but have also spent much of their careers battling the DNC on issues like fracking and foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don’t know how to talk about this or share my experiences without stepping on others’ experiences, which I don’t want to do. I don’t know the answer for how to unite ourselves but I don’t think me talking is as helpful as me listening and taking time to take it in meaningfully. My previous post was more of an acknowledgement that (hopefully) there are people who take this stuff to heart even if they aren’t posting and talking.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
Honest question though- how much of that is based off real life interactions versus what they read about or see via the press?
Click to expand...
Maybe you don’t hang around on social media much but if you click on about any political tweet pro or con Bernie or his rivals and you will see toxicity aplenty. It is certainly not limited to pro-Bernie factions but they tend to be the most vocal. Passion is good when applied in the right ways, attacking potential voters that would likely come over in the general is not the best path to tap into that enthusiasm.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
Maybe you don’t hang around on social media much but if you click on about any political tweet pro or con Bernie or his rivals and you will see toxicity aplenty. It is certainly not limited to pro-Bernie factions but they tend to be the most vocal. Passion is good when applied in the right ways, attacking potential voters that would likely come over in the general is not the best path to tap into that enthusiasm.
Click to expand...
This. I was wavering between Bernie and Warren for a long time but decided around a month ago to support Liz. She got my vote on Super Tuesday in California even though I knew her campaign was on life support (hey, so was Biden’s until South Carolina!)
The amount of negativity that I saw hurled her way (and at her supporters) has left such a bad taste in my mouth that I’m actually glad I didn’t support Bernie.
 
DownIsTheNewUp said:
Honest question though- how much of that is based off real life interactions versus what they read about or see via the press?
Click to expand...
TenderLovingKiller® said:
Maybe you don’t hang around on social media much but if you click on about any political tweet pro or con Bernie or his rivals and you will see toxicity aplenty. It is certainly not limited to pro-Bernie factions but they tend to be the most vocal. Passion is good when applied in the right ways, attacking potential voters that would likely come over in the general is not the best path to tap into that enthusiasm.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. And it honestly hasn't let up for 4 years. I base my complaints 100% on interactions I have witnessed involving at least 1 party I know personally.

I am not a Democrat, so my vote is not at stake here, and I've lived my entire life in West Coast states where my vote hasn't been significant, but I do align with more of Bernie's positions than any other candidate's. I just don't think he runs a good campaign OR that he's able to build a coalition where it matters OR that he's anti-establishment or revolutionary. When people say "amendment king" I hear "not great at leadership." When they point out his record standing for or against wars or civil rights, I look up his subsequent votes financing those wars and apartheid regimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top