Though Biden has been the polling/DNC favorite for months - I believe his stock will continue to plummet - to where the real battle will be between Warren & Sanders. Interestingly, Dem Establishment figures have lectured for years on the necessity in producing moderate candidates that appeal to Conservatives/Independents - but what's happening on the ground is self-explanatory: Outside of Biden (who has a half-century of name recognition while riding on the Obama legacy coattails) - the two strongest candidates are Progressives with a capital P: Sanders & Warren.

So let's look at their respective support base.

In the aftermath of the 2016 primary, much of the analysis was focused on the inability of the Sanders campaign to draw from a broad enough swath of the electorate to knock off the Clinton juggernaut machine - and rightfully so.

Fast-forward to today, and many still speak of the Sanders campaign as if it's 2016, persisting with a narrative that he struggles to attract a diverse base - but the data actually shows quite the opposite, particularly in contrast to Warren - whose support is significantly older, more affluent - and decisively whiter. In contrast, Sanders draws his support from a more diverse, younger, and working class group of voters.

A recent Pew poll confirmed: only 49% of Sanders supporters are white, compared with 56% of Biden voters, 59% of Harris voters, and a remarkable 71% of Warren voters. When it comes specifically to black voters, Sanders only trails Biden - and has neutralized Harris at ~10% - while Warren trails significantly behind.

While the "Bernie Bro" myth persists in the minds of many still bitter from the contested 2016 primary - its accuracy has been obliterated by what's actually happening on the ground with Democratic primary voters.

So - given that Sanders is starting to put together a primary voter coalition that reflects the diversity of the democratic electorate - will we start to see the corporate media think-pieces that make the case for Sanders over Warren? Unlikely.

My personal view is that both Sanders and Warren are excellent candidates to thwart Trump and I'd be happy with either one emerging. That said, it's very interesting to see many analysts (including here on OKP) push Warren despite her affluent, older, whiter (and often more male) support - when they were criticizing Sanders at every opportunity in 2016 for not producing a diverse enough base.




-->

but comparing Warren and Sanders, 2 things for me make her more appealing.

1) she is younger. Nothing against Sander for being older, but She couldn't last longer into a hopefully 2nd term.

2) Her energy. She looks like she is busting her ass and enjoying it.

>but comparing Warren and Sanders, 2 things for me make her
>more appealing.
>
>1) she is younger. Nothing against Sander for being older, but
>She couldn't last longer into a hopefully 2nd term.
>
>2) Her energy. She looks like she is busting her ass and
>enjoying it.

Warren really has been out there with potent vigor on the trail. I've seen her twice up North and she definitely is up for the fight. That's definitely appealing.


-->

Having a catch with his grandson. WHOLESOME!

https://twitter.com/IAStartingLine/status/1163595862309838853

of the top Dem primary candidates, and helps put things in perspective immensely:

https://www.people-press.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/08/PP_2019.08.16_2020-democratic-candidates_0-03-1.png


(note: chart is from this article)
https://www.pewresearch.org/2019/08/16/most-democrats-are-excited-by-several-2020-candidates-not-just-their-top-choice/


Also, this demographic analysis of candidate donors is really good too:

https://readsludge.com/2019/08/08/wealthy-white-and-over-50-the-demographics-of-the-democratic-presidential-donors/

Thanks for linking.

-->

this entire time.

Contrary to most reports, based on the analyses I linked above I don't see "any" candidates with a super diverse coalition with respect to race aside from Biden, whose support we have to take with a grain of salt because it's all folks 50+.

What I REALLY think is happening, especially with respect to black voters, is ambivalence. Looking at the Pew data, black voters are overwhelmingly represented as undecided, even in their breakout among religious voters. I think the media has been misinterpreting the data. Black voters don't necessarily hate Warren or Buttigieg or whoever.. it's that non-Biden supporting black dems aren't lining up behind anyone yet. Meaning they're very much still in play.

To put things in further perspective, Kamala and Booker have marginal leads in black donor support (just over 7% and 2%, respectively, while the rest of the field is 1% or less), but even their donor bases are still overwhelmingly white.

i guess the question is how set these older white voters are. its the biggest voting block right? if the undecided minority voters all chose the same candidate it wouldnt be enough to offset the older white voters sticking with biden. i think.

So Tulsi's not being buoyed by Richard Spencer and Vladimir Putin.

Who knew.

-->

What people don't get about this is that Warren WILL NOT DO WHAT SHE IS PROPOSING / WILL PIVOT TO THE CENTER. Like Obama she is mostly talk and will make a few incremental changes and that's it. Obama not following through on his progressive promises and stacking his cabinet with Citigroup suggestions https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8190 are the things that LED TO TRUMP. People just don't seem to want to see it, it is very frustrating.

Warren has a huge list of red flags, this tweet has a good summary of a few https://twitter.com/PollyTickal/status/1163203049348710401?s=20

Bernie released probably the most comprehensive criminal justice reform plan in history the other day and I posted it in the other thread and nobody said a thing. The points in there are what people in here have been wanting for decades and silence.

If people want to see anything remotely like that actually implemented Sanders is the only one with the movement, the fight, the activism and the conviction to do it. I GUARANTEE Warren pivots in the general, she already said she'll take corporate money. Campaign to the left, govern to the right, don't fall for it for the 4080'th time.

to the Center if elected. After all - she did throw her weight behind Clinton despite seemingly far more ideologically aligned with Sanders. (Incidentally, Tulsi is the only candidate running who was a Sanders delegate. All of the others were with Clinton).

I strongly prefer Sanders, but Warren would be about as good as it's going to get for Progressives outside of a Sanders nomination. That said - it's entirely fair to reference the red flags that you mention.

Also, further to your point of them not being the same, their current respective support base show stark differences in terms of who is supporting them. They aren't even gunning for the same primary voters right now.

-->

You are right about the different demographics but it is largely the media creation that they are the same that I'm fighting against. They are doing that in order to get people to leave Bernie because Warren is so much more palatable to the elites. One example is this article in the LA Times yesterday:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-17/a-tale-of-two-rallies-elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-have-similar-ideas-different-paths-to-victory

Also in the Emerson poll of Colorado that came out today with Bernie in the lead https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/colorado-2020-sanders-biden-and-warren-lead-democratic-field-democrats-look-to-gain-senate-seat they had a breakdown:

2016 Clinton voters: 45% for Biden, 21% Warren, 14% Harris, 4% Bernie

2016 Bernie voters: 53% for Bernie, 24% Warren, 9% Biden, 3% Harris

So she is obviously the one taking the most from him. Plus the anecdotal small poll on OKP has Warren now way in the lead of Bernie. People need to ask themselves why the media is pushing for Warren, what could be in it for them and why are people falling for it?

One thing I've also noted from 2016 Bernie voters (who now support Warren) is that many of them cited that they were tired of the negative connotations (created by corporate media) of being a Bernie voter. So some of them are actually supporting Warren over Bernie because of some social/peer pressure so as to not be marginalized by Democratic party norms. I see that in my home state quite a bit - particularly at the local level where the state party is in line with the DNC and there is a (not so hidden) directive to support anyone but Bernie in 2020.

Also of interest re: Warren -- she was fully vetted as a VP to Clinton and would've accepted the role:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/warren-hillary-clinton-vice-president-1435422

Many people (myself included) feel that this was the typical Clinton political chess move - to dangle a VP role for Warren in exchange for a Clinton endorsement (as a Warren endorsement would've been worth quite a bit for Sanders in 2016).

Regardless, it shows that Warren was and is prone to political calculation over principle.

-->

>One thing I've also noted from 2016 Bernie voters (who now
>support Warren) is that many of them cited that they were
>tired of the negative connotations (created by corporate
>media) of being a Bernie voter.

How disheartening is that? The corporations win again, yay!

>Regardless, it shows that Warren was and is prone to political
>calculation over principle.

Exactly!

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

at least not here.

I like a lot about Warren. Certainly preferable (for me) to Biden/Harris/Pete/Beto etc... That said, she has shown a lack of originality and courage on foreign policy - which is an area that desperately needs attention after the Trump admin.'s trashing around the world. Bernie's foreign policy is far more nuanced, cogent and progressive than Warren's - and that's an essential focus of one's job as President.

Obviously there are many reasons why voters prefer Warren over Sanders - but if you're speaking on Progressive credentials - they really aren't the same, at all.

-->

lol

The only things that appear to be somewhat decisive (to me anyway) are:

*Sanders support is bolstered mostly by young millenials/gen z, although Warren is competitive (and I believe Biden's entry and extraction of Sanders' boomer supporters has probably been the single most crippling blow to Sanders' campaign and electoral chances).

*Biden has the largest and broadest coalition with respect to race, education level and faith, but is bolstered overwhelmingly by older/boomer supporters and the religious.

*Warren and Buttigieg appeal is strongly correlated with higher education level.


The WORST claim I've seen repeated over and over, often in defense of Sanders, is that Buttigieg's donor base is the wealthiest (if we are considering $100,000+ p.a. to be exporbitantly wealthy... which some GS-13s and GS-14s might certainly question lol). Looking at the donor analysis I posted above (I'll link here again):

https://readsludge.com/2019/08/08/wealthy-white-and-over-50-the-demographics-of-the-democratic-presidential-donors/

one sees that ridiculous claim is based on a comparison of ABSOLUTE SUMS (i.e. the headcounts, or raw numbers) as opposed to an adjusted comparison such as the PROPORTION of donors who are high income. Comparing the headcounts/numbers of high income donors is misleading, and Buttigieg led the field in fundraising in 2Q so it is not beyond the realm of reason he would have high headcounts across income levels.

To put it in perspective, second to Buttigieg in highest "number" of high income donors was none other than Bernie Sanders - the socialist millionaire extraordinaire himself - who ALSO led the field in overall donor headcount:

1) Pete Buttigieg (4932)
2) Bernie Sanders (3802)
3) Kamala Harris (3625)
4) Joe Biden (3234)
5) Elizabeth Warren (3036)

Funny how math works. But if one looks at the chart where the PROPORTION of high income donors is compared as opposed to absolute sums, than the rankings are irrecognizably different:

1) Cory Booker (78%)
2) John Delaney (77%)
3) Michael Bennet (76%)
4) Kirsten Gillibrand (73%)
5) Kamala Harris (70%)

I speak to so many black people and ask them who they like and they say Biden almost reflectively. And they are almost always low engagement type of folks. I would go out on a limb and say that a large portion of the 29% Biden folks are not super engaged (e.g., Haven't watched a debate). I would say that's also true for the undecided black folks.

The difference of black supporters between Warren and Sanders is minor now.

A time will come when low engagement folks will get a look at Warren and Sanders side by side and make a choice. These folks won't care who came up with the ideas first. Or that Hillary did Bernie wrong supposedly or even that Warren endorsed Hillary over Bernie.

I think in that match up, Warren is a far more appealing and attractive candidate.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECba7qqUcAIcQFs?format=jpg&name=small

-->

... :-)

Thanks Trin.

-->

nice :-)

a little while ago...sanders surrogates were lashing out at unfavorable polls...saying they oversampled voters 50+ yrs old. but who do you think votes in primaries?

going by those pew crosstabs...

bernie dominates the age group that votes least in primaries then drops off precipitously among the groups that actually turn out. its pretty striking how bad he does with the 50+ crowd.

warren is doing really well with college educated voters too...who are also more likely to vote in primaries.

shes also killing bernie in the liberal and very liberal demos. if bernie cant count on *those* voters then who can he count on?

plus traditionally...1 of the top 2 candidates at the beginning of the race tends to fall out of the top 2. seeing how durable bidens lead has been so far...and the upward trajectory of warren...it looks like bernie is the odd man out.

i think the most likely outcome right now is that bernie and warren split the 'anti-biden' vote and biden limps in on the strength of residual obama coalition voters and older culturally displaced white mod/cons democrats.

this is just a purely academic guess based on the polling and not enthusiasm, fundraising, campaign quality, ground game, etc.

just that when Biden finally entered the race he stole his Boomer lunch (lol), for lack of a better term.

Remember how Sanders was leading by double digits before Biden announced? I think Biden announced and literally stole those entire bars from Bernie's chart.

Tbh my hunch was actually reinforced further by one of "your" links in that other poll post:

https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13342507&mesg_id=13342507&page=#13344066

where you shared the figure from that poll where the top 2nd choice of both Biden and Sanders supporters was each other. I think it's STRICTLY Boomers converging on Biden and Sanders.

There's a few analyses floating around that show Sanders seems to have the most fiercely loyal supporters, but that's "now"... and I believe comprised mostly of his Millenial/Gen Z supporters.

I saw a figure elsewhere (I wish I could remember, I'd link it for sure) where it showed that Sanders also leads the field in supporters that voice NO 2nd choice or are undecided on a 2nd choice. Again, I think those are Bernie's Millenials/Gen Z supporters (who seem to be attracted mostly by ideology, as opposed to his Boomer supporters... who are probably just on some Boomer shit).

Boomers seem to be rooting almost exclusively for other Boomers; mostly 1)Biden 2) Sanders and 3) Warren (the donor analysis I linked above shows a surprisingly large proportion of Warren's donors have been 65+)

>
>going by those pew crosstabs...
>
>bernie dominates the age group that votes least in primaries
>then drops off precipitously among the groups that actually
>turn out. its pretty striking how bad he does with the 50+
>crowd.
>

https://twitter.com/Grace_Segers/status/1113081309927178242
---------
A majority of donors to Bernie Sanders campaign are under age 39. Teachers are the profession with most number of donors.
---------

thats a pretty astounding stat.

the majority of bernie donors being from an age demo that doesnt particularly turn out strong in the primaries really spells out his struggles this go round.

hes obviously energizing the youth. hes not doing anywhere near as good a job with the folks who actually cast the votes.


>Remember how Sanders was leading by double digits before Biden
>announced? I think Biden announced and literally stole those
>entire bars from Bernie's chart.
>
>Tbh my hunch was actually reinforced further by one of "your"
>links in that other poll post:
>
>https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13342507&mesg_id=13342507&page=#13344066
>
>where you shared the figure from that poll where the top 2nd
>choice of both Biden and Sanders supporters was each other. I
>think it's STRICTLY Boomers converging on Biden and Sanders.

i think a lot of what you detail here boils down to name recognition too. bernie and biden are the only previously-known national figures in the race (a large reason for starting out top 2). so a lot of casual 'low info' voters recognize them more than the others. so i think its a case of people just going with the next known quantity (even tho they are at completely different ends of the spectrum).

meanwhile...the lesser known candidates (whose needle is moved further by better-informed and more-educated voters who drill down on politics) actually make more sense. warren voters choose sanders (progressive). kamala/p booty voters choose liz (basically candidate quality over name value).


>Boomers seem to be rooting almost exclusively for other
>Boomers; mostly 1)Biden 2) Sanders and 3) Warren (the donor
>analysis I linked above shows a surprisingly large proportion
>of Warren's donors have been 65+)

why do you think sanders isnt at least in 2nd place among older voters? warren almost doubles him in 50+ and quadruples his support in 65+.

it seems kinda hard to say bernie isnt struggling with older voters when *warren* also does better than him in both age groups over 50 (especially 65+). its an even bigger red flag imo when you figure those groups are the most socially conservative and shes doing better running to the left of bernie on many issues and is also a woman.

imo...bernie is running a more activist-centric campaign which plays well to radical-change-oriented young voters but is constricting his appeal. warren is doing a better job of connecting more with progressives in general (liberal/very liberal voters) and also older retirees, parents, etc.

>
>why do you think sanders isnt at least in 2nd place among
>older voters? warren almost doubles him in 50+ and quadruples
>his support in 65+.
>
>it seems kinda hard to say bernie isnt struggling with older
>voters when *warren* also does better than him in both age
>groups over 50 (especially 65+). its an even bigger red flag
>imo when you figure those groups are the most socially
>conservative and shes doing better running to the left of
>bernie on many issues and is also a woman.
>


Hmmm, well.. if Biden's and Bernie's "Boomer base" converges as tightly as I suspect it does, then they're literally fighting for the same exact set of Boomers and it's possible those specific Boomers strongly prefer Biden?

Like when there was no Biden, Bernie was their guy. But once Biden committed... lol.

And it's possible the "Biden-Bernie" Boomer set doesn't overlap with Warren's Boomer base - like at all - which might insulate her from Biden-Bernie tectonics?? I could definitely see that.

Straight up conjuecture though, lol. I don't think there's much data on this tbh.


Another theory is: assuming Bernie might attract the most prickly/angry/anti-establishment Boomers, perhaps such Boomers defected from Bernie to 45?? There is the weird "horsheshoe" to account for after all:

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

Maybe as the Dem primary became more and more of a circus, there were some defections. And (to my knowledge) the only top-tier Dem primary candidate that's been shown to share supporters with 45 is Sanders. I haven't seen any demographic breakdowns of the horsehoe, but it's a possibility I guess..

>
>meanwhile...the lesser known candidates (whose needle is moved
>further by better-informed and more-educated voters who drill
>down on politics) actually make more sense. warren voters
>choose sanders (progressive). kamala/p booty voters choose
>liz (basically candidate quality over name value).
>

SO LITTLE is known about the supporter composition of most of the LOWER-tier candidates. (The donor analysis I linked above is some of the little data I've seen).

We might joke now and view lower-tier candidates as non-factors, but those small percentages will add tf up as dropouts occur. It would be helpful if the media/pollsterati could actually do its job and get a sense of where these abandoned supporters will migrate to. Like who are THEIR supporters' 2nd choices, you know what I mean?

For example, Inslee dropped out this week. According to that donor analysis I linked above, he had the 4th highest proportion of Boomer donors after Warren (even though he's polling <1% according to RCP https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html). Still, I wonder who Inslee's folks will support now? In fact, when I look at the lower tiers and just try to guess what higher-tier candidates everyone's abandoned supporters might flock to, I mostly end up with a sprinkling of:

*Biden (he might get the lower-tier centrists' supporters i.e. Delaney, Ryan, Bennet, Bullock etc, which is maybe 3% or so and negligible to his lead);

*Sanders (he'd probably get most of Tulsi's supporters if/when she drops, plus some pickups from Yang and maybe Beto?? Either way maybe he picks up 3-4%)

*and most interestingly Warren. She's the most popular 2nd choice across the board for most Dem voters:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-16/o-rourke-pushes-to-combat-white-supremacy-guns-campaign-update

And most critically, as per your link I referenced above, she's the top 2nd choice for the REMAINDER of the top-tier polling below her (i.e. Harris and Buttigieg). So if THEY were to drop out, Warren could pick up like 10+ percentage points, which would likely help her overtake Sanders (even with his dropout gains) and even put her neck-and-neck with Biden. And that's before factoring in the few percentage points she might pick up from dropouts by folks like Booker, Castro, Gillibrand, etc. (whose supporters I reeally don't see overlapping with Biden or Sanders).

Again, all conjecture. But plausible conjecture lol

That said... I'd be willing to bet delegate support follows an entirely different distribution than the polls, which could matter a great deal.

Bernie has always done very poorly with people over 50 and especially with people 65+ and it just so happens those demographics are the ones who watch and read traditional media the most. And who does traditional media smear or discredit or ignore the most, Bernie, and who do they fawn over and prop up the most, Warren and Biden. That has a large effect on those demographics.

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/16/memo-to-mainstream-journalists-can-the-phony-outrage-bernie-is-right-about-bias/

RATED MSM town halls. Wasn't his Fox News town hall the most watch ever for a presidential candidate or something like that?? Yall need to stop with this press is the enemy of the people ass argument(which, btw, we've seen before hint hint).

Furthermore, Sanders hasn't even experienced ANY major news-cycle-dominating scandals like for example Biden (the groping), Buttigieg (the contentious city town hall and soundbites), Kamala (her clash with ADOS), or even Clinton(the servers/emails, Benghazi, her husband's crime bill), etc. One can confidently say Sanders has more or less experienced the typical, garden variety, sometimes-good-sometimes-not-so-good coverage as any politician with some name recognition. Like even if he's taken some jabs from the pundits (which I'm not saying he hasn't), my point is his competitors have definitely received a LOT worse, both now and in 2016. The media treats him fine.

I think at some point yall need to accept that maybe, just maybe lol, some people listen to what Bernie and his supporters are talking about and DON'T LIKE IT.

For example, the authoritatian themes in this pro-Bernie Jacobin piece published earlier this year:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/02/a-plan-to-win-socialism-in-america

COMPLETELY reinforced my aversion to the entire movement, even though I may agree on the need for reform in some areas. Again, the above is a piece PROMOTING Sanders and the DemSoc agenda, NOT criticizing it.

Like... I used to joke about Sanders' authoritarian tone, but combine his tone with the way his supporters literally try to pimpslap anybody who doesn't worship Bernie into supporting their cause.. it all just confirms my fear that Sanders and many of his supporters are essentially trying to exploit Democratic Party infrastructure to install a socialist dictatorship in America. Like, imagine receiving this degree of contempt from "within" one's own party:

"Sanders should also use the bully pulpit of the presidency to support primary challengers against obstructionist Democrats. Many representatives are merely careerists who will acquiesce to a leftist program if it is a choice between that or irrelevance. But a core of ideological centrists should be dislodged entirely — if only to set an example for the rest that they would pay a higher price for obstructing progress than they will for upsetting their former corporate masters."

..???

its a straight up cult at this point. basically anybody that doesnt kneel at the feet of saint bernie is a mortal enemy.

just aimlessly spraying at everybody now. democrats, any non bernie bro liberal with a check mark on twitter, washington post, msnbc. shit now theyre attacking dailykos and elizabeth warren as neoliberal establishment shills! lmao.

do they even attack republicans anymore? (serious question)

I see Sanders getting a mostly fair shake with some exceptions, and that's true of most of the candidates in the field. He seems to be losing steam because 1) there is another progressive in the field and they are taking votes from each other and 2) he's four years older now.

At some point it'll be beneficial if Warren and Sanders somehow align themselves, because failing that I don't think either will win the nomination.

Lizzy support base is whiter than virtually all of the other top tier candidates - and considerably whiter (and more male) than Bernie's - but now that's not really a factor as long as she has college educated and "liberal" voters?

No "Lizzy Bro" narrative?

lol boy how things have changed.


-->

or is it about winning an election?

maybe i misinterpreted your post.

i mean...its cool to draw from a diverse crowd. but if that diverse crowd is primarily among an age group that hardly votes...then whats the point?

plus...im not sure bernies demo breakdown is all that noteworthy (going by the pew crosstabs). warren crushes him with white voters (like 65% of ballots cast in the primary). they are virtually tied among latinos.

he beats warren with black voters but theyre both in single digits. he is virtually tied with kamala among black voters...which can go a few ways. on one (superficial) hand...he is tied with a black woman. on the other...he is tied with a much lesser known candidate who many black people have already come out against because of her prosecutorial record. for bernie...a national figure at the forefront of the dem party...to be polling closer to warren and harris than he is to another national figure in biden...thats not exactly a good thing imo.

as far as there being no 'lizzy bro' narrative...i havent seen her supporters relentlessly attacking women, minorities, liberal cable news hosts/guests...freedom fighters like john lewis, dolores huerta, etc. you seem to think they earned the bernie bro moniker/reputation simply because they were white men?

in a democratic primary *not* speak to electability?

the goalpost moving is absurd. Both Sanders & Warren are polling within the margin of error and essentially running neck & neck and flanking Biden *fast*. Given that, it makes great sense to back the candidate who has shown more of an ability to attract democratic primary voters from across the political spectrum - *especially* when that candidate has shown time and time again through all reputable polling to topple Trump in a general.

Now, as stated in the OP - I've been a Warren fan for some time and would gladly support her as the Dem nominee - but we don't see that same level of enthusiasm for Sanders from the Dem establishment. Instead, we still see erroneous narratives (such as the Bernie Bro non-sense that you're *still* peddling) -- so why is that? People still butthurt over the "Bernie's not a real Democrat" narrative?

In terms of the black vote - there's really no credible way to criticize Sanders there. As you stated, he's essentially tied with Kamala on the black vote and only second to Biden. No matter how you slice that, it's a marked success for the Sanders campaign coming out of the 2016 primary where they struggled with that demographic. They've done considerable work to shore up that vote and they should be credited for it. Yet you can't even give him credit on that.

>as far as there being no 'lizzy bro' narrative...i havent seen
>her supporters relentlessly attacking women, minorities,
>liberal cable news hosts/guests...freedom fighters like john
>lewis, dolores huerta, etc. you seem to think they earned the
>bernie bro moniker/reputation simply because they were white
>men?

Let's not be silly. Let's also accept that hardcore supporters can be annoying for *every* candidate. Surely we're not judging candidates based on some of their supporters, are we? But considering Bernie's campaign staff features more POC and reflects the American electorate more dynamically than any other campaign, the "bernie bro" reputation is only alive in the imagination of people still bitter from Hillary missing the wide open dunk (namely Neera Tanden types whom you still seem to give a pass).

Also - it's really misleading for you to say that "freedom fighters" and women are being attacked lol. Really cheap fam. Reminds me of Hillary voters who *swore* that Bernie was a misogynist creep in 2016. John Lewis called out Bernie for "not seeing him" during the civil rights marches (when it was verifiable and without dispute that Bernie was there and actively fighting for the civil rights movement). People (rightfully) called out John Lewis because he was disparaging Sanders while supporting Clinton - who was campaigning for Barry F'ing Goldwater (a segregationist against civil rights) at the exact same time. So, Bernie was there. Hillary was not - because she was on the other (wrong) side of history, which Lewis conveniently omitted from his non-nonsensical rant. Where they do that at fam?

Not like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7vedsc92PA

"The white, wealthy liberals' shopping period has ended. They've found the candidate who makes them feel good, feel virtuous but with the populist flair that's in style this campaign season. With the perfect blend of Oklahoma roots but Ivy League connection with a speaking style that is elevated but just folksy enough to imagine someone outside of their milieu responding to it."

the handpicked candidate coronation narrative doesnt work as well when the hand apparently keeps changing its pick.

just say yall dont like whoever is running against bernie lol.

if yall spent more time/energy promoting the positive aspects of bernie instead of crafting conspiracies and aaron sorkin screenplays to self-rationalize the support of other candidates ...he might actually be broadening his appeal and leading.

kamala's campagn team is historically stupid, cuz they're hillary's campaign team, which was historically stupid. Also, her record is terrible

Biden criminial justice record, economic record and dementia simply can't be hidden

Pete Booty can't run a town, and his record shows that

As much as media tries to push the bernie fanatic narrative, honestly what we are seeing is a tech saavy, educated populace researching the shitty candidates being put before them and saying "nah".

No charisma. They tried it tho. Made him sound like a white Obama.

.

wants to a woman to avenge Hillary - Kamala or Warrem will do, they don't care which.

>wants to a woman to avenge Hillary - Kamala or Warren will
>do, they don't care which.

I don't think they necessarily want "a woman". but they want to repeat that Obama electoral "magic", and initially Kamala seemed to check those boxes.

what the Democratic Party fails to realize is that the voter base got a lot smarter about the populist okey-doke post-Obama. Which is one reason Hillary took a L (she couldn't even fake that much. also, as I'll say until I'm gone from Earth -- state by state, the GOP CHEATED).

which brings me to Warren. She appears to have a left-of-everyone-except Sanders appeal. the allure (in the political calculus of Democrats) of a life-long Republican who flipped, and one who appears to sail past the kind of nitpicks that sank Hillary. she's competent. she doesn't make Biden-esque gaffes. she's also a little bit more careful in how she responds to certain critiques. she is talking that populist SHIT (see Obama).

with Warren, I would argue that one should watch her plans and responses to the status quo very closely. she seems to be arguing for a "kindler, gentler capitalism", which is music to the Democratic establishment's ears. for that reason alone I think the Dems are more welcoming of her, but she was far from their first choice, because of where she sits (or appears to sit) on the spectrum. The same was true of Obama in 2008.

IMO, I think Warren is playing the Obama game much better than Kamala ever did. It didn't look like that in the beginning but look like her now.

Not sure if any of the candidates EXCEPT Sanders also has the organizational wherewithal which REALLY took Obama over the top in 2008.

A lot of people want to back a winner, period, and/or are fickle AF.

A lot of weight was thrown behind people like Dean and Leiberman in the past. Even Clinton against Obama. Shit changes fast when you perform poorly. Nearly everyone in this field has performed poorly or average at best.

Elizabeth Warren is the darling of the Democratic consultant class
Isn’t that a red flag?

https://spectator.us/elizabeth-warren-darling-democratic-consultant-class/

general, their opinion of her completely switched.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/elizabeth-warren-dnc-summer-meeting/596791/

The store is almost out of red flags!

...Tracey is polarizing for a reason. that dude comes off as trolling often.

or at least makes them as watery as possible.

Sanders & Warren vying for 1st (tied at ~20%).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-falls-in-new-democratic-primary-poll-as-warren-and-sanders-make-gains/2019/08/26/4373bef4-c814-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html

Biden was out here sounding ridiculous.

church ladies in the Biblebelt accept or believe that Biden is no longer viable, I think they'll throw their support behind her or him before Warren.

Might even see some of this in South Carolina in coming weeks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O593YL-53dk

-->

booker can't move the needle with an 100 MPH gust of wind and harris can't seem to shake the fact that she was on the wrong side of so many things. i think she has a presidential air about her but she needs two more election cycles to rebrand if she wants to make it.

-->

i hope this continues.

based on the poll numbers it looks like people dropped biden for warren right? thats interesting. i figured warren gained a bit but the biden support would have gone to a moderate. i would guess the people that switched to warren did so because of the perceived electability.

if biden keeps dropping who else steps up to challenge warren and bernie? i cant imagine we go into voting with them two being the only realistic choice. i can hope though lol

mainly siphoned off alot of Biden's support - it didn't really go to Warren.

If that's the case, that would be almost all white votes shifting around. Probably an outsize portion of Biden's remaining support of Black people. And like I mentioned above, once the signal gets out that Biden isn't as viable anymore and Black people dump him, he's toast.

i was only looking at the early state numbers. overall it looks like both warren and sanders increased about 5% each and biden dropped 12% no big movement by anyone else.

He was surely the Establishment hopeful because he really wasn't going to challenge much of the deep-rooted status quo infrastructure. He is a product of that and was going to just be "not Trump" - but thankfully - regardless of all the advantages in the world - he just ain't built for this at this stage in his life. Hell, you could argue he's never been built for this. He's essentially the Democratic Mitt Romney. People forget how quickly Obama dismembered him in 2008. Biden is still that same gaffe-prone, lack of substance type of guy, only older with (unfortunate) cognitive decline.

I'm not saying this to be cruel. I think Uncle Joe is a good dude at the end of the day - but he's had his time in the sun and he's simply not the guy to lead this next movement. Like at all.

>based on the poll numbers it looks like people dropped biden
>for warren right? thats interesting. i figured warren gained a
>bit but the biden support would have gone to a moderate. i
>would guess the people that switched to warren did so because
>of the perceived electability.

as you and Tek pointed out - looks like bernie & warren seemed split that Biden dropout vote (though it still seems a bit unclear to me). It would make sense to surmise that the Biden support would go to another moderate - but I don't think voters are really all that sophisticated. They likely were pro-Biden just because of the name and Obama nostalgia - and most voters don't get into policy very much at all and just vote on instinct. So I could see how Biden's support would go to a candidate really not all that ideologically aligned with him (not that Biden really has an ideology other than "hey I'm not Trump!")

>if biden keeps dropping who else steps up to challenge warren
>and bernie? i cant imagine we go into voting with them two
>being the only realistic choice. i can hope though lol

DNC definitely not gonna like this lol. Expect Kamala and her Clinton team to throw the full-court pressure on to try and fill the void in a last effort to get her back to "top tier" status. I think she's the only candidate who might be able to mount anything significant to challenge Warren or Bernie at this point. If it becomes inevitable that it will be a Bernie v. Warren race - expect the DNC to throw its entire weight behind Warren (as corporate donors/interests already have pledged to do).
-->

its been pointed out a few times on OKP. so many voters are going just off of name recognition at this point.

if biden was not so horrible i could see him holding his lead. it was scary to see him be so horrible and yet hold on to the lead. this poll gave me a little hope.

cant get too excited, its a single poll. if more polls show the same thing then we might have something. if this hold in future polls or keeps trending the same way then there will be grins lol

something else i took away from this poll is that bernie has a very good favorable rating. you wouldnt know it based on his critics and some media coverage. on the flip side, people are not ready to get rid of private insurance. can he explain his reasoning better and have people move his way?

i dont see harris sticking around. maybe i was swayed too much by her bad performance in the last debate. maybe she bounces back. i kind of want to see booker step up. my hope is that if there is a third contender they are under 30% of the votes so that bernie and warren splitting the progressive vote does not prevent both from getting the nomination.

less offensive than trump but still a painfully out of touch old guy that would make me cringe to have as president.

How long is this Biden veneer going to last?

-->

-->

I’m not sold on anyone...

>I’m not sold on anyone...

None of the 20+ candidates resonated with you at all?

-->

The ones who'd be good presidents can't win a general election. The ones who could win a general election seem like they'd be shitty presidents. And for a few of them the fact that they'd be shitty presidents is moot because they also couldn't win a general election.

We might be going up against the weakest president in modern history, and we could very well lose because we have the weakest challenging field in modern history.

.... uhhhhhhhhh ....


Maybe Kamala.


Maybe Castro.


Probably Biden. If he can find a way to completely avoid talking.


Maybe our best bet is a life-size cardboard cutout of Joe Biden giving his best minimally creepy smile.

I’m not excited about any, so focus of Trump that I haven’t paid enough attention to them. that ain’t good...

What’s the issue with Warren’s healthcare?

>I’m not excited about any, so focus of Trump that I
>haven’t paid enough attention to them. that ain’t good...

We are definitely in a delicate time. The focus on Trump by the media has been an egregious instance of journalistic malpractice, but of course it rakes in revenue so they'll continue to cover the circus disproportionately to what's happening in the primary.

>What’s the issue with Warren’s healthcare?

There is no issue from my perspective. She's been getting criticized by the center-right candidates (Mayor Pete/Klobuchar) who are desperately flailing and seeking to compete - by saying that her MFA plan is unsound and even unAmerican (because it takes away private insurance). There is some legitimacy to the criticism in that she hasn't come out to clearly and definitively define how taxes will be raised in order to achieve universal coverage - but most of the criticism is unfounded and in defense of the insurance/pharma lobbies, respectively.



-->

what are your thought on her not releasing the details?
Bernie too tho, right?

But Warren's ahead.

I'd actually wager that he won't even be in the race in 10 months.

I think it's going to be a photo-finish between Warren & Sanders - but I'd almost hate for that to happen to where the SuperDelegates determine the primary. That would cripple momentum leading into a General where all hands need to be on deck vs. Trump.


-->

at this point:

https://time.com/5701941/bidens-fundraising-front-runner/

I tend to disagree with all of yall on various issues lol but on this I do agree with Vex in that I'll be surprised if he lasts into next year.

He's one of the only top-tier candidates who spent more than he raised last quarter, and he only has $9M on hand. Plus he more than any other top-tier candidate has depended on high/max contribution donors - who can't be tapped again. And his base is concentrated to Boomers.. he's not really picking up folks from other demographics.

*shrug* I don't really see how he even sustains his campaign organization (salaries/personnel, infrastructure, travel, ads/marketing, etc) to maintain his lead if his finances continue on this path. It's basically going bankrupt... while the rest of the top-tier is flourishing (at least financially/organizationally).

in the last debate was manufactured. im not saying they have shifted positions but they shifted their approach in an attempt to grab bidens support. they were putting on a performance so that bidens backer could feel comfortable jumping ship to one of them.

biden needs to be out soon and i think he will be. i think before any votes are cast.

and Warren knows it. watch how she handles Biden going off. she's careful not to go at him too hard because she knows he holds a lot of the "Obama voter cards"

to support Sanders.

Gosh those 'bernie bros' are at it again.

-->

because way more of his public advocates have been women this time around.

AOC, Omar, and Tlaib supporting him is HUGE IMO.

if anything, though strategically this looks like a hairsplit that will fuck the Dems again, I see it differently. This is a "Bret Screwed Bret" situation.

Bernie's mere existence and continued popularity DESPITE a laundry list of flags that might have sent him to the locker room, is testament to who really greases the Democratic Party's wheel. Instead of trying to promote a more (lower-case) democratic experience, we've watched their party leaders do everything to stifle it after some of the wins they've picked up.

fact is, the American experience is FUCKED UP and the world's FUCKED UPNESS is at America's doorstep.

you can't get away with empty populism no more, then pivot back to the status quo. as said earlier, that's why Harris took a dive. that's why they are SO desperate for Biden to DO SOMETHING and are looking to Buttigieg and Klobuchar to DO SOMETHING.

They're warming up to Warren but it's clear she was far from their first choice.

It's still unfathomable political malpractice to not harness this generational movement that is supporting the Sanders candidacy to reel them into the big tent of the party. Instead, the same 2016 mistakes seem destined to repeat themselves in 2020 with this #NeverBernie nonsense.

Agreed with your point on Warren/Amy/Pete. Warren seems to be semi-palatable candidate for the DNC - but they still are desperate to flank her with center-right establishment efforts. There has been little to no reform in party leadership since the egregious administration of the 2016 primary, and we simply can't afford it moving into 2020.


-->

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/october-national-poll-biden-sanders-warren-maintain-front-runner-status-in-democratic-primary
-->

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/new-hampshire-poll-2020-cnn/index.html

-->

-->

Sanders is going to do very well in the early states and build momentum from there all the way to the White House

>Sanders is going to do very well in the early states and
>build momentum from there all the way to the White House

It's certainly clear that the grassroots energy on the ground is contradicting what the polls say - yet again.

-->

-->

Biden 4th lol.

Already crumbling.

-->

Biden still clinging, but his lead continues to weaken. Mayor Pete has been the surprise thus far with Sanders remaining consistently competitive.

Kamala is out.
-->

Saw some that, yes had Warren down, but also had Bernie down.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/472629-bloomberg-overtakes-harris-in-new-poll

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/




I don't think anyone should rest easy, etc until at least Iowa.


That said, I am pretty discouraged at Warren's trend and Biden's ability to hang on. And how quickly Bloomberg made a splash.

I'm speaking to the objective trend that shows Warren's numbers have dropped considerably over the past few weeks. Do you dispute that?

-->

So you've learned that individual polls usually don't give a statistically-significant measure of the race. That's progress.

But instead of citing, say, aggregator numbers, sequences of tracking polls, or anything like that, you just report your general feeling of things and call it "the objective trend."

It may very well be true that she's declined significantly in Iowa, or NH, or nationwide. I'd naturally be inclined to believe that, since I predicted it's what would happen once she was forced to clarify her M4A stance.

But if all you have is your intuitive feeling of the trends, that's the opposite of "objective."

Just say she seems to be losing support. You don't have to pretend you have hard facts when you don't.

>So you've learned that individual polls usually don't give a
>statistically-significant measure of the race. That's
>progress.

It's never that simple or cut/dry - and surely you know that. Polling has become more laden with administrative issues than people were previously aware of - so with new information should come new methods of applying the data/polling itself.

But as to the matter at hand here which we are discussing - it's very clear that the aggregate data has shown a downward spiral for Warren's number in recent weeks - which you're not disputing here.

But if you'd like to lecture us on your theory re: the reliability of aggregate polling vs. individual polling - please knock yourself out.



-->

-->

....it's a shame since her prior support was what made her so popular ...she'd still be my pick for VP, no matter who gets the nom (it will be Bernie, duh)

and I'd rather see Castro and Booker than Biden and Buttigieg.

that Warren (who I think has a backdoor hatch into more conservative governing) still bothers the hidden hand of the Democratic Party is indicative of how ridiculous they are.

It may get to the point where either Sanders or Warren will have to make a principled stance and drop out to support the other (whoever is stronger) - because the last thing you want is the Progressive vote to split between Warren & Sanders - yet neither of them have enough votes to top Biden.

That said - although there is some overlap between Sanders & Warren voters, they do also pull from distinctively diff. segments of the electorate - so the race still remains volatile and unpredictable.

>and I'd rather see Castro and Booker than Biden and
>Buttigieg.

It's absurd that Castro, Booker, Yang & Tulsi are not getting more buzz and instead the party is allowing billionaires (Steyer/Bloomberg) to supplant legitimate candidates in this race. Klobuchar has also been treated w/ kid gloves but offers nothing of interest to voters, yet is beloved by the Establishment for her centrist posturing and deference to the status quo.

>that Warren (who I think has a backdoor hatch into more
>conservative governing) still bothers the hidden hand of the
>Democratic Party is indicative of how ridiculous they are.

lol Right. She's about as non-threatening as you could be when it comes to a "progressive" candidate. Their control-freak clench on the primary process is absurd, and really damaging to building a viable movement to defeat Trump.


-->

https://www.axios.com/bernie-sanders-california-primary-poll-3c47c04d-71a5-400c-adef-e48668af682c.html

-->

Can't remember the last time there was a day with this much positive Sanders coverage. Is it actually possible that Dem Insiders are conceding to the strength of his campaign on the ground?

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/26/can-bernie-sanders-win-2020-election-president-089636
-->

He’s the best candidate by a fucking mile.

>He’s the best candidate by a fucking mile.

It would require actual objective analysis to come to that conclusion.

-->

But maybe he's something people can vote for who have no ability to see subtle differences in policy - they way Hillary and Trump were so similar.

*gags*

and what "subtle policy" distinctions are you referring to?

-->

so snooty about it.

but here's what I say about Bernie: he's not doing too much different than what Obama did in 2008.

Campaigning with a massive ground game, and going hard at non-voters to get them engaged.

he's also hitting a populist nerve in the midst of extreme crisis.

the difference is, I have less concern that he will diverge from his "marketing" than other candidates.

Me being me, I'm looking to see what the real plan (from Dems) will be if Nominee Sanders comes to fruition. What kind of triangulating bullshit will they attempt behind his back?

Since that story broke you have reports of Obama privately supporting Warren and Dem Donors freaking out, likely pivoting to Warren in a last ditch effort to thwart the Sanders momentum.

I don't think anyone believes Biden is it - even Dem donors still supporting him lol.

>but here's what I say about Bernie: he's not doing too much
>different than what Obama did in 2008.
>
>Campaigning with a massive ground game, and going hard at
>non-voters to get them engaged.
>
>he's also hitting a populist nerve in the midst of extreme
>crisis.
>
>the difference is, I have less concern that he will diverge
>from his "marketing" than other candidates.

Obama obviously was a once-in-a-lifetime JFK type candidate with out of this world charisma - and all of the attributes that appealed to the "better angels" of what America likes to think of itself as (diverse, unified, optimistic) --- but Obama also was not set as an individual and was still sort of evolving/growing into the kind of person and President he wanted to be.

With Bernie - he's been who he's been for a half-century. There's no "feeling out" stage - he knows exactly what he wants to accomplish and I do not believe he will deviate or get aggregated by Washington like so many before him. It will be an immense challenge but the Administration and Federal Agencies he would appoint and surround himself with to me would be as impressive (if not more) than his individual impact as President. His candidacy is one of the first I've seen in a long time that is legitimately not about just one person - but a coalition/community movement on the ground that is actually viable.

>Me being me, I'm looking to see what the real plan (from Dems)
>will be if Nominee Sanders comes to fruition. What kind of
>triangulating bullshit will they attempt behind his back?

It's been frustrating as all hell to acknowledge that - in some Dem Establishment circles - a second Trump terms seems more palatable than a Sanders nomination.

And that's precisely why his movement needs to succeed.


-->

>It's been frustrating as all hell to acknowledge that - in
>some Dem Establishment circles - a second Trump terms seems
>more palatable than a Sanders nomination.
>
>And that's precisely why his movement needs to succeed.

we live in a time where former hardcore Tea Partiers are out here sounding like "Southern Conservative Democrats" because Trump is just way out of line

5 million+ individual donors? Unprecedented.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-campaign-raises-34-5-million-in-fundraising-surge-11577962800

-->

5 million donors doesnt equal 5 million votes but i would guess its pretty close.


meaning some people are donating to multiple candidates so their votes arent locked. some might not vote at all.

im sure plenty people havent donated that will vote for bernie too though.


*edit: source
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/10/turnout-was-high-in-the-2016-primary-season-but-just-short-of-2008-record/

>5 million+ individual donors? Unprecedented.

It's actually 5 million donations, not donors. I think it was Beto who started this new thing about talking about donations vs donors this year and it's caused a lot of confusion. I think Bernie has about 1.3 or 1.4 million individual donors this cycle so far. Those are still unprecedented numbers at this point.

to go up from 1 million donors (which i remember bernie stating) to 5 million would be quite amazing.

>>5 million+ individual donors? Unprecedented.
>
>It's actually 5 million donations, not donors. I think it was
>Beto who started this new thing about talking about donations
>vs donors this year and it's caused a lot of confusion.

Definitely - thanks for pointing that out.

>think Bernie has about 1.3 or 1.4 million individual donors
>this cycle so far. Those are still unprecedented numbers at
>this point.

What's truly remarkable and unprecedented is that he's out-performing all candidates driven by the donor-class, and is debunking long-held beliefs in politics re: campaign finance. His campaign has changed the game and you'll see grassroots campaigns breaking out because of this.


-->

And "Mayor Pete" was just shy of 25 million.

So clearly this is a useful measure of a candidate's promise.

yang is pretty surprising to ME

those joint trump/rnc fundraising numbers early in the year compared to *individual* dem candidate numbers.

but now they arent saying much when the total dem field is *doubling* the trump/rnc operation.

no real praise or astonishment at the massive amounts of money even relative unknowns like yang and p booty are clearing.

its becoming clear that the early 2019 numbers were the floor. and now that there are less candidates and the top of the field is becoming more solidified...previously hesitant donors are becoming more willing to put their dough down on their horses.

the dem base is as excited and engaged as they were pre-2018.

>those joint trump/rnc fundraising numbers early in the year
>compared to *individual* dem candidate numbers.
>
>but now they arent saying much when the total dem field is
>*doubling* the trump/rnc operation.

Right. I mean, obviously Trump is going to be well funded (as are all incumbents) - but these last-quarter numbers for Dems are enormous. If the Dems don't mess it up (again) - there will be unstoppable momentum if a unified Democratic party coalesces at the convention.

>no real praise or astonishment at the massive amounts of money
>even relative unknowns like yang and p booty are clearing.

Even Tulsi is out here raising ~$4 million in Q4. The big tent of the party is gigantic - and a lot of new voters (mostly millennials) can and will change the entire complexion of Presidential politics for decades to come.

>the dem base is as excited and engaged as they were pre-2018.

Let's hope so.


-->

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-leaps-top-democratic-candidates-joe-biden-2020-polls-1480900

-->

Trump's going to hang that around his neck. Somebody in the presidential field owes it to the Democratic party to at least make Biden practice answering for it* when Trump starts hammering the issue.

*just kidding. there is no answer for it. it's disqualifying.

Among the top 3 candidates (Biden, Sanders & Warren) - Bernie is the only one with credible anti-war bonafides. Given this debacle with Iran, it's political suicide to run a candidate against Trump who can't debunk him on foreign policy and draw *clear* contrasts on anti-war credibility.


-->

you know it's real.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-2020-democratic-primary/index.html

-->

If Warren had Bernie's numbers and Bernie had Warren's numbers right now, the media (and many right here in this post) would be demanding that Sanders drop out and endorse Warren, lest the progressive vote be fractured to where Biden is the beneficiary who likely wins the primary.

So, y'all ready to call for Warren to drop out and back Bernie or nah?

-->

i do think they need to at some point (early) if a moderate has a decent lead.

lets hope it turns into a warren vs bernie primary instead and have the moderates drop out.

If Warren finishes 3rd in Iowa and NH and Bernie wins them both or finishes 2nd/1st respectively - is it time? If not, will it be by Super Tuesday if it's clear that Bernie and Biden are the two viable contenders?

Warren will have the money and infrastructure to run a long primary race and compete for quite some time, but when will it be time to coalesce the progressive vote?

>lets hope it turns into a warren vs bernie primary instead and
>have the moderates drop out.

That would be great - but the numbers don't bear this out unfortunately. But anything can happen - so I agree that we should at least let a few of the early states play out and vote.


-->

depending on how the early states vote maybe wait until after super tuesday results.

why does it seem like warren is getting squeezed by both sides. you got pete saying you need to come to me and not have me come to you and bernie is too. or in bernies case his voters are saying as much.

i think warren is the smart choice but ill be very happy to vote for bernie. i donated to both over the holidays.

His only hope is Iowa - and I really hope he doesn't come out in the top 2 to where he decides to buckle up and play the long-game. I just don't see him being viable after Iowa. He will likely finish 4th in NH, maybe not even top 5 in South Carolina, and it doesn't appear that he'll fare well on Super Tuesday either.


-->

And Klobuchar too, and Booker, and Bennet, and I guess Warren too, since nobody gets to be a progressive anymore except Bernie.

You guys are really upset today. Must be actually nervous that your predictions will be wrong again, and that Sanders is *much* stronger than you thought he was.

The beautiful thing about this post is that all you have to do is scroll up and read me complimenting Warren, calling her a "Progressive" - saying that she should stay in this race (as long as she remains viable) - and contradicting everything you're desperately flailing to say at this late hour in the primary, now that you want to take your marbles and go home.

The whole point of the question was to expose the hypocrisy of commentators like you who - undoubtedly - would be calling for Bernie's demise if his numbers were what Warren's are right now.

But let's just keep it real: Biden is your horse; just as Clinton was your horse in 2016. Hope that works out for you.

-->

He raised a decent amount of money and doesn't have any principles.
His investors are going to want at least one more crack at finding a new lane and bludgeoning any adjacent candidates.

>He raised a decent amount of money and doesn't have any
>principles.
>His investors are going to want at least one more crack at
>finding a new lane and bludgeoning any adjacent candidates.

He is in the perfect position to play attack-dog on the Progressive candidates - which he's already done (mostly to Warren).

I'll wait for Strav to call him a sexist.

-->

"Is it time for Warren to drop out and endorse Bernie?"

Someone with sense/logic/reason and doesn't treat politics like a sports agenda: "Maybe we should wait until votes have been cast...?"

You: "Agreed"


Then why the fuck did you pose the question in the first place??


Vex- this isn't some backyard debate about MJ versus Lebron.


And if you want to bring people into the "Bernie tent" or whatever you want to call it, you need to stop making everything about your little agendas.

And, if you want to ditch your sexist label, maybe don't be so quick to suggest a progressive woman who was leading the pack not that long ago, and the establishment seems to be getting a little more comfortable with, drop out before a single vote has been cast...

from people other than yourself. Big concept to grasp I know.

Glad to see you're still obsessed though.

-->

I think yes, especially now after Sunrise Movement has strongly endorsed Bernie 76% to 17% for Warren. This article really lays things out perfectly with tons of supporting evidence https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/everyone-is-getting-on-the-bernie-train

and is already paying dividends in New Hampshire.

-->

But no, Bernie's movement isn't a bunch of entitled Bros at all...

I love how wrong you've been - yet again - about this Primary. In this very post you said - definitively - that it will be Biden & Warren. Yet again, you've tried to marginalize and trivialize Sanders and his supporters - to what end?

Sorry that we didn't get a Tim Kaine / Sherrod Brown ticket that you could really get behind. Maybe next time.

-->

It's okay. Implicit bias. Yes you're a sexist, like we all are to some extent. It doesn't mean you're irredeemable. You, personally, are irredeemable for other reasons.

>
>It's okay. Implicit bias. Yes you're a sexist, like we all are
>to some extent.

Because I didn't support Hillary Clinton, I imagine. lol.

Forget that I support a woman in the primary and have worked on two congressional campaigns (both of whom are women).

But hey - Strav knows people he's never met and is qualified to make such character assessments because he's bitter about how bad his political analysis is.

This was fun - let's do it again sometime.

-->

OMG, sorry, so you couldn't POSSIBLY suffer from implicit bias. You're supporting super-serious-real candidate Tulsi Gabbard!

Your assertion that Elizabeth Warren, an actual honest-to-god expert on bankruptcy, who came to her progressive positions through actual rigorous study that long predated both her political career and Sanders's current brush with relevance, needs to drop out and endorse someone she already chose not to endorse, because he's been ahead of her in the RCP average for about a month and a half right after she was ahead of him for two months --- that was a totally logical strategic assertion.

On the other hand, there's someone else in the race who's consistently even further ahead of Bernie than Bernie is ahead of Warren. Maybe we should extend your logic and say that it's time for Bernie, Warren, Pete, Bloomberg, and everybody else to stop splitting the *real* progressive movement (the Democratic party), endorse Biden and get ready for the real race against Trump.

You Bernie Bros don't like coronations unless it's Bernie getting the crown. How long until Bernie starts hunting for superdelegates again?

Ah got it. So it doesn't matter if you support, work with, and campaign for Democratic women - you have to support the ones that Stravinskian deems appropriate, lest you be subject to implicit gender bias. Got it.

>Your assertion that Elizabeth Warren, an actual honest-to-god
>expert on bankruptcy, who came to her progressive positions
>through actual rigorous study that long predated both her
>political career and Sanders's current brush with relevance,
>needs to drop out and endorse someone she already chose not to
>endorse

If you can read, I asserted the exact opposite and never suggested that she should actually drop out right now (while pointing to the hypocrisy of those who have already called for Bernie to drop out a few months ago when they professed - as you did - that he was finished). Warren can and should stay in this race (unless she is doing poorly come Super Tuesday with no viable path to victory - then she should consider dropping out - and yes - supporting Sanders). I've also been a long-time admirer of Warren's and have specifically praised her courage in going after monopolies and criminal bankers. In this very post I've stated that I'd be quite happy with a Warren nomination.

Incidentally, Warren has a *lot* of respect for Bernie Sanders.

Direct quote:

"Bernie has put the right issues on the table both for the Democratic Party and for the country"

The reason we are even talking about this is because many have floated the idea of a unified Warren/Sanders front to flank Biden if it comes down to it - and have suggested (in fair-minded fashion that you fail to exhibit) that the candidate who has the strongest standing in the primary should be the candidate whom the Sanders/Warren wing of the party gets behind.

Then there are others (like yourself) who want to cry and whine that we should only do this if Warren is the candidate with the strongest standing. Correction: You've largely been playing defense for Biden so it's clear that you'd hitch your wagon to Biden to stop Bernie from being the nominee.

Also, imagine being in 2020 and still using terms like "Bernie Bros" as if it it makes any sense or actually insults anybody.

I know it's been a painful process to remove the Clinton/Kaine bumper sticker from your car bruh. But it's time. Come home.


-->

is to think before you speak and resist the urge to say sexist things.

Everybody is subject to implicit gender bias. Even women. Just as everyone is subject to implicit racial bias. Have you taken the implicit bias test?

The people who angrily assert that they couldn't possibly be subject to implicit bias because --(excuse, excuse, excuse)-- are usually the ones who don't put any work into correcting those biases, and as a result, say more stupid things.


All this other stuff you're running through is flailing deflection, right down to your schoolboy claim that you originally said the sexist thing as some kind of clever trap to expose the hypocrisy of something or other that nobody ever said.

"...like you who - undoubtedly - would be calling for Bernie's demise if..." I never said Bernie should drop out of the race because he was behind Warren. I even said the opposite at a time when he was significantly behind *and* he had a heart attack at the age of 78.

Calm down. You said something dumb. We all do it. Move on.

>The people who angrily assert that they couldn't possibly be
>subject to implicit bias because --(excuse, excuse, excuse)--
>are usually the ones who don't put any work into correcting
>those biases, and as a result, say more stupid things.

I never asserted that I couldn't possibly be subject to implicit bias. Nice try though. However, I would only consider engaging in this topic with someone far more qualified than yourself to make an assessment on these matters.

The ultimate deflection from substantive debate is to hurl unhinged and baseless accusations in an effort to steer attention anywhere except where you want it to be: on the actual merits.

I won't even begin to point out the hilarity and irony of how your statements about Tulsi Gabbard are textbook examples of not just implicit gender bias, but overt bigotry and chauvinism.


-->

>I won't even begin to point out the hilarity and irony of how
>your statements about Tulsi Gabbard are textbook examples of
>not just implicit gender bias, but overt bigotry and
>chauvinism.

You were more interesting when you were spending all your time around here talking about space aliens and the Warren report.

Taking a lot of L's, stravvy.

Let's first make sure we have a firm understanding of the exoteric before we attempt to put our big-boy pants on and address the esoteric.

One step at a time, my friend.

-->

He was clearly referring to Bernie supporters being furious Warren didn't endorse him...which I've seen used as an excuse that he lost the primary.


I'm telling you...if Bernie supporters who act like yourself want to get more people to support him, your smartest play is just shutting the fuck up because you turn people away a lot more than you realize.

I'm dead serious.


If you want to help Bernie gain support, lay low man. You aren't helping.

You mean to tell me that Democratic loyalists who preach about voting for the eventual nominee - no matter what - will not vote for the Democratic nominee because of some side-bar political debates?

The fragility.

Somehow, I missed your analysis in 2016 on how Clinton supporters should "just shut the fuck up" if they wanted to unite the big-tent and work together with Sanders supporters.

Stay consistent.

-->

>You mean to tell me that Democratic loyalists who preach
>about voting for the eventual nominee - no matter what - will
>not vote for the Democratic nominee because of some side-bar
>political debates?

Can you read? Or do you just play dumb?

I assume that you want Bernie to win the nom. To do so, he is going to have gain support. (just like any other candidate)

So...if you want people to consider Bernie more seriously, you should seriously shut the fuck up. I'm not even being an asshole. I am being dead serious.

Bernie supporters like you hurt him more than help. Especially at this point where its time to start convincing people who have been skeptical.

Because you, and the others stans like you, really push more people away than you attract.

How?

Because you say stupid/sexist shit like "Should Warren drop out?" when she is in a statistical tie with your guy in IA.

Because you think "I support Tulsi!" means you have no bias.(Really ironic thing here is that you are calling for Warren to drop out but not Tulsi...when she has ZERO chance, and I would guess 90%+ of her 2% would go to Bernie...every little bit helps)

Because you spend more time worrying about Warren than Biden or Pete.

Because you say stupid/objectively untrue things like "we are in a post-partisan era"

I mean, I the list goes on.


I'm not talking about after the primaries. I'm talking about RIGHT NOW.

If you want A Bernie campaign to seem more attractive to folks, stop acting like a fucking Bro, Vex

And I hate that term. I hate that everyone who was against Hillary was labeled a Bernie Bro.

But...if it walks like a bro, and says stupid shit like a bro...

>
>The fragility.

Haha what? Stop projecting.

I'm trying to help you and your guy. Be less of a bro and you might convince more people.

There are other Bernie supporters on here- from Doc to Reaction to whoever- who present reasoned, logical reasons why they support the man.

Bernie himself makes a good case.

But bros like you do more damage than good. Your entire style wreaks of white male privilege and arrogance.

You literally asked if/when Warren should drop out and she is in a statistical tie with Bernie in IA.

And even if she wasn't. Even if she was 10 fucking point behind. It was a stupid Bernie bro thing to say at this point.

Just cop to it. Take the L like a grown man.

>
>Somehow, I missed your analysis in 2016 on how Clinton
>supporters should "just shut the fuck up" if they wanted to
>unite the big-tent and work together with Sanders supporters.

Do you have anything else in your bag than this, bro?

I only remember you years ago as the over-the-top-cringe-worthy Bron stan, so I don't think we chopped it up about politics.

If we did, you would know I was very much not a Hillary fan. You would also know that my biggest beef with her campaign and her supporters was the sense of arrogant entitlement.

You know, saying Bernie should drop out or not run.

Kind of like, you, up above posed the idea that Warren should drop out for Bernie.

I would get frustrated that Hillary fans couldn't have a sincere conversation about here issues, and any weakness was chalked up to "not perfect" or "she's grown"

Kind of like your 2 or 3 goto excuses for Tulsi

>
>Stay consistent.


>
>-->

LOL...uh, are you kidding?

Vex you are the biggest fucking hypocrite on here. Even Strav has admitted to being wrong more than you.

When you have an L to take, you just play dumb, deflect, or disappear.

And your standards change completely when it is your agenda.

I've literally never seen you admit to anything because these politicians are your heroes. Because you haven't grown up enough to see that this shit isn't an agenda, man. Actual lives depend on this stuff.


Specifically, how is it inconsistent of me to point out that if you want your guy's campaign to be more appealing, stop saying stupid/arrogant shit about other candidates?

Much like Hillary's people shouldn't have acted so entitled and oblivious to her issues as a candidate, I am asking the same of you.

See- I am consistent. Because I don't have an agenda.


So, if you are such a fan of consistency I'd urge you to-

- stop acting like a Hillary stan re: Bernie and Tulsi

- you know, be more honest about your candidates' potential weaknesses. Stop acting entitled. Etc.

- spend more time attacking the moderates than Warren

- don't call for Warren to drop out again until you have at least called for Tulsi to do so LOL LOL

- have even just a drop of self-awareness

- realize everyone is wrong sometimes. Take the Ls when they come. Its ok.



Bottom line you posting, even tongue in cheek (you didn't, though), the idea that Warren should drop out for Bernie was among the dumbest things I've ever seen posted on here. If nothing else, at least cop to that, bro.

Like.. first of all, the notion that Bernie would even consider dropping out if their numbers were reversed is laughable. He didn't drop out in 2016 after losing his mathematical path to the nomination. He didn't even drop out this cycle after having a heart attack. So that hypothetical is a non-starter.

And even if Warren DID decide to drop out and all her support transferred to Bernie (unlikely since only about 1/3 list him as their 2nd choice anyway: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-second-choice-candidates-show-a-race-that-is-still-fluid/)... his RCP average is like 20% and hers is just under 15% (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html). So AT MOST she could bump him to maybe 35% ... well below the 51% a candidate needs to be effectively sweeping the race and averting a brokered convention (assuming poll averages might roughly translate to delegate apportionments). It would be colossally pointless.

There's also the fact that, in terms of bridging progressives and moderates, Warren is a much stronger consensus nominee than Bernie if we look at some of the ranked choice simulations lying around (https://www.vox.com/2019/9/12/20860985/poll-democratic-primary-ranked-choice-warren-biden) or her aggregate popularity as a 2nd choice (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/11/14/the_impact_of_voter_second_choices_as_2020_dems_drop_out_141732.html). She's also in far better health than Bernie (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/10/bernie-sanders-heart-attack-229841), younger than him (at 70 she would be the age Bernie is now at the END of 2 presidential terms), and more energetic.

I also happen to think Warren's demonstrated repeatedly that she'd in fact be the most *competent* executor of the progressive agenda - fiscally, financially, and legislatively - but that could be a whole other reply and is a somewhat subjective assessment.

She should stay in the race or leave if she wants to, the most important thing is its her call alone to make. She's, what, only the 2nd woman in US history to advance this far/poll this well/raise this much money in a presidential primary? Let her cook.

>Like.. first of all, the notion that Bernie would even
>consider dropping out if their numbers were reversed is
>laughable.

Definitely. The hypothetical question wasn't about whether Bernie would ever consider dropping out at this point - clearly he wouldn't. Clearly Warren won't (nor should she). Clearly Pete won't. Even Klobuchar won't.

The question was: if Bernie's numbers had suffered this kind of fall from grace over the past 1-2 months (as Warren's objectively have) - would we be hearing calls from many in the media (and the legions of anti-Bernie Dems here) for him to drop out because of his hopeless campaign? Likely.

He didn't drop out in 2016 after losing his
>mathematical path to the nomination. He didn't even drop out
>this cycle after having a heart attack. So that hypothetical
>is a non-starter.

Quite true - the same can be said for Hillary Clinton in '08. Both of them stayed in because they were competitive and opted to leverage their political capital to further their message.

>And even if Warren DID decide to drop out and all her support
>transferred to Bernie (unlikely since only about 1/3 list him
>as their 2nd choice anyway:
>https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-second-choice-candidates-show-a-race-that-is-still-fluid/)...
>his RCP average is like 20% and hers is just under 15%

Agreed. I've made the point (in this very thread) that Warren and Bernie supporters do not overlap as many assume they do. Warren's core group are college-educated, affluent white liberals. Many of them would likely move to Pete or Biden, but some of them would surely move to Sanders, especially if Warren offered a strong endorsement.

>There's also the fact that, in terms of bridging progressives
>and moderates, Warren is a much stronger consensus nominee
>than Bernie if we look at some of the ranked choice
>simulations lying around
>(https://www.vox.com/2019/9/12/20860985/poll-democratic-primary-ranked-choice-warren-biden)
>or her aggregate popularity as a 2nd choice

That's an interesting point and one I agree with. Though, on the flip, given Bernie's far more diverse support-base, I think the stronger case for a consensus Progressive to rally behind (given the current numbers that each candidate boasts) clearly favors Sanders.

>I also happen to think Warren's demonstrated repeatedly that
>she'd in fact be the most *competent* executor of the
>progressive agenda - fiscally, financially, and legislatively
>- but that could be a whole other reply and is a somewhat
>subjective assessment.

Not sure I agree with that. When it comes to financial justice (breaking up the big banks and holding white-collar criminals accountable) - I don't think there's a stronger candidate than Warren. When it comes economic justice, foreign policy, and seeding executive agencies with progressives - I think Bernie's actual cabinet and coalition would be prepared to effectuate more change than Warren's, which would likely be far more conventional and centrist.

But this depends on what your personal goals are for this country. People who deem themselves "progressives" certainly aren't monolithic.

But for sure - Warren has run an impressive campaign and will likely do well enough to stay in this race for as long as she wants. The question wasn't asked to suggest that she should drop out - it was asked to assess the current poll numbers from Warren & Sanders respectively, and to hold accountable those who clearly would be asking for Bernie to drop out (as many of them were saying for months until he rallied after his heart-attack) if he were boasting these kind of numbers *this* late in the primary. It's one thing to have these numbers in August -- it's quite another to have these numbers just days before the first votes are cast in Iowa & New Hampshire.


-->

I think I see Warren as the better executor because she's been a bit more transparent and gone into greater detail about her financing (while Bernie's posture was: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/sanders-no-exact-plan-medicare-for-all/index.html), and her pledge not to raise taxes on lower and middle income folks is huge. In terms of preferring Warren's legislative strategy, for example with respect to single-payer healthcare transition, she's proposed breaking the effort up into smaller legislations that have a chance at passing under budget reconciliation rules(https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/15/20966674/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-plan-public-option) and/or, if necessary, voting to eliminate the filibuster. In contrast, Bernie has proposed essentially weaponizing the VP to overide a Senate parliamentarian's inevitable disqualification of huge legislation like single payer on the basis of failing to meet deficit-control requirements ... a tactic so autocratic even 45/Mcconnell chose not to engage in it (https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/10/sanders-rules-healthcare-1267463).

Warren runs left of me in some areas, but I would still classify her as (just barely, like super small c lol) center-left and one reason I like her approach to the progressive agenda is that she's more pragmatic, while Bernie often asks people to be more imaginative in response to policy critiques. In my view, the overhauls they are proposing are massive and if a leader's agenda is so expensive that it'll blow up the deficit and drive inflationary pressures in the economy, then the idea of less earnings to deal with that inflation is *extremely* unappealing. And tbh it is lower and middle-income people who would suffer due to rising inflation the most. It's one of the reasons I like Pete's proposals better than Dem competitors to his left or further center: he goes as progressive as fiscally possible while meeting statutory PAYGO requirements (lol), not raising lower and middle income taxes, but striving for the same social democratic aims.

So ya. I know I'm one of the more vocal Bernie critics around here (lol), but even though Warren's domestic agenda is similar to Bernie's in scale and scope the tactics she proposes just sound like better implementation to me. I respect her efforts to try translating it all into a more fiscally responsible endeavor (even if I have my doubts about how reliable some of her revenue streams could be in the long run).




>
>>I also happen to think Warren's demonstrated repeatedly that
>>she'd in fact be the most *competent* executor of the
>>progressive agenda - fiscally, financially, and
>legislatively
>>- but that could be a whole other reply and is a somewhat
>>subjective assessment.
>

>Not sure I agree with that. When it comes to financial
>justice (breaking up the big banks and holding white-collar
>criminals accountable) - I don't think there's a stronger
>candidate than Warren. When it comes economic justice,
>foreign policy, and seeding executive agencies with
>progressives - I think Bernie's actual cabinet and coalition
>would be prepared to effectuate more change than Warren's,
>which would likely be far more conventional and centrist.
>

he has a ceiling, there's really only poor strategizing to blame. Bullying the most progressive Democrat out of her party's primary wouldn't help or change anything.

Imho if Bernie was actually serious about his politics he would've ran as a Green from jump where the Dem party couldn't neutralize his threat, his politics actually fit, he could've consolidated the anti-establishment vote, and his name ID/popularity would've helped the GP solidify ballot lines in every state and overthrow 2 party dominance - a tangible outcome of his 'revolution' that wouldve transformed US politics forever. But tbh after listening/looking into Howie Hawkins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrSklGriWVg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ho3FqXI7gQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUSpC1DuZQM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfPOaciXde0
https://gpus.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/PCSC-Questionnaire-Howie-Hawkins.pdf

I'm not even sure he would've won THEIR primary because, compared to Hawkins, Bernie might not even be the most astute SOCIALIST currently running for pres lol

Biden is already locked in.

>Biden is already locked in.

Let's not even have a primary.

-->

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-woman-president

smh at Bernie

Right after the Des Moines Register (the gold standard of Iowa polling) has Sanders pulling ahead in Iowa, and Warren's numbers tumbling nationally - all of a sudden this comes out?

I don't think anyone has to believe anything in this story - especially not the unnamed "source" cited in the article.

Very simple solution: Tomorrow at the CNN debate, it's journalistic malpractice to not simply ask Warren, directly: "Did Sanders tell you in that December 2018 meeting that a woman can't win?"

Warren needs to either corroborate this source and confirm the rumor - or she needs to call it out.

Of course, I expect neither to happen. This is textbook ugly primary politics playbook 101: attempt to win the narrative by any means necessary when desperate and trailing.
-->

What with the multiple instances of him saying on camera that a woman could and should be president some day, him urging Warren to run in 2016 as a left alternative to Hillary, his fierce denial and her no comment.

This shit isn't hard guys.

https://fair.org/home/cnns-sanders-hit-piece-doesnt-pass-the-smell-test/?fbclid=IwAR3S6dibaGO-hZsJAqkRze8onXCprmUG5FFgIwFgrHhGIriJXYCkvgcdo3o



CNN’s Sanders Hit Piece Doesn’t Pass the Smell Test
DAVE LINDORFF


by Dave Lindorff

Election Focus 2020CNN (1/13/19) has an anonymously sourced hit piece out today on Bernie Sanders, claiming that at a meeting in Elizabeth Warren’s home on December 18, 2018, he told her “a woman can’t win” the presidency.

The article, by CNN correspondent MJ Lee, is so journalistically shoddy that someone reading only the first few paragraphs would end up believing that it is a fact that the current top-polling candidate for the February 3 Iowa Caucus actually said that. Never is Sanders’ “quote” prefaced with the term “allegedly.”

None of the four anonymous staffers/friends making the charge of Sanders sexism were actually witnesses who were apparently in the room that day. Two, according to Lee, spoke to Warren “shortly after” that meeting. The other two “sources” were described only as people who “knew about the meeting.”

CNN: Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in private 2018 meeting that a woman can't win, sources say
CNN (1/13/19) on Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren: Let’s you and him fight.

Sanders issued a blistering denial to CNN, saying, “It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn’t win.” He added:

It’s sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren’t in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.

So far, Warren has not commented on the story, either to confirm or deny it.

The timing of this poorly sourced and poorly written story, appearing the day of a crucial candidates’ debate and days before the start of the actual primary season on a network that has been hostile to or dismissive of Sanders for years, is a journalistic outrage.

On its face, the claim allegedly made by Lee’s four anonymous sources makes no sense. Sanders is in fact on the record as far back as 1988, saying, “In my view, a woman could be elected president of the United States.” As Sanders points out in his debunking of CNN’s story, since then a woman has actually won the popular vote for the presidency; Hillary Clinton, whom Sanders campaigned for, could have won the electoral college as well, if she hadn’t neglected campaigning in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.


Why were CNN’s sources allowed to makes such an explosive, far-fetched claim anonymously? Anonymity is most justifiably granted to protect sources from retaliation for revealing damaging information about their superiors; would Warren staffers (assuming they were the source) be fired for giving an accurate account of their candidate’s conversation? When corporate media withhold the names of sources to allow them to make attacks against rivals without political consequences, that is an abuse of anonymous sourcing.

Sanders is clearly alarming powerful elements of America’s ruling elite: corporate executives who fear what is now being considered a possible Sanders presidency, and Democratic Party leaders who fear a Sanders presidential nomination will cut the party off from the river of cash it and its favored candidates have been collecting for decades from major industrial sectors, from Wall Street to Hollywood to the arms industry and the healthcare industrial complex. Not to mention the corporate media that are backed by ads from all these sectors.

This hit piece has the feel of the kind of attack that Sanders supporter Norman Solomon (Common Dreams, 12/27/19) warned of once Sanders’ polling began taking off and he could no longer be simply ignored.

Messages to CNN can be sent here (or via Twitter @CNN). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread of this post.

ahh this sucks

https://mobile.twitter.com/meaganmday/status/1216793548567113728

Should a woman be president? Bernie says yes. Only policy matters.

Could a woman be president? Bernie says yes. Only policy matters and times are changing.

Could a women be president in 2020? Bernie says no (according to Warren). Trump will weaponize sexism making it hard to win.

The first 2 are equality type statements. The third one is just punditry.

smh at Bernie

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/warren-sanders-disagreed-woman-win-presidency-private-meeting/story?id=68258821

Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren confirmed earlier reports Monday evening that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders disagreed with her that a woman could win in 2020 against President Donald Trump.

"Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together and our shared goals," Warren said in a statement to ABC News. "Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed."

I remember hearing about a conversation of this nature super early in the cycle actually; there was some rumor about him telling her not to run. I wish I could remember the event. But she got asked point blank on stage in front of the audience whether the rumor was true and she refused to comment then too.

Tbh... none of this is that off-brand for Bernie. Those creepy misogynist rapey essays he wrote back in the day (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-essay/ , https://www.inquisitr.com/5271159/bernie-sanders-essay-cancer-women-orgasm/) are enough to indicate *at minimum* a propensity toward this kind of attitude, even if he evolved somewhat (perhaps not enough).

It's also hard to take Bernie's "Who, meee? I would never!" schtick seriously given the attack dogs he hired to his campaign with obvious intent. Like I can't think of a more abrasive, obnoxious, twitter personality than David Sirota. Nina Turner and Briahna Joy supported the Greens in 2016. His top surrogates clearly give zero fucks about Warren, the party, or any other Dems, and it's visibly by design. He absolutely wanted to run a grimey operation and tbh his denials lately rub me worse than 45. Like 45 owns his toxicity and the toxicity he cultivates/encourages in others. But Bernie incites this crap and plays all unaware/innocent. Yuck.

> Like I can't think of a more
>abrasive, obnoxious, twitter personality than David Sirota.
>Nina Turner and Briahna Joy supported the Greens in 2016. His
>top surrogates clearly give zero fucks about Warren, the
>party, or any other Dems, and it's visibly by design. He
>absolutely wanted to run a grimey operation and tbh his
>denials lately rub me worse than 45. Like 45 owns his toxicity
>and the toxicity he cultivates/encourages in others. But
>Bernie incites this crap and plays all unaware/innocent.
>Yuck.
>


It's one thing to call Bernie out but attacking Nina and the 45 comment is too much.

edit: and how was that even an attack on Nina?? She *didn't* support the Dems in 2016 after Bernie lost the primary, that's just fact. I only brought it up to help illustrate that the folks being the most divisive in this primary may not actually be all that concerned about how their tactics may be hurting the party. Plus Nina goes about as hard offline against the others as Sirota goes online. You mean to tell me Bernie is unaware of the way they attack the rest of the primary field? Or that they're not only riding for the Dems right now because of Bernie? Bullshit. And it's ONLY Bernie's campaign/supporters that takes it so far.

>
>edit: and how was that even an attack on Nina??

abrasive, obnoxious, twitter personality <=== That's not an attack

She *didn't*
>support the Dems in 2016 after Bernie lost the primary, that's
>just fact.

That was a good thing. The problem wasn't Nina Turner, it was white women who didn't support the Dems.

I only brought it up to help illustrate that the
>folks being the most divisive in this primary may not actually
>be all that concerned about how their tactics may be hurting
>the party.

The most divisive ? Damn

Plus Nina goes about as hard offline against the
>others as Sirota goes online. You mean to tell me Bernie is
>unaware of the way they attack the rest of the primary field?
>Or that they're not only riding for the Dems right now because
>of Bernie? Bullshit. And it's ONLY Bernie's
>campaign/supporters that takes it so far.

Yes Bernie is aware

Hmmmm I will look into the rest.

You had a clear distaste for Sanders before this - and you likely reflexively want to believe that this is true because of your very clearly articulated distaste for his candidacy.

Alike, Sanders supporters are going to believe what they believe to be true about Sanders.

Not sure how this moves the needle for either candidate - although I think if anything - it hurts Warren for bringing this up *now* at this late hour, seeming to play politics with something that is a very serious allegation and would be in itself disqualifying (if it were true).

But guess who loses in all of this? Democrats, yet again, who just can't seem to get it right.

-->

"Very simple solution: Tomorrow at the CNN debate, it's journalistic malpractice to not simply ask Warren, directly: "Did Sanders tell you in that December 2018 meeting that a woman can't win?"

Warren needs to either corroborate this source and confirm the rumor - or she needs to call it out.

Of course, I expect neither to happen." - you


She did one better and confirmed it now.

She needs to tell us exactly what Bernie said. All she said that was that he "disagreed" - but what did he actually say?

She followed that up with noting that she doesn't want to talk about this any further because she has so much in common with Sanders? Really? You have so much in common with a guy who just told you that you can't be President because you're a woman?

It doesn't make sense. She needs to answer the question at tomorrow's debate and tell the world exactly what Bernie said.


-->

Disagreed”

That definitely rang true to me when I read that it was during a discussion about how sanders was fretting leaning into identify politics.

I’m not even vilifying sanders for saying that, I think that was his practical perspective, feeling that the sexism in society would affect votes in certain swing states (as it did in 2016). I don’t take that as he wouldn’t vote himself for a woman or support a woman candidate but just feeling (like many do unfortunately) that a woman can’t win, or Black Person this time or a Latino etc . It’s the electability argument, it’s the same thing that is keeping Biden afloat amongst many Black voters.

But yeah sanders had to be reset in the last debate when he didn’t respond directly to a question about race, his distaste for identity politics is pretty easy to pick up on.

She never said that he explicitly said "a woman can't be President." If that's what she's asserting then she needs to be crystal clear about it.

And yes - she needs to be asked about it at tomorrow's debate. This is a big deal. This can't and shouldn't just be thrown under the rug "because Bernie has so much in common with me." You can't have "so much in common" if a man fundamentally views you as unqualified for the highest office in the land because of your gender.

>I’m not even vilifying sanders for saying that, I think that
>was his practical perspective, feeling that the sexism in
>society would affect votes in certain swing states (as it did
>in 2016). I don’t take that as he wouldn’t vote himself
>for a woman or support a woman candidate but just feeling
>(like many do unfortunately) that a woman can’t win, or
>Black Person this time or a Latino etc . It’s the
>electability argument, it’s the same thing that is keeping
>Biden afloat amongst many Black voters.

>But yeah sanders had to be reset in the last debate when he
>didn’t respond directly to a question about race, his
>distaste for identity politics is pretty easy to pick up on.

Interesting points - but also somewhat tangential to the specific issue at hand: Did Sanders actually tell Warren that he doesn't believe a woman can be President? If so, it should be disqualifying and should career-ending for Sanders. Alike, if Warren embellished this story because of her rapidly declining poll numbers - then it's disqualifying and an ugly mark that will follow her for the rest of her career.

It's one thing to think that identity politics can get out of hand - it's quite another to deem somebody unqualified to be President because of immutable characteristics like race or gender.

This accusation should be taken very seriously.


-->

>She needs to tell us exactly what Bernie said. All she said
>that was that he "disagreed" - but what did he actually say?
>

stretch

>She followed that up with noting that she doesn't want to talk
>about this any further because she has so much in common with
>Sanders? Really? You have so much in common with a guy who
>just told you that you can't be President because you're a
>woman?
>
>It doesn't make sense. She needs to answer the question at
>tomorrow's debate and tell the world exactly what Bernie
>said.
>
>

Bernie can't keep lying and blaming it on staff.

And yes, the infighting is bad for the party and eventual nominee.

You're right: folks' positions on Bernie and Warren probably do shape the reactions to this. But imho it's also easier to believe it happened because, after almost a year, people can just observe from where and to whom a lot of negativity flows. In fact given that you also favor Tulsi, and that I favor Pete, we probably see it more than most (lol). They are frequent targets. And nothing makes folks more combative than feeling defensive about their preferred candidate(s).

But I honestly do think Sanders bears some responsibility for the potently toxic dynamic in this primary. No other campaign is writing full-on op-eds about other candidates (eg. https://www.thestate.com/opinion/article239206718.html), dissing other candidates in speeches/ads (eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sOevFFNR5g), protesting other candidates fundraisers/rallies etc. Talk less of the twitter swarms. Bernie's campaign has definitely taken it further than ANYONE else. I can't even think of any similar efforts from another campaign so far.


>You had a clear distaste for Sanders before this - and you
>likely reflexively want to believe that this is true because
>of your very clearly articulated distaste for his candidacy.
>
>Alike, Sanders supporters are going to believe what they
>believe to be true about Sanders.
>
>Not sure how this moves the needle for either candidate -
>although I think if anything - it hurts Warren for bringing
>this up *now* at this late hour, seeming to play politics with
>something that is a very serious allegation and would be in
>itself disqualifying (if it were true).
>
>But guess who loses in all of this? Democrats, yet again, who
>just can't seem to get it right.
>
>-->

because of the attacks launched at him - it has its way of putting you on the defensive and can be frustrating as all hell lol.

Seeing the way Tulsi has been raked through the coals has been pretty disgraceful - but quite predictable. Primary politics is about as ugly and dishonest as it gets - and yet here we are yet again with another "scandal" that just happens to surface at the most crucial hour of the primary lol.

I don't agree that Sanders has been more aggressive in his attacks than other candidates (big surprise there lol). When you look at the general media blackout of Sanders that persisted for months - and all of the smears and mischaracterizations of his support base - he's taken more than his share of cheap shots.

But I also think that people need to buckle up: this is Trump they're gonna face. There's no time for excessive politeness and wrapping hands with tissue. But what's been remarkable is that - up until now - Sanders and Warren had really been nothing but complimentary of each other - which again is why people are viewing this story by Warren with understandable skepticism.

But let me be clear: if Sanders did actually say that a woman can't be President - it's a disqualifying statement.

But Warren's gonna have to be a lot more convincing and specific than that vague statement she said - which she immediately walked back from in the same sentence.

How do you go from "He said a woman can't be President" to "Sanders and I share the same values" in the same sentence?

Wouldn't be the first time that Warren has embellished the truth on a form.


-->

>Wouldn't be the first time that Warren has embellished the
>truth on a form.
>
>
>-->

to prop up her own privilege?

Interesting.
-->

VP...can it?

Now she is the King maker

I can’t

>You had a clear distaste for Sanders before this - and you
>likely reflexively want to believe that this is true because
>of your very clearly articulated distaste for his candidacy.
>
>Alike, Sanders supporters are going to believe what they
>believe to be true about Sanders.
>
>Not sure how this moves the needle for either candidate -
>although I think if anything - it hurts Warren for bringing
>this up *now* at this late hour, seeming to play politics with
>something that is a very serious allegation and would be in
>itself disqualifying (if it were true).
>
>But guess who loses in all of this? Democrats, yet again, who
>just can't seem to get it right.
>
>-->

what even is the argument again?

oh yeah it doesn't matter, people have the opportunity to swing the sword for the candidate they can't stop talking about.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

She didn’t seem offended and praised sanders and affirmed that friendship and likemindedness but she confirmed that’s what he said...

>She didn’t seem offended and praised sanders and affirmed
>that friendship and likemindedness but she confirmed that’s
>what he said...

Bernie: A woman can't be President
Warren: Praise Bernie! We share the same values and have so much in common

Where they do that at?

-->

ADULTS can and do all the time. It’s a pretty major thing to disagree about but she didn’t tear him , her friend, down in noting that disagreement

At this point though I think it’s clear, even if he were to come out and say I did say that, many of his followers would rationalize it some way, some how.

Again she managed to not personally attack him, hopefully sanders supports can afford her the same respect.

And hopefully what was said is cleared up soon. But I believe her.

>ADULTS can and do all the time. It’s a pretty major thing
>to disagree about but she didn’t tear him , her friend, down
>in noting that disagreement
>
>At this point though I think it’s clear, even if he were to
>come out and say I did say that, many of his followers would
>rationalize it some way, some how.
>
>Again she managed to not personally attack him, hopefully
>sanders supports can afford her the same respect.
>
>And hopefully what was said is cleared up soon. But I believe
>her.

^^^^^ All this

Certainly, likeminded adults can disagree on a lot:

-how to deliver national health care
-foreign policy
-how to leverage the free market to better the lives of people

etc....

But to "disagree" on whether you can become President because you're a woman? Nah, that's not a disagreement - that's flat out chauvinism and bigotry of the highest order - if in fact that's what Bernie said.

But her backtracking in her statement to try and soften things up is not sufficient and likely is indicative of her spinning this to her perceived benefit (though I think this backfires on her). You can't throw a bomb like that and then hold your hands in the air and say "all is love!"

>Again she managed to not personally attack him, hopefully
>sanders supports can afford her the same respect.

If essentially calling someone a misogynist (at this stage of the primary) with a fairly vague, unspecific recount of a meeting two years ago isn't a personal attack, then I don't know what it is.

-->

>Certainly, likeminded adults can disagree on a lot:
>
>-how to deliver national health care
>-foreign policy
>-how to leverage the free market to better the lives of
>people
>
>etc....
>
>But to "disagree" on whether you can become President because
>you're a woman? Nah, that's not a disagreement - that's flat
>out chauvinism and bigotry of the highest order - if in fact
>that's what Bernie said.
>
>But her backtracking in her statement to try and soften things
>up is not sufficient and likely is indicative of her spinning
>this to her perceived benefit (though I think this backfires
>on her). You can't throw a bomb like that and then hold your
>hands in the air and say "all is love!"
>
>>Again she managed to not personally attack him, hopefully
>>sanders supports can afford her the same respect.
>
>If essentially calling someone a misogynist (at this stage of
>the primary) with a fairly vague, unspecific recount of a
>meeting two years ago isn't a personal attack, then I don't
>know what it is.

Hunh?

Her and her campaign sourced a story to CNN

about a private conversation

THE DAY BEFORE A DEBATE ON CNN

weeks ahead of the Iowa caucus

That presents Bern as sexist

You think that's not a personal attack?

WTF

this is alleged to have happened in 2018

2020 says hello

If the alleged story is true, you don't think this is an attack to release now...?

all of the recent polls and reporting have Bern in the lead...and the party coming around to him being a viable candidate

All speculation. Responding to what was said with her own characterization is not a personal attack. If that’s what the conversion was, then that’s what it was, if that paints him in a bad light, he should learn from
the experience and be more careful with his words.

Again i don’t think he sincerely thinks a woman can’t win.

But he either was making a practical argument in a tone def way to his friend who is a woman telling him she was running for President

Or he was lamenting her entering the race for what her entry might do to his own ambitions or somewhere in between.

Bernie wants to be president and seems to feel he deserves to be and believes “he alone” can fix it

And calling someone sexist is a definitely a personal attack. But that’s not what she or the sources did (now some of her supporters have and they are just as wrong as the Bernie hardliners are)

w/o further investigation

there was absolutely no need to run this up the ladder to Warren or Sanders

or even fold it into a POTUS primary debate

as I'm sure you're aware of

videos from 1988 quickly resurfaced in which Bernie endorsed the idea of a woman POTUS

also, as has been recounted, Bern was instrumental in attempting to recruit Warren to run in 16'

he endorsed HRC in the election

AOC has stated that Bernie was her inspiration for entering politics

Even by your own statement, you don't believe he said that.

You want to ignore the motive of sourcing a story about your rival that paints him as sexist, that's your choice

But let's not pretend that motive doesn't exist.

Bottom line

This was a private conversation that never should have made it into the news cycle

maybe he did say it. maybe he didn't. still not convinced of the former ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This stupid controversy exists because even CNN seems bored of lumpy Bill Clinton staffers telling us what it took to win an election in 1996. I really thought the rise of HD would keep these guys off the air as they enter their 60's, but I guess they figured that telling Joe Lockhart that glasses look distinguished was sufficient.

Beyond that, it's nice that the Warren campaign decided to go for this. Wanting to win isn't a crime, and if the Sanders campaign can't survive this then they don't deserve to win anyhow. Plus, it was getting boring being highroaded by Warren supporters just because I prefer my politics dirty and exciting. I mean, she was always up for this because what is true for Sanders and Hillary Clinton and Biden and Trump and Obama and John Delaney and Michael Bloomberg is also true of Warren: wanting to be president of the United States means you're an absolute sociopath. The desire to wield that much power over that many people is a sign of a deeply disordered and violent mind. Candidates who try to hide that are either not viable or not trustworthy.

The only downside here is if this dominates the news for another couple days and Joe Biden doesn't get pressed to explain how voting for the Iraq War isn't the same thing as supporting the Iraq War. From a pure entertainment point of view, fuck both of them if they deprive me of watching Biden chew through his tongue live at the debate trying to square that circle.

He's lying about his platform.
She's lying about her backstory.

This whole discussion is bullshit. I'm disappointed with Warren for taking this tack and then manipulating niggas into white knighting on her behalf.


I know it's politics, but it's shitty politics leading into an important election.

it makes 0 sense for him to go "sexist"
it makes ALL the sense for people to say he is so they can smear him.
The anti-Corbyn playbook at work.

Coon shit.

I do think she was holding onto this for a long time - there's no way she suddenly remembered this on the eve of the final pre-Iowa debate.

This might be a case where each side understands the situation differently, so no one is lying, per se.

... had a personal mic on (as did Sanders) considering the clarity of the audio.

-

I just get so worried about Bernie supporters and the Bernie or bust mentality (and what I perceive to be his *own*ego/only I can fix perspective)

I mean u see the writing on the wall already in this post. Sanders supports have been throwing shots at warren for a while, once she was rising in the polls and was look at as a front runner/2 spot.

I don’t understand why all that vitriol wasn’t directed at Biden.

Then it’s also worrisome with all the progressive groups clamoring for warren and sanders to keep the peace while shading Pete and Biden...I get it but all the candidates and their supporters need to not go too far and alienate voters that will be needed by whoever gets the nom

Facts : a portion of Clinton supporters didn’t end up voting for Obama in 2008
A portion of Bernie supporters didn’t vote for Clinton in the general in 2016 (even more detrimental)

The candidates need make sure they are highlighting their contrasts but not making this nasty and personal, theres no room for that this go around

>The candidates need make sure they are highlighting their
>contrasts but not making this nasty and personal, theres no
>room for that this go around

Who deviated from your advice here?

-->

>
>>The candidates need make sure they are highlighting their
>>contrasts but not making this nasty and personal, theres no
>>room for that this go around
>
>Who deviated from your advice here?
>
>-->


Sanders

"Politico reported over the weekend that the Sanders campaign quietly instructed volunteers to tell undecided voters that Warren would be a weak general election candidate because her appeal is limited to “highly educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what.”

According to the talking points, the volunteers were instructed to tell voters that Warren is “bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”

>"Politico reported over the weekend that the Sanders campaign
>quietly instructed volunteers to tell undecided voters that
>Warren would be a weak general election candidate because her
>appeal is limited to “highly educated, more affluent people
>who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter
>what.”
>
>According to the talking points, the volunteers were
>instructed to tell voters that Warren is “bringing no new
>bases into the Democratic Party.”

Even if this was an official strategy of the Sanders campaign (which certainly isn't clear as these candidates have thousands of canvassers and supporters) - this is what you call "nasty and personal" ?

Pointing out some facts about Warren's base (her base is primarily college-educated, affluent white liberals) is not in the same universe as personally attacking one's character and painting them as a misogynist.

-->

saying she can't extend her reach. Reducing her to a one trick pony.

>Even if this was an official strategy of the Sanders campaign
>(which certainly isn't clear as these candidates have
>thousands of canvassers and supporters) - this is what you
>call "nasty and personal" ?
>
>Pointing out some facts about Warren's base (her base is
>primarily college-educated, affluent white liberals) is not in
>the same universe as personally attacking one's character and
>painting them as a misogynist.
>


If Bernie told Warren a woman can't win, is it an attack when she exposes him.

Warren is taking more heat for something BERNIE SAID. "Oh yeah, Bernie said that" ...."how are she!! "


Bernie bros like Vex attack Warren for a year, Bernie lets her take all of the M4A heat, never tells his legion to stand down, has people going door to door to criticize Warren's base/chances....


And thats just politics or "some staffer"


The lack of self awareness or even irony is astonishing.


Bernie stans can really sound so much like Trump worshipers its fucking scary. Don't dare question their emperor.

>
>Warren is taking more heat for something BERNIE SAID. "Oh
>yeah, Bernie said that" ...."how are she!! "
>
>
>Bernie bros like Vex attack Warren for a year, Bernie lets her
>take all of the M4A heat, never tells his legion to stand
>down, has people going door to door to criticize Warren's
>base/chances....
>
>
>And thats just politics or "some staffer"
>
>
>The lack of self awareness or even irony is astonishing.
>
>
>Bernie stans can really sound so much like Trump worshipers
>its fucking scary. Don't dare question their emperor.

^^^^^^^^^ Nothing but the truth

your obsession with me (somebody you don't know anything about) is getting O.D. crazy.

-->

.

"Like 45 owns his toxicity and the toxicity he cultivates/encourages in others." - kfine

smh

Guess what? I'm allowed to think what I want, and disagreeing with somebody doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. Should've brought this up in #174 instead of trolling like 30 replies later lol

It's not trolling, it fits the description bizzaro world.

I already told you that was too far.

Trump owns it. smh

it's your job to "tell me" my opinion is too far? Do you think I post for your approval or something? A poster asked who everyone believes, and I contributed my position and broke it down. Go grade somebody else's shit lol

>
>it's your job to "tell me" my opinion is too far? Do you think
>I post for your approval or something? A poster asked who
>everyone believes, and I contributed my position and broke it
>down. Go grade somebody else's shit lol
>
>


You are not in a protective bubble this a message board where discussions take place. If you can't handle it log off.

you can't even not be a dick for like half a second to just let that ride lol

Whatever. I stand by what I said. There's potent toxicity in both Bernie's and 45's politics, but - unlike 45 - Bernie fronts like he's all innocent/unaware of what his people do. Where's the lie.

Still waiting for you to gtfoh :) I asked nicely the first time

with something someone said.

>you can't even not be a dick for like half a second to just
>let that ride lol
>

I can do the name calling thing if you want to take it there.


>Whatever. I stand by what I said. There's potent toxicity in
>both Bernie's and 45's politics, but - unlike 45 - Bernie
>fronts like he's all innocent/unaware of what his people do.
>Where's the lie.
>

45 is not owning anything, they have documented thousands of lies since he took office. How is that owning it if he lies all the time ?
You can call out Bernie without making up fairy tales about 45.

>Still waiting for you to gtfoh :) I asked nicely the first
>time

You can shut up

>
>>Whatever. I stand by what I said. There's potent toxicity in
>>both Bernie's and 45's politics, but - unlike 45 - Bernie
>>fronts like he's all innocent/unaware of what his people do.
>>Where's the lie.
>>


>
>45 is not owning anything, they have documented thousands of
>lies since he took office. How is that owning it if he lies
>all the time ?
>You can call out Bernie without making up fairy tales about
>45.
>

^Lol, this is like... not even what I'm talking about.

I would try explaining myself better, but I kinda think you're being a dick unnecessarily and you told me to shut up too so let's just dead this. We probably won't get anywhere.

>>
>
>^Lol, this is like... not even what I'm talking about.
>

"He absolutely wanted to run a grimey operation and tbh his denials lately rub me worse than 45. Like 45 owns his toxicity and the toxicity he cultivates/encourages in others. But Bernie incites this crap and plays all unaware/innocent. Yuck." - You


That's what you talking about no matter how many lol's you use.

>I would try explaining myself better, but I kinda think you're
>being a dick unnecessarily and you told me to shut up too so
>let's just dead this. We probably won't get anywhere.

Your mother is a dick. It's about time you shut up.

>
>>>
>>
>>^Lol, this is like... not even what I'm talking about.
>>
>
>"He absolutely wanted to run a grimey operation and tbh his
>denials lately rub me worse than 45. Like 45 owns his toxicity
>and the toxicity he cultivates/encourages in others. But
>Bernie incites this crap and plays all unaware/innocent.
>Yuck." - You
>
>
>That's what you talking about no matter how many lol's you
>use.
>

Correct. That's what I said. But this is what you said:

>45 is not owning anything, they have documented thousands of
>lies since he took office. How is that owning it if he lies
>all the time ?

^and it's not what I'm talking about.

But again, as predicted, this is simply devolving into an increasingly toxic back and forth. Let's just stop engaging. I won't even hold it against you lol

>>
>>>>
>
>>
>
>Correct. That's what I said. But this is what you said:
>
>>45 is not owning anything, they have documented thousands of
>>lies since he took office. How is that owning it if he lies
>>all the time ?
>
>^and it's not what I'm talking about.

It's what you are talking about, you are just trying to save face now.

>But again, as predicted, this is simply devolving into an
>increasingly toxic back and forth. Let's just stop engaging. I
>won't even hold it against you lol

You took it there and I warned you.

I honestly do want to explain better, but I hate toxic convos. Has nothing to do with saving face, I stand by my opinion 100%.

But you're right, I do bear some responsibility here for the breakdown in communication.

Let's just agree to disagree and stop engaging. It's all good.

Let's start over no toxic convo, go ahead explain it.

don't be so dramatic

cant even fully express myself. this comment from a reddit user covers a lot

"I think I have three takeaways from this entire mess:

I believe that it happened. Bernie, even though he means very well, has a long history of saying insensitive-sounding comments about race and gender because he doesn't necessarily always think about how his words might sound before speaking. He can be tone-deaf, and I think that's what happened here.

That being said, I can totally see where it is believable that 1) Bernie generally believes a woman can and should be president and 2) in a 2019 conversation with Warren he said that he didn't think a woman in general (or her specifically) could get elected in the current climate. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

I'm upset at the idea that Bernie can say something sexist and yet it’s Warren who has to manage the fallout for his comments. Like...this should fall squarely on him and his campaign to deal with, and yet the knives are out for Warren and not him. It's extremely frustrating."

and also this

"mom dad please don’t fight :("

>I'm upset at the idea that Bernie can say something sexist and
>yet it’s Warren who has to manage the fallout for his
>comments. Like...this should fall squarely on him and his
>campaign to deal with, and yet the knives are out for Warren
>and not him. It's extremely frustrating."
>

The bro bros are out in full force (here and Twitter) flailing that the Warren campaign dare say something about Bernie.

Which is ironic because they (rightfully) told Hillary fans to stand down in '16 because its a fucking primary.

Hillary deserved a primary. As does Bernie. This is how this shit works.

Kind of like Bernie supporters trashing Warren supporters OFF A DAMN SCRIPT.

(Love how Warren is to blame for leaking something BERNIE SAID, and Bernie is off the hook for his campaign's strategy/script)

What's worse though?

I don't see many denying that Bernie said it, just that it shouldn't have been leaked.

Warren is taking more heat for her team leaking this than Bernie is for saying it.


To top it off? The bro bros have been relentless in their Warren attacks. "She was a Republican in the 80s! She's a copycat! Where was she in 2016!" etc

All while she takes all of the darts for M4A.

Bernie sat back through all of that. He let her take all of the M4A heat for like 2 months straight. Because he's trying to win.


But its on Warren to dead this for him? Refundwarren trending?


Biden has this locked- for a few reasons. The bro bros won't have any kind of self reflection to realize they are one of them though.

>That being said, I can totally see where it is believable that
>1) Bernie generally believes a woman can and should be
>president and 2) in a 2019 conversation with Warren he said
>that he didn't think a woman in general (or her specifically)
>could get elected in the current climate. The two things are
>not mutually exclusive.

I wish he'd explained that, rather than opting for a simple "I didn't say it," but whatever. Hopefully this nonsense blows away in the news cycle winds.


_______________________________
gamblers and masturbators.

http://twitter.com/urkelmoedee

https://www.albumism.com/search?q=Marcus%20Willis

Return To Zero: A rap radio show hosted by mrhood75 (Spider Jerusalem) and me (UrkelMoeDee)
https://mixcloud.com

i hate how cnn is playing this shit up to hype the broadcast.

and CNN certainly loves that.

-->

policy topics should be the focus tonight but this certainly diverts attention. It's annoying.

then it's to the detriment of the party. But of course, this would again benefit Biden to get a pass on his abysmal Foreign Policy record.

-->

This is dirty politics 101 by Elizabeth Warren. Reading this excerpt from her book is very interesting where she admitted she was "embarrassed" by an instance of embellishing details about her past in the case of claiming credit for Occupy Wall Street. https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1217140760488726529?s=20

Obviously Warren did this herself, even Nate Silver can see it https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1216931979893137408?s=20
I've always professed that Warren is not a genuine ally to the progressive movement (outside of some banking policies). Since they don't have any true oppo on Bernie they have now resorted to making it up. It's actually kind of funny (and flattering to Bernie) when you look at it this way. They can't attack him on his record, flooding the field hasn't worked and mimicking his platform failed. So now the only other thing they can do is smear him with false accusations. They are really desperate to stop this man.

Warren has always been the Bernie spoiler and she has been doing a bang up job of it. My bet is that it backfires on her and yesterday will be an albatross around her neck forever depending on how things go at the debate tonight. The establishment knows that the majority of Warren's supporters have Bernie as second choice. In caucuses if Warren isn't viable they don't want that helping Bernie. This way they think they can get her second choice people to go to Biden and help him in Iowa and Nevada.

Warren clearly believes she can't win by doing this. From a strategic perspective, she absolutely needs Sanders supporters if she were to emerge as the Progressive front-runner to thwart Biden. Of course, all of the data points to her lagging behind Sanders nationally - by a significant margin - which is likely why she's going out firing like this - but if she were actually still in it to win it, she just shot herself in the foot.

-->

It's not a bad strategy if the goal isn't for her to be President but for her to be Biden's VP or some other backroom deal she's negotiated. Remember she spent 2016 trying out for Hillary's VP "offer". The establishment was very fearful of another Bernie run in 2020. You don't think they did everything they could to lay the groundwork to stop him early. California was moved up in hopes Kamala would catch fire. If you recall Warren was the first major candidate to announce in Dec. 2018. Her co-opting started right away either to dissuade Bernie from entering or to give people a younger, female "alternative" to Bernie. Just a few months later there was reporting of dinners and get togethers with Pelosi, Schumer, Buttigieg etc. to strategize on stopping Bernie https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html

As I said they tried flooding the field, co-opting his policies, everything under the sun. Bernie represents an actual, substantial existential threat to ALL elites who benefit from the status quo. This isn't a joke to them, they know Bernie's movement isn't messing around. Warren was a pawn in this game and she's expendable to them if this destroys her credibility.

with their framing. Asking Bernie if he said it (he denied), then going to Warren and saying "so what did you think about him saying it".

Trash.


- *Coon News Network

It's every third comment on twitter from Warren fans. Now we have Warren fans acting like they will burn the whole thing down if there person doesn't win. SMH.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Also he has a bad history with women.

I've literally never seen this, ever.


show me.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

You could have easily answered your own dumb question by searching "Bernie" and "Misogynist" doofus.




>I've literally never seen this, ever.
>
>
>show me.
>
>www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

then *doubled down* when he received backlash from women.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/855406226817118212

he was willing to toss womens right to their own bodies under the bus for political expediency in regards to someone he saw as a supporter.

this is while roe v wade is potentially in peril with trump supreme court appointments.

im not calling bernie a misogynist.

but how do you think bernie supporters themselves would feel about a politician who aligns themselves with someone who openly opposes a womans right to choose?

hint...we already know from recent history:
https://twitter.com/NatalieElsberg/status/999316566729781248
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/999303599481147393


convenient double standard right?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-woman-president-deescalation

At one point in a lengthy DM to the Twitter group on Tuesday morning, the Warren staffer’s description of the controversy hewed closer to Sanders’ description than Warren’s. “Claiming you’re worried a woman can’t win/flagging that she’ll receive sexist attacks is something many, many people feel,” the campaign official wrote.

as one Twitter comment said

She made an ill-advised and desperate attack.

The attack backfired spectacularly.

Now she wants to act like nothing happened?

Her window to recover from this is closing fast.

This only is playing well with those who have blood out for Sanders. Everybody else seems to be really disappointed in this low-blow distraction to what's really important: coalescing Progressives to defeat Trump.

-->

Up all the oxygen in the room. This isn’t playing well with Bernie supporters. The hubris of some of y’all to think his 20-27 support encapsulates all “voters”

I do find it odd that folks like randi weingarten and other progressive groups who say they like “both” are now “pleading” for hostilities between the two campaigns to cease when sanders supporters have been attacking warren for months!

And the fact of the matter is that sanders supporters didn’t attack warren until she rose in the polls and the Media was saying sanders was stuck

Sanders supporters are signaling very clearly again that it’s Bernie or bust (or vote for trump agin or Jill Stein) so in essence the rest of us will be held hostage less we have a repeat of 2016.

I'll circle back here and admit I was wrong if this fiasco somehow boosts her numbers and she ends up mounting a comeback.

But I won't expect you to do the same if her numbers suffer because of this strategic mishap from her and her team.

-->

Some of her moves as a candidate are boneheaded politically though. Not in a sense that it makes me think it make she'd be any less effective as president, more that I don't have a lot of faith in her ability to defeat Trump.

I think Warren would make a fine President (though some of her judgment and statements on the campaign trail have made me question that a bit -- but by & large, she's been an exemplary Senator).

Warren is from my neighboring state and I've followed her career very closely, and have championed and campaigned her for because of her courage in going after the financial elite and banking white-collar criminals. I don't think there's a more effective fighter on that issue.

But it's just really unfortunate to see her go this low because of her falling numbers.

>Some of her moves as a candidate are boneheaded politically
>though. Not in a sense that it makes me think it make she'd be
>any less effective as president, more that I don't have a lot
>of faith in her ability to defeat Trump.

Agreed.


-->

IT BACKFIRRRRRRED

literally the only people who care are the usual bernie shitheads

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and not you going "everyone's being mean to bernie and tulsi, here's a hundred examples of stuff to whine about"

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/01/elizabeth-warren-republican-electability/603178/

Pretty fascinating read. I knew some of this (like her being a Goldwater Girl and Warren starting out as a Republican) but I didn't know that she was a Republican until she was 46. That's quite a shift in middle age.

-->

to be a progressive. Pretty cool, huh?


>I didn't know that she was a Republican until she was 46.
>That's quite a shift in middle age.
>
>-->

While Bernie is trying to point to the absurdity of not thinking a woman could be president (Clinton won the popular vote), Warren is arguing why a woman would be a BETTER candidate.

Seemed hilarious and reasonable to take a grip of the moment, look around and point out that if they're talking generally about a woman becoming president they may as well specifically talk about her. And Bernard realizing that meant she was talking about beating him and arguing was weirdly humanizing for both of them.

This is quite entertaining to watch as they struggle to retain any semblance of journalistic integrity.

-->

it's BIDEN.

the corporate media concern trolls and big money donors think she's too liberal, even if she's the current vessel through which they attack Sanders.

Wolf Blitzer and Abby Phillip were cozied up to Biden something serious after the debate - it looked odd.

They were lodging softballs at Warren & Biden all night, and essentially weaponized Abby Phillip against Sanders.

It was bizarre AF to watch in real time.

-->

they tried to prop up pete and amy. amy didnt really grab and pete has started fading. now theyre going to plan z and trying to get warren so that its not bernie.

ive said before that i think warren is the smart choice if people are too scared of bernie. if she does half of what she says she wants to do that will be a huge improvement.

hopefully this turns into warren vs bernie outright and warren doesnt shift too far center.

It's interesting though...how most of the field has adopted some form of his 16' platform

...and we're still getting Bernie Bros tropes in 20'...

But I feel like they clearly don't want Bernie to win the nomination

I think Warren isn't very high on their list either...being that her 'proposed' policies almost mirror Bern's

But if she's going to attack, that's their dog in the fight

They clearly, CLEARLY, prefer Biden, Buttigieg, and then Klobuchar

...in that order...

It's really evident when certain topics are presented

The candidates had to force the discussion on climate change
Bern's attacks on the healthcare and fossil fuel industries were quickly cut short

You could CLEARLY tell that CNN was trying to protect certain interests

WHY ARE THEY STILL PRESENTING HEALTHCARE FOR ALL AS LOSING COVERAGE?

IT'S FUCKING HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!!!

It's basically performance art at this point - but the injustice that the media does to the people in protecting certain interests, while being an instrument/attack-dog to stomp out interests they don't like - is basically the American version of "state-run media" - it's just that our media (like our government) - is bought out and controlled by multi-national corporations that give marching orders behind closed doors that the general public isn't privy to.

People aren't really buying their veneer of objectivity though.


-->

i didnt like it. they didnt even ask her to say what he actually told her. then as soon as the debate was over they proclaimed her the winner and exciting when she did basically the same as she has in all debates.

she shifted her messaging on healthcare to say shes expanding the ACA. seems it is still the sample transition plan just with a different wrapper.

i guess this is politics but bleh.

the whole fiasco seems to be a bad look for her but ive thought the same about other things for other candidates that ended up being a boost for them in the end so i wont predict this.

A lot of my friends and associates (some who share my political views, some who don't) seemed to come to a broad consensus that this was egregious media malpractice. That was encouraging to me.


-->

i think warren is the smart choice. i dont like a lot that shes done lately but i still feel should would be the best choice. i just hope she doesnt keep digging at bernie. no benefit to anger his supporters more. the goal should be to dig into pete and bidens supporters. bring them in.

i dont think bernie is off the hook, they admitted that they did send those talking points going negative with biden/pete/warren. the simple answer is thats why warren hit back with the conversation.

last night seemed pretty clear that cnn was handing softballs to warren. maybe they werent working together but thats the impression i got.

>i think warren is the smart choice. i dont like a lot that
>shes done lately but i still feel should would be the best
>choice. i just hope she doesnt keep digging at bernie. no
>benefit to anger his supporters more. the goal should be to
>dig into pete and bidens supporters. bring them in.

Outside of those who found it pleasurable to watch CNN come for Sanders, I don't see how this is going to help Warren in any way with the electorate. It didn't just turn off Sanders loyalists, but also even some of her own supporters who just wish she'd de-escalated on this.

>i dont think bernie is off the hook, they admitted that they
>did send those talking points going negative with
>biden/pete/warren. the simple answer is thats why warren hit
>back with the conversation.

That's fair. But I would add that Bernie's canvassing team (whether directed by him to do it or not) were at least making substantive, data-backed points when drawing contrasts. It's an established fact that Warren's supporters are largely affluent, white liberals. Warren should've countered with data that supports her candidacy, instead of resorting to this kind of desperate gutter gossip.

I just don't see how this helps her. More importantly, I don't see how this helps party unity (which is clearly fractured).




-->

based on last night theyre using this as a launch point to emphasize how warren is electable and how being a woman is actually a plus.

not bad points to highlight but if this was their strategy its not one i would have picked.

later.

https://twitter.com/TomNamako/status/1217300339977805824

Those nasty dems and the mainstream media....or wait is that trump who never gets a fair shot with those nasty dems and the mainstream media....*slaps forehead*...I get so confused...😑

which is sad/scary.

Crazy they don't see it.

and equally revolting IMO.

Lying brazenly and needlessly is enough to get you put into the back IMO.

I've got an extra red pill if you want one.

that maybe he said that shit, and she is pissed he won't come clean about it.



He could even flip it a little to say he was speaking on how much harder it is for women in general, that Hillary was treated unfairly, etc.

I mean, he had two days to come up with an answer that he could have dunked. Instead it was "It wasn't me"

But, by all means, lets talk more about Liz's poor political instincts.


And/or maybe she is pissed that she has been attacked for months from the middle on M4A in a way Bernie hasn't even dreamed of...AND she's been attacked for months by Bernie Bros for committing the unforgivable sin of...not being Bernie.

And he didn't do shit about any of that.


Maybe she is tired of the fucking Bernie clan and disappointed in him for not trying to keeping them in check. I don't blame her- I am too.


And the super-progressive-not sexist at all bro bros are worried about a handshake.

I swear some of them have claimed she would "break down" against Trump because she isn't tough enough....now she is "too tough" on Bernie. LOL

i got the impression that she thought bernie would come clean, not necessarily that she made up what he said.

https://twitter.com/UrsulaPerano/status/1217619449198583809

I don't know about Bernie.

Angry that he didn’t own up in that moment. She was ready to address that shit head on, I guess he thought that offense was no big deal (making her out to be a liar) and they were just gonna shake and move on as normal.

They shoulda talked one and one off to the side ASAP but warren has lost trust and prolly don’t wanna be alone with his ass anymore.

>Angry that he didn’t own up in that moment. She was ready
>to address that shit head on, I guess he thought that offense
>was no big deal (making her out to be a liar) and they were
>just gonna shake and move on as normal.
>
>They shoulda talked one and one off to the side ASAP but
>warren has lost trust and prolly don’t wanna be alone with
>his ass anymore.


^^^^^^^ True

Like what was said?!?!

On some “I didn’t see shit, I didn’t hear shit, ask them” when the press asked him what was said, he heard every word

I saw a great tweet that said something like:

Tom Steyer in business: remorseless killer who profits off of human misery and desperation
Tom Steyer interpersonally: hey :/


LOLOL I was crying.

Steyer was just sitting there looking at them both, and waiting patiently like a fan lol. I think he actually followed that up by saying "it's been a real treat seeing you again" or something like that lol.

Bernie's like "OK very good. Thanks"

Bernie's probably like....I ain't ever liked a billionaire before, but Tom might be the one.

-->

>Steyer was just sitting there looking at them both, and
>waiting patiently like a fan lol. I think he actually
>followed that up by saying "it's been a real treat seeing you
>again" or something like that lol.
>
>Bernie's like "OK very good. Thanks"
>
>Bernie's probably like....I ain't ever liked a billionaire
>before, but Tom might be the one.
>
>-->

At least this convo was recorded and broadcast on live tv

How quick MFers forget

HRC tried the same tactic in 2015

Bernie made a statement (paraphrasing)
Shouting about gun violence won't fix the problem

HRC and her campaign spun that to (paraphrasing)
My male colleagues say I'm too loud and I should be quiet

CNN fell in step with the implication of sexism

In 2015.

As has been pointed out, Warren has hired some HRC staffers

We should be smarter than falling for the same bullshit, twice.

it is interesting, however, to see how alt-center "liberals" will aid the right-wing side of things and the lengths to which they are doing this.

a Biden/Warren ticket (which I think this is all driving toward) is preferrable to Trump but I don't think this pulls people out of their seats the way liberals think it will. It's Clinton/Kaine 2.0.

(I almost had to Google who the VP on the Clinton ticket was)

the lessons of Obama '08 have been greatly ignored by the Dems here.

...i thought she was smarter than this, but then again, she fell for trump's DNA test troll as well ..to be fair, it's likely the Obama and Clinton staff she's brought on that have pushed her to do this.

given that it implied he was an outright misogynist when his track record shows that is not the case

CNN showed their bias all night and the fact that Bernie still had the patience to take the higher road with Warren afterwards speaks well of where he is in terms of choosing battles

one day we will have an honest discussion of how "the good guys" can play the misdirection game on some Tom Boody/Cheatriots shit

Dont' even get me started Doc

The Stros are being depicted as ZOMG fucking cheaters, the sanctity of the game, blah blah blah

Firing current and former staff members

While Giselle's husband and Belicheat are still lauded as GOATs

...and now the Aaron Hernandez doc compounds that with a lack of institutional control...

Kraft should have to sell the team, and every staff member should be fired.

Imagine if they went after Belicheat's coaching tree...

Football has an anything goes approach to winning games. People tend to turn their heads at a lot of crazy shit.

I think that's the main difference other than obviously, yes, the entire Pats organization being put on a pedestal by the league and parts of the country.

haha....okay, player...

Liar AND say I’m lying about something so heavy as saying a woman can’t win President I’m addressing that shit fervently and getting this cleared up with my friend ASAP.

Had that been me I’d be like Elizabeth can we talk about this now, I never meant for u to take the conversation as saying I didn’t think a woman can win, I was just speaking about the extreme sexism that is gonna be at play xyz (he could have said that at the Debate too, which would have completely deflated her anger)

He should made that call right after she made that statement confirming the account, which she did about 24 hours before the debate.

He had ample time to make that call and could have did better than saying “ I didn’t say that” at the Debate.

get thee behind me satan

I think at the very least there was a clear context to what he said and she is grasping at straws to make it something it's not

The original headline on Monday was...

Bernie Sanders says a woman can’t be POTUS.

We’ve already seen that walked back

I don’t even give a shit about what was said TBH

What is alarming is removing all context

I don’t disagree with the sentiment that Warren takes an L vs Trump

He’ll parade any member of the First Nations willing to rebut her native claim, on stage at every rally

But the bigger issue IRT context is people willfully ignoring her motive

The question that needs to be addressed first is why source this story now.

SHE said it

he AGREED with her

she took umbrage and is saying HE said it.

But I mean....it's POLITICS

they BOTH kinda be lying so whaddaya want?

and the clarity from the audio sounds like they had mic's on them personally.

Shit just seems so contrived.

Some made for TV drama...

>and the clarity from the audio sounds like they had mic's on
>them personally.
>
>Shit just seems so contrived.
>
>Some made for TV drama...

All "somebody discovered the audio!" when it's *their* mics on *their* broadcast.

In any case, this is all going to shake out one or another, obviously. When that happens, is it going to be stupider than the Howard Dean scream thing?

One genuine bummer I'm experiencing is that the dirty tricks are really boring this year. Remember the photo with Obama in "muslim garb" that came from the Clinton campaign? That was some real dirty shit. Remember just four years ago when Republicans literally talked about their dick sizes LIVE AT THE DEBATE?

I'm not saying that I want my politics to be forced into a TV drama. But if that's going to happen anyhow, whether we like it or not, then it may as well be a fun one.

>and the clarity from the audio sounds like they had mic's on
>them personally.
>
>Shit just seems so contrived.
>
>Some made for TV drama...

Not that we expected anything less - but the way in which Wolf Blitzer and Abby Philip were weaponized and used essentially as campaign propaganda proxies against Sanders was disgraceful - even for CNN's abysmal standards.

This may have felt good in the short-term for those who are repulsed by Sanders - but Warren's stock is really going to suffer because of this in the long-run.

-->

And this is the person you are begging to endorse ur candidate ??

It wasn't difficult to see that this was going to be a brewing "progressive" rivalry (although it turned out to be more of an establishment v. anti-establishment contrast re: Warren & Sanders) - but it's interesting that demographics cited in the original post were ultimately what Warren took such great offense to.

That being, that Warren's base is anchored by affluent, white liberals -- and her aggregate support-base is the whitest of the leading candidates (Sanders/Biden/Warren).

Warren took such great offense to some Sanders canvassers pointing to this data - and instead of countering this data on the merits - she chose to pivot and throw a "But Bernie's a sexist!" hail-mary to try and stop the bleeding of her tumbling poll numbers.

Lost in all the rah-rah is the relevance and significance of the demographics: Sanders has built a coalition that is far more diverse and intersectional than Warren has been able to achieve - and that must really have touched a nerve w/ her given her willingness to sacrifice her integrity over this.

-->

Yeah, that story got completely buried

but I agree with the sentiment as well

I can't see minority voters being excited about her after the whole native american fiasco

Now, she's throwing sexist accusations

Minorities are about 30% of the population

Men are about 50%

She's alienated the majority of voters

LOL.

>Yeah, that story got completely buried
>
>but I agree with the sentiment as well
>
>I can't see minority voters being excited about her after the
>whole native american fiasco
>

It may not be a good idea to lean on the Trump attacking Warren talking point.

This thing almost got legs the other day.

https://apnews.com/706033a61500deffe2412c109fae6d4b

>Now, she's throwing sexist accusations
>
>Minorities are about 30% of the population
>
>Men are about 50%
>
>She's alienated the majority of voters
>
>LOL.

Ehh you're exaggerating.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/blog/meet-press-blog-latest-news-analysis-data-driving-political-discussion-n988541/ncrd1117021#blogHeader

>Ehh you're exaggerating.
>
>https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/blog/meet-press-blog-latest-news-analysis-data-driving-political-discussion-n988541/ncrd1117021#blogHeader

The glossy endorsements in your cited article are cool and all, but Warren has struggled with the Latinx vote (just as she's struggled with the Black vote). Sanders is ahead by a wide margin with Latinx voters (~35%) - while Warren struggles to break double digits.


-->

and SC

Me some Nina turner. Love ilhan, aoc, rashida and ayanna (warren supporter).

But yeah like warren is deep up in Black women issues and has been for a long time and hence why she has deducted support there.

Older Black women are on Biden.

Thanks for the anecdotes

I don't even invest in poll numbers

But a quick Google results in

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/democratic-presidential-candidates/polls/

Warren voter is 29% less likely to be black.

You can change the demo to race and education...

Look at that, Warren excels with yt college educated voters...

Very interesting.

U of a muthafucking thing or u tryna to convince about the Black women I know. Don’t know ur life but I’m actually around Black ppl daily, in and outside of work.

Good luck tho

lol yikes. Fact-free safe zones are wild'ing.

-->

and that’s the problem with politics.

We live in our bubbles

... black voters nationally"

blkprince: "Bullshit. My mama and her hairdresser love Liz."

That was bad.

As they did warren and Clinton?

It’s pretty amazing how intense they get. are white women the antithesis to the Bernie bro?

#neverwarren. Sheesh. That says it all right there, meanwhile uncle joe ain’t had a hashtag yet

theyre obviously against him and his policies. but theres a different level of vitriol for clinton/warren/harris/tanden/etc.

this used to be my crowd. was a big young turks supporter. was a big michael moore fan. a big theintercept reader. did a bunch of shit for the sanders campaign in 2016. it was the 1st prez campaign i ever gave money to (even maxed out).

but 2016 broke a lot of these niggas for some reason. their view of a lot of shit has become so irrational and distorted that im not even sure im living in the same reality as a lot of them.

It seems like you have a perpetual appetite for this - but it's really not hard:

There is a contingent of hardcore Sanders supporters who are still fuming @ the Clinton machine, and re-open old wounds from 2016. Alike, there are Clinton/Dem Establishment stalwarts (like yourself) whose sole purpose is to ensure that Sanders doesn't emerge as the nominee, denigrating him at every opportunity you get.

The only difference is: Sanders actually has a valid grievance. The DNC (run by the Clinton wing) cheated him; not vice versa.

>this used to be my crowd. was a big young turks supporter.
>was a big michael moore fan. a big theintercept reader. did
>a bunch of shit for the sanders campaign in 2016.

Show us one post out of your hundreds (maybe thousands) of political posts here where you credit TYT, Michael Moore, The Intercept - or Sanders. Your viewpoints have been crystal clear and transparent for years here. The only time you ever mention TYT or the Intercept is to try and demean someone's viewpoint by being like "fam you're starting to sound Greenwald/Democracy Now/Kaspara - don't do that!"

That said, I love the narrative that you were once a neutral (and even a pro-Sanders) Democrat. That's a warm and fuzzy feeling.

-->

Always seems like Warren or Hillary getting any criticism is viewed as “OMG, they never do this with the men”

and the shit is just regular criticism politicians get during elections.

>Always seems like Warren or Hillary getting any criticism is
>viewed as “OMG, they never do this with the men”
>
>and the shit is just regular criticism politicians get during
>elections.

Yea it's bananas. There's this "#YasQueenSlay!" hysteria to this where facts aren't allowed into the conversation - only feelings.

Never mind that Sanders has spent basically all of his political capital going after Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg. To those who don't really care about fairness, they just want to further the "Bernie has a problem with women!" narrative, regardless of the facts not bearing that out.

This is typical primary ugliness, though. It's just interesting to see who rides what narrative. Very telling.


-->

from now on huh?

youve been pulling a lot of narratives out your ass regardless of truth/history lately.


here i am calling *myself* a bernie bro during the primary:
https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12979896&mesg_id=12979896&listing_type=search#12981061

and oh look...here you are stanning with me:
https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12979896&mesg_id=12979896&listing_type=search#12981066

here i am shutting down stravinskian in saint bernards honor:
https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12983676&mesg_id=12983676&listing_type=search#12985144

and oh look...here you are high fiving me for it:
https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12983676&mesg_id=12983676&listing_type=search#12985698


shit here i am sticking up for bernie and using *susan fucking sarandon* to debunk shit.
https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12975861&mesg_id=12975861&listing_type=search#12976822


now point to me anywhere on here saying im #neverbernie. ive always been clear about voting for the dem nominee no matter what (even your queen bee tulsi lol).

shit if anything...at one point i was #neverhillary:
https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12979692&mesg_id=12979692&listing_type=search#12979773


sidenote: here i am predicting trump getting elected all the way back in feb 2016 based on unenthusiastic black turnout in the early primary states
https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12978095&mesg_id=12978095&listing_type=search#12979780
https://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12975861&mesg_id=12975861&listing_type=search#12976635

Looks like I stand corrected: you were a Sanders supporter early in the primary.


-->

but i couldnt find them.

i think you, me and maybe stahdiq, brew, etc were talking about all being on the bernie bus and some of us jumping off post 2016.

the overwhelming majority of people on this site all align closely ideologically (we dont really disagree on which policies are right/wrong).

but we are usually divided on feasibility, which policies can win elections, which policies can realistically be enacted, etc.

if we all had a choice for a candidate who could automatically get elected and get his/her proposals rubber stamped with no political/electoral consequence...im sure most of us would choose bernie.

>but i couldnt find them.
>
>i think you, me and maybe stahdiq, brew, etc were talking
>about all being on the bernie bus and some of us jumping off
>post 2016.
>
>the overwhelming majority of people on this site all align
>closely ideologically (we dont really disagree on which
>policies are right/wrong).
>
>but we are usually divided on feasibility, which policies can
>win elections, which policies can realistically be enacted,
>etc.
>
>if we all had a choice for a candidate who could automatically
>get elected and get his/her proposals rubber stamped with no
>political/electoral consequence...im sure most of us would
>choose bernie.

I only hopped off the Bernie Bus cause I was trying to be realistic. Which is only heightened by the fact that the media is clearly out to get him.

And yes - from a pure ideological standpoint there's nobody I align with more than Bernie. That's been the same since 2016 ... shit, well before 2016 but I didn't really know who he was before the primaries lol.

But this Warren shit has almost made me want to jump back on his bandwagon. I've been team Warren for months now but this shit was *awful*.

>but i couldnt find them.
>
>i think you, me and maybe stahdiq, brew, etc were talking
>about all being on the bernie bus and some of us jumping off
>post 2016.

It's crazy how that feels like so long ago. I guess it was (4 years) - but damn these have been 4 long ass years since Casino Mussolini has been office.

Fam, I know we go at each other on here, but it's worth noting that Trump has made all of us a bit on-edge and ornery - and understandably so. I have no doubt that we all will do what we have to do to get this neo-fascist out of office, it's just that we disagree on who the strongest primary candidate is - and that's ok. That's what primaries are for.

>the overwhelming majority of people on this site all align
>closely ideologically (we dont really disagree on which
>policies are right/wrong).

Indeed.

>but we are usually divided on feasibility, which policies can
>win elections, which policies can realistically be enacted,
>etc.
>
>if we all had a choice for a candidate who could automatically
>get elected and get his/her proposals rubber stamped with no
>political/electoral consequence...im sure most of us would
>choose bernie.

Interesting. So is it your view that Sanders is a weaker General Election candidate in contrast to Warren and Biden?


-->

You're right. Feels like decades. It's exhausting. Meanwhile 8 years of Obama felt like a week. Fucking flew by.


>It's crazy how that feels like so long ago. I guess it was (4
>years) - but damn these have been 4 long ass years since
>Casino Mussolini has been office.

>You're right. Feels like decades. It's exhausting. Meanwhile
>8 years of Obama felt like a week. Fucking flew by.

For real. The Obama years were breezy af lol


-->

He would be a good president(better than trump but no where near as a good as I think Lizzie would be)

I just find you and ur cohorts rabid and repulsive

>As they did warren and Clinton?
>
>It’s pretty amazing how intense they get. are white women
>the antithesis to the Bernie bro?

I'm not a bernie bro, I don't associate with Bernie bros, maybe bernie supporters who also talk shit about bernie bros, but I think this angle is a stretch. Clinton and Warren deserve the heavy roasting they are getting.

>#neverwarren. Sheesh. That says it all right there, meanwhile
>uncle joe ain’t had a hashtag yet

Biden supporters are routinely called libs, centrists, etc. and when they start making noise like they did yesterday on twitter talking about 'I feel threatened, literally shaking rn' the hive goes after them.

example: this was juts posted this morning
https://i.imgur.com/cWyVifOg.jpg

Stuff was pretty jarring and it took me back to 16 and how gendered I felt a lot of their “energy” was

According to the Sanders supporters in this thread, Warren does not have the "minority" vote and her base will vote for the Dem who wins the nomination anyway.

Which raises the question why go this hard at Warren instead of Biden, when he is the biggest obstacle to Bernie winning the nom ?

>According to the Sanders supporters in this thread, Warren
>does not have the "minority" vote

Again, this isn't according to people "in this thread" - this is according to reality. As in, the actual polling data - not what somebody on a message board said.

Of the top 3 candidates throughout this primary, Warren has polled the lowest with POC, and lags significantly behind Sanders.

>Which raises the question why go this hard at Warren instead
>of Biden, when he is the biggest obstacle to Bernie winning
>the nom ?

Sanders has spent most of his time doing just that. At every turn, he has drawn sharp contrasts with Biden, almost exclusively. It was Warren's camp who "went this hard" at Sanders.

Not sure why we're acting brand new.


-->

>>According to the Sanders supporters in this thread, Warren
>>does not have the "minority" vote
>
>Again, this isn't according to people "in this thread" - this
>is according to reality. As in, the actual polling data - not
>what somebody on a message board said.
>

Never said the polling was wrong but where is the Biden attack since Bernie is way behind with "Black voters" ?

>Of the top 3 candidates throughout this primary, Warren has
>polled the lowest with POC, and lags significantly behind
>Sanders.
>
>>Which raises the question why go this hard at Warren instead
>>of Biden, when he is the biggest obstacle to Bernie winning
>>the nom ?
>

>Sanders has spent most of his time doing just that.


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/477251-bernie-sanders-steps-up-attacks-on-joe-biden

Sanders’s pivot to Biden is not entirely unexpected. His allies have wanted him for months to take a more aggressive stance against the former vice president.

At every
>turn, he has drawn sharp contrasts with Biden, almost
>exclusively. It was Warren's camp who "went this hard" at
>Sanders.
>
>Not sure why we're acting brand new.
>

Nah

https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1216467334476582918?s=20

https://www.vox.com/2019/9/24/20879833/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-2020-campaign

The campaign’s official position is that their primary focus is going after Joe Biden.... But several members of Sanders’s team haven’t been sticking to that same script.

The question is why aren’t y’all going as hard at Biden, since by ur own words who this race is really between, Biden and Bernie?

The only thing I will say about Bernie (and I said back in 16) he doesn’t do enough to rein y’all in.

But seeing how unreasonable some of y’all, I don’t think he has the power to do that anyway...or maybe he’s ok with it

>The only thing I will say about Bernie (and I said back in 16)
>he doesn’t do enough to rein y’all in.

Fuck is he supposed to do call a house meeting ?!

I know you're Johnny-Come-Lately to the discussion - but we've *been* talking about Biden's weaknesses -- for an entire year. The only reason you're seeing people focused on the Warren-Sanders scuffle is because you jumped into the debate *precisely* at the moment this feud started, and you haven't stopped fuming ever since.


-->

after she attacks Bernie

WTF kinda deflection is that

Fuck Joe Biden

Happy?

IDGAF about Joe Biden

There’s reasons he’s lost...what...2,3? previous POTUS campaigns

If the party wants to alienate the progressive base...AGAIN...by forcing a Biden nomination

Yeah, fuck em all.

This ain’t got shit to do with Joe Biden

That’s like I punch you in the face and expect you to punch Vex in the face as retaliation

WTF

FTR, Bern does bring up Biden’s record every chance he gets

I guess disclosing private conversations isn’t part of Bern’s campaign strategy

You should be asking why the MSM doesn’t go as hard on Biden

There’s plenty of ammo.

Clinton was his only competition in 2016. Bernie Bro types have hated Liz ever since she endorsed Hillary.

And the last few months her and Bernie have been having kind of a primary within a primary for the progressive wing, and there's a narrative among some of them that she's just co-opting his ideas.

For now i think the Bernie crowd just sees her as his closest competition and biggest threat. if it came down to Bernie and Joe or Bernie and Trump we'd get a better sense

Of Bernie or Warren supporters:

How many would support either glady.

How many would only support their candidate.

How many would support the other candidate if their first choice lost, but begrudgingly and only to stop Trump.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

People out here talking about only supporting their BFF and otherwise not voting or voting for Trump have learned nothing from 2016.

But one thing's for sure: The cohesion with Sanders & Warren certainly didn't get stronger after this week.

The far greater challenge on the horizon is the very real possibility of a brokered convention. This would be a bloodbath for Dems if Super Delegates ultimately determine the nominee.

-->

Didn’t vote for the dem. I respect ppls right to vote their conscious tho, no one owes the dem party anything. But that was disappointing and detrimental

.

-->

https://www.newsweek.com/warren-biden-sanders-2020-poll-election-1482714

The Sanders momentum continues to build, and he got boosts both in NH and nationally after the debate. Meanwhile, (big surprise) - Warren's desperate hail-mary virtue signaling hasn't worked with primary voters, as her stock continues to fall.

Was a stupid move by Warren's camp from the start. Warren gets bogged down in identity politics, part of Bernie's appeal is he doesn't play that game: he puts class issues above everything and it is refreshing and unifying

It got Nary a single voter to give her another look and I doubt it damaged Bernie enough to be worth it.

It's a negative for both and probably more so her.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>It's a negative for both and probably more so her.

It's weird new under the sun sort of behavior. Warren's camp treating a year old private conversation with a political ally (outside the context of this primary) like some old tweet to be dredged up to spark an outrage mob to tarnish Bernie's reputation. Weirdo shit.

It would be one thing if she came out right after this meeting in December 2018 and called it out right then and there. It likely would've helped her campaign as there would be more credibility to her statement for her to call out this behavior right away.

But to come out at this late hour to desperately try and rally the #YasQueenSlay twitter mob exactly as her poll numbers are plummeting shows clear political calculation and lack of credibility.

And of course - nobody really actually believes Sanders said this (Warren still hasn't come out and explained what he actually said) - save for the "Bernie makes my skin crawl" Hillary holdovers.

I actually had a Warren field director tell me that this if fair game because - in her view - "anything is fair game at this stage - it's a competition."

Well, I suppose if you're cool with just being flat out dishonest and trying to cheat your way to a primary win - that's cool. But this ain't wavy at all w/ voters, who are rejecting Warren en masse after this circus side show.


-->

role for Warren

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/17/sanders-warren-vice-president-treasury-secretary/

I thought a Warren/Sanders ticket was the best option in 16’

Still feel that way

Man, if they fuck this up...

But what a yuge mistake by Warren

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-nPl-qAkUO0

Howard Dean wept.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/18/facts-are-very-clear-sanders-team-hits-back-after-biden-claims-social-security-video

After repeatedly "ATTACKING" his vote for Iraq war

Fuck Joe Biden

Happy?

>https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/18/facts-are-very-clear-sanders-team-hits-back-after-biden-claims-social-security-video
>
>After repeatedly "ATTACKING" his vote for Iraq war
>
>Fuck Joe Biden
>
>Happy?

Took long enough

Sanders has been going after Biden from the jump - and hasn't said a bad word about Warren.

It's funny that you say "it took MONTHS" though - given that it took Warren 13 whole months before she suddenly decided it was ripe time to expose Bernie as a sexist.

Be better tomorrow.

-->

>Sanders has been going after Biden from the jump - and hasn't
>said a bad word about Warren.
>

If this was true why would his allies say something different.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/477251-bernie-sanders-steps-up-attacks-on-joe-biden

"Sanders’s pivot to Biden is not entirely unexpected. His allies have wanted him for months to take a more aggressive stance against the former vice president."



>It's funny that you say "it took MONTHS" though - given that
>it took Warren 13 whole months before she suddenly decided it
>was ripe time to expose Bernie as a sexist.
>
>Be better tomorrow.
>

This is about Sanders going after Biden. Why obsess over Warren ? Not gonna beat Biden or Trump by attacking Warren and blaming staffers.

then maybe part of your analysis would make sense - but you're ignoring the 1+year of context and primary coverage that has repeatedly shown Sanders being most focused on Biden.

And did you even read the article you linked? It says nothing about Sanders spending time "going after Warren and her staffers" as you purport. Why? Because that's never happened.

Sanders and his team have been absolutely silent on Warren for over a year - and Warren and her team were silent on Bernie as well. It was reported widely on how both candidates refused to go after each other or criticize each other --- but that all changed when Warren's team decided to change course and obsess over Bernie's rising numbers. The Sanders campaign clearly wasn't worried about her plummeting poll numbers in recent weeks - nor should they have been as Sanders has emerged as the Progressive candidate to rival Biden - and that's where their attention has been and continues to be.

Warren can continue to obsess over Sanders if she'd like though - but it won't help her.

-->

>then maybe part of your analysis would make sense - but
>you're ignoring the 1+year of context and primary coverage
>that has repeatedly shown Sanders being most focused on
>Biden.
>

Nah this came from his allies

"Sanders’s pivot to Biden is not entirely unexpected. His allies have wanted him for months to take a more aggressive stance against the former vice president

It means people who like Bernie, with no ax to grind think he wasn't aggressive enough when it comes to Biden. Plus you have the Bernie quote

“Joe Biden is a personal friend of mine, so I’m not here to, you know, to attack him,”

>And did you even read the article you linked? It says nothing
>about Sanders spending time "going after Warren and her
>staffers" as you purport. Why? Because that's never
>happened.
>

That's not the point I was making. A couple of things in the press made him look bad and he blamed it on staffers. My point was he will have to do more then attack Warren and blame staffers when things go wrong.

>Sanders and his team have been absolutely silent on Warren for
>over a year - and Warren and her team were silent on Bernie as
>well. It was reported widely on how both candidates refused
>to go after each other or criticize each other --- but that
>all changed when Warren's team decided to change course and
>obsess over Bernie's rising numbers. The Sanders campaign
>clearly wasn't worried about her plummeting poll numbers in
>recent weeks - nor should they have been as Sanders has
>emerged as the Progressive candidate to rival Biden - and
>that's where their attention has been and continues to be.
>

Nah they were not silent.

>Warren can continue to obsess over Sanders if she'd like
>though - but it won't help her.
>
>-->

lol I doubt her supporters are going as far as Bernie's.

Have fun though.

-->

smh at this

"Warren can continue to obsess over Sanders if she'd like though"

Lol. I really would prefer Bernie get the nom over Biden but seeing his psycho fans faces crack again will be quite delightful.

Might as well just resort to cheap name calling and personal attacks (against people you don’t know) because you lost an internet argument. Low of you, but not surprising.

Keep being blinded by your American privilege though - and supporting candidates who are complicit in bombing and murdering brown bodies in the MidEast. Hope that works out for you and your candidate who has used her own white privilege to appropriate indigenous culture for her own Ivy League benefit. After all, she was one of the first “women of color” at Harvard, right?

-->

Really??


chalking it up to tribalism and accusing OTHERS of being privileged?


Jesus Vex. You're worse than I thought, man.

a checkyourprivilage reply that had nothing to do with the discussion?

sounds like he at least tried to weave it into the subject at hand

he was already taking a stance, but that they wanted him to me more aggressive with it?

Bernie has been going at Biden. He's been saying "Joe and I are friends, but" since before the first debate easy.

>he was already taking a stance, but that they wanted him to
>me more aggressive with it?
>
>Bernie has been going at Biden. He's been saying "Joe and I
>are friends, but" since before the first debate easy.

Should Bernie go easy on this

https://i.imgur.com/cWyVifOg.jpg


and wait until right before Iowa before saying anything ?

Bernie has been basically exclusively focused on Biden throughout this process - and he never even went at Warren (and still hasn't).

But some people want to be engulfed in their own set of "facts" - damn what the actual truth is.

>Bernie has been going at Biden. He's been saying "Joe and I
>are friends, but" since before the first debate easy.


-->

Bernie bros will follow suit now.

It’s gonna be hilarious when Biden wins the nom and y’all spent all ur energy attacking warren.

I will laugh at all y’all when Bernie doesn’t win the nom again. Just becuz y’all are terrible ppl lol.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/19/opinion/amy-klobuchar-elizabeth-warren-nytimes-endorsement.html

Oh noez!

This is a far bigger deal than the indecisive Klobuchar/Warren NYT endorsement (an endorsement Sanders didn’t even want).

AOC & Omar agree:

https://mobile.twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1218946529567879176

Both chairs of the Progressive Caucus have now endorsed Sanders.

That’s a huge deal, indeed. He continues to gain the support of an extraordinarily progressive and diverse group of voters. He now leads all candidates with the under 35 Black vote, the Latinx vote, and nearly all of the leading progressive women of color voices in Congress are backing him.

Congrats to his team - they are running a Phenomenal campaign.

-->

for probably weeks, their respective campaigns are going to have to demonstrate their capacity to keep doing the work.
i'm looking forward to see how sanders surrogates such as AOC compare and match with warren's in delivering the campaigning energy and voter enthusiasm needed to take iowa, california, etc.

AOC, Omar & Tlaib have been representing and will continue to do so. Naomi Klein has also been exceptional on the campaign trail stumping for Sanders.

I mean, I guess Kerry can stump for Biden - and the Castro brothers will offer their Warren pitch to voters, but Sanders has such a diverse coalition. If it's a match of surrogates, Sanders would win in straight sets.


-->

Arm on MLK day? Or is she still a snake 🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍🐍

Is it still neverwarren or can we count on y’all if she gets the nom

Will she dropout and support Bernie?

That’s the real question

Please stop the Bernie Bros bullshit.

Why would anyone with decent cash reserves drop out after Iowa?

You can't make this shit up. Its unreal. They learned nothing from four years ago. Nothing.

Drop out after Iowa? That would be idiotic considering her standing and that she’s the only non white male left in the top 4 (I know Bernie and Bernie bros hate to talk about race and sex, but they matter to many of us)

But warren is very practical and from my take not as egotistical as some of the others. Everyone KNOWS she will support the nom, whole heartedly and of course as Bernie’s policies most closely align with her own, that’s who she will support (or maybe Klobuchar 😉)

and with her last breath, say "Not me, us!"


That's the only fitting punishment for her at this point.

...one of a few things that will cost her the nomination

Pay for crossing Bernie....smh

It’s uncanny. I’ll wait til I see the vitriol directed at male candidate.

Even with a Bernie surrogate calling Biden corrupt, I don’t see that outcry against him as for warren or clinton. Deal with yourselves please

with a barrage of "Pocahontas" if she was the nominee.

Shit was lame and the fact that she tried it makes her look wack.

It just does....

Tilting at windmills. You really don't like Bernie huh

-->

but they did this same shit with Hillary

It’s the old “Obama is a messiah” playbook.

Make shit up and then run with it.

But it's also so easy to see through. The transparency of this abuse of identity politics is laughable at this point.


-->

Just know that its a “no no word” these days so they switch it out with 🐍 🐍 🐍 🐍 🐍 or backstabber or look at her plummeting polls!!! Is she down to 2 percent yet? *howard dean scream*

she aint even 2nd place

Difference is warren ppl will have clear conscious and won’t have showed their complete asses in the process lol.

Bernie has been stuck at 20 percent for the last four years. I’d be interested to see if he can every expand his support. Even with warren out. He’s my second choice of the top 4 tho...I think.

"Bernie, Liz said you told her a woman can't win the election. Why did you say that"?

"As a matter of fact I didn't say that"

"So to be clear, you are saying you never said that"

"That is correct"

"Liz, how did you feel when Bernie said that?"


Late pass and all but good god

One of the most horrendous bits of journalism you’ll ever see to weaponize Abby Phillip
like that, not to mention the way Warren and CNN appropriated and politicized the important “I believe her” MeToo movement.

The Warren/Bernie meeting story is, apparently, whatever we want to make of it. But CNN broke the story the day before their televised debate, used the debate to keep the story going, and then (and I think this might be the worst) sat on the audio for a full day to extend the life of the story that they broke.

To whatever degree the debates exist to help Americans choose who they want to vote for, it seems pretty clear that CNN isn't really up to the responsibility.

Pete might even overtake her at this point.

Looks like her desperate attempt to drag Bernie majorly backfired.

Who would’ve thought?
-->

GOOD! get this bitch outta here...

I've resisted the "Bernie is the Trump of the left" line even all through 2016. But nowadays I don't know if I'd even put your movement on "the left." It's just a mindless cult of personality.

Soon enough we'll be told to take the Bernie supporters seriously, not literally.

Please continue to post your hurt feelings throughout this process.


-->

before the debate accusing him of sexism, polls are showing it backfired for Warren. Vex points this out in a thread about the dynamics between the two candidates. HOW CRAZY!

Lots of projection in this post.

Cmon man. There is a ton of context behind calling Vex out on his white man bernie bro shit. If you missed it, just scroll up a little.

But lets talk about polls.

Here is one that has Warren in 2nd in Iowa, Bernie in FOURTH. Conducted on the 20th.

https://www.masslive.com/politics/2020/01/joe-biden-leads-tight-pack-of-democratic-presidential-contenders-in-latest-iowa-poll.html

I know, I know- trends. But wait...


According to Real Clear, Warren is on upswing and Bernie is trending down recently-

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html


Here's another that has Warren 2nd and Bernie 4th-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-20/biden-tops-iowa-poll-by-democratic-rural-group-campaign-update


This took me all of 5 minutes.


Now, there are also polls that show Bernie up of course. I'm not discounting those.


But, the point is, anyone can cherry pick polls. Its especially characteristic of cultish followers of their favorite candidate.

Only recognize the polls that say what you want, ignore the rest is very Trumpian.

https://primary.guide/ (betfair.com data)

% chance to win nomination:
1) Biden: 33%
2) Sanders: 29%
3) Bloomberg: 11%
4) Warren: 10%
5) Buttigieg: 5%
6) Hillary Clinton: 4%
7) Yang: 2%


https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination

% chance to win nomination:
1) Biden: 40%
2) Sanders: 31%
3) Bloomberg: 12%
4) Warren: 10%
5) Buttigieg: 7%
6) Hillary Clinton: 6%
7) Yang: 5%

and barely behind bernie in the state closest to his home.

among all of the sensationalized coverage of who is surging and who is faceplanting...nobody is really discussing the legit possibility that biden could sweep all 5 early states. not too long ago they were portraying ia and nh as a lost cause for his campaign.

Stadiq just talks in pointless circles all day, every day.

-->

But they really are shockingly similar, and it is very concerning there is no self reflection four years later.

They have turned Bernie into a saint- their cult leader who has no flaws and is above criticism of any kind. And they viciously attack anyone who dares say otherwise.

Seems to me that a lot of them were actually happy the Warren-Bernie spat happened so that they could finally go all out in attacking her and stop pretending she was their second choice.


And I like Bernie! He's not close to my first choice, but I like him and used to hate the Bernie Bro tag.


But watching them tear down Warren and her supporters while letting others slide has been borderline horrifying.


And seeing Vex, in real time, have no concept or self-awareness of his white male privilege has been extremely eye opening into his motivations. On top of that, accusing others of being privileged, etc? And posting outlandish Trump like claims with no evidence or context? Its like he's becoming a parody of a Trump supporter without even knowing it.


Cult-like following of any politician- Trump, Bernie, Hillary, Obama, Reagan, whoever- is immature at best and dangerous at worst.

The bros are becoming dangerous. And pushing people away from their candidate in the process. They didn't learn a thing from '16.

I go back and forth on Dems chances in 2020, etc. I think the Bernie bros are going to help sink Warren and, in the process, their own candidate and Biden/Klobuchar probably loses a close one.

I know you have said many times Trump is getting reelected. I have wavered. But, this isn't how you build a coalition.

A lot of Bernie supporters and his surrogates seem determined to push everyone away rather than compromise an inch.

You've been following me around the boards non-stop (in GD & Sports), writing lengthy hate letters like an obsessed teenager.

You ok?

But the irony of this weak virtue signaling is too rich. Is bent showing his "privilege"? Walleye? Dr. Claw? rawsouthpaw? Or only the people you stalk obsessively on a message board?

My favorite part of all this: you've continually called for the only woman of color and POC left in the primary process to drop out, and have derided their characters non-stop, all to prop up the candidate who has the whitest, most affluent and privileged support base.

Also - your abysmal lack of understanding of how foreign policy and war has targeted brown people the globe over is laughably bad - and I have actual family in the Mid-East - but of course Stadiq (who doesn't know anything about me, thank god) is qualified to make character assessments.

Again, when you lose arguments on the merits - the only thing left is to cheaply hurl "sexism! privilege!" accusations at others.

No wonder why you're Team Warren in this primary.




-->

and slavishly devoted to one single candidate.

'you used to like kamala! then you liked beto! now you like warrennnn!'.

yeah its called continuously assessing the candidates throughout a fluid campaign with a steady flow of new information. aka politics lol.

thats what you do (or used to do) when you arent part of a hive/fanbase.

they cherrypick certain information to convince the tribe that things are going exactly the way they want them to...without seriously analyzing the information so they can get as accurate/useful a picture as possible.

like theyre high fiving each other over a poll that shows bernie blowing out biden among non white voters.
https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1219948410704408576

the same poll has warren with almost as much non white support as biden lol.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EO5bPT1WoAUHGdQ?format=jpg&name=large

this is what trump supporters do to convince themselves theyre 'winning'.

they also intentionally distort facts to help craft misrepresented narratives about other candidates.

here that same person is claiming warren backed hillary over sanders in 2016:
https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1217498170671992832

which is blatantly false. warren sat out the primary and never endorsed. and then she backed hillary (the nominee) for the general (just like sanders did).

btw that person krystal ball is supposed to be a reputable 'progressive' journalist (the type that spends most of their time on right wing websites giving commentary and writing opeds trashing democrats).

She's been slowly losing ground since November. That happened because - once she seemed like a frontrunner - people started asking how she'd make certain Bernie-style promises work. She couldn't come up with convincing answers (note that Bernie himself hasn't faced that scrutiny yet). Cue incoming from Biden, Buttigieg, op-ed pages, and now her campaign has the stink of a has-been.

I'm not carrying water for Warren here. I've said that she's the candidate I'd most like to be president, also the candidate who would make the best president. But I also said early on that I thought her campaign seemed doomed to failure once the educated, technocratic foundation collided with the "bold" promises. Since November it's gone disappointingly similar to what I expected.

The "recent," that is, post-debate polling has been all over the place (as it often is when you single out a couple weeks of highly volatile primary polls).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-its-cherry-picking-season/

The Sanders fans are defensively cherry-picking polls to suit the narrative in their echo chamber. Again, very Trumpy.

I've heard people that support her say her political strategy was flawed. The way you summarize the problem is more concise and specific than I have heard, namely that the technocrat style combined with bold leftist promises left her vulnerable to attack. After all, a believable technocrat has to be zealously pro free market by definition.

I was not aware of the early slide in November and was under the impression that she was favored until much more recently.

More commonly (and this is admittedly from a more rabid pro-Sanders crowd) I heard the most unappealing parts of her past probably best summarized into a characterization of her being relentlessly opportunistic.

liberal college educated voters are typically the most informed.

they looked at the actual details of these 'progressive' proposals and doubted whether they would actually work and whether they could actually get passed in congress.

college educated white voters have been particularly fickle this cycle and jumped between a few candidates.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/01/22/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-lead-national-polls/4540702002/

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., surged into first place in a CNN poll conducted by SSRS, marking the first time a CNN poll did not find former vice president Joe Biden alone at the head of the field since the race began. 

The CNN poll found Sanders was the choice of 27% of registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, compared with 24% who preferred Biden. That represented a seven-point leap ahead for Sanders and a two-point drop for Biden from CNN's poll in December. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was third at 14% (down two percentage points from the month before) and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg was fourth at 11% (up three percentage points from December). Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg came in at 5%, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota tied entrepreneur Andrew Yang at 4%. The rest of the field had 2% or less support. 

https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/1220301481942962176

>https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/1220301481942962176

The poll ain't that precise where those numbers are different

if thats the case then all candidates perform the same against trump.

>if thats the case then all candidates perform the same
>against trump.

No need to run with a story if the evidence isn't there to support it

Bentagain posted a story with Bernie and Biden separated by less than the margin of error and he headlined it "Bernie surges into first place!"

Reeq pointed out a similarly unwarranted conclusion from the same poll. Reeq can speak for himself, of course, but I've never seen him cheerlead for Mike Bloomberg.

Folks (the media in particular) need to stop abusing statistics.

>Folks (the media in particular) need to stop abusing
>statistics.

At the same time, though, internet knowitalls like the three of us also seem to fetishize the "margin of error" in a weird way. As I know you know: two candidates being within the "margin of error" doesn't really mean they're "tied." That's probably the most useful general-purpose interpretation for numberphobic reporters, but really it just means there's a non-negligible probability that the ordering of the candidates might be wrong.

If I had to bet money, I'd still bet on the candidate who's ahead, even if they're within the margin of error. I'd just be aware that it isn't a sure bet.

If there is only a point or two of separation and the margin of error is 4, then the rank ordering is fairly meaningless.

If the gap is wider, I'll let it slide

https://www.wthr.com/article/s-carolina-elected-official-now-backing-sanders-over-biden

The South has obviously been a weak point for Bernie

It suddenly seems like a less newsworthy headline when you revert "elected official" to "county council member since 2016."

Good for her, of course. She should support who she supports.

But this is a dumb "narrative" story.

this 'elected official' represents is one that has stood out as one of the strongest components of the 'anti-Bernie-bro' Democratic wing. Namely, Black, female, Southern, and over 35.

she even went out of her way to say she wasnt 'left wing'.

i guess being a dino like manchin, blue dogs, etc aint that bad after all.

just pointing out the hypocrisy.

if manchin endorsed warren...what do you think bernie folks would say?

I saw another good one earlier: City clerk in Hempstead Nevada announces he is switching his vote from Michael Bennett to tom Steyer! Seismic shift in Nevada caucus outcome!

Donate now to show the AP what you think of their biased coverage!

There’s a reason why this is being reported by many outlets - it’s because it is noteworthy. It’s not a game changer (very few things are) - but any time an official like this flips support - it’s noteworthy - *especially* in a state like S. Carolina which is supposed to be Biden’s cake-walk in the primary.

Also, this official is a Black woman, and further speaks to Bernie’s ascendant status with Black voters in the aggregate. He leads all candidates with Latinx voters, and is in a very strong second position with Black voters (first in the under 35 Black vote) - and continues to climb.

Also - lol at people trying to trivialize this because she’s been referred to as a “Conservative Dem”. Virtually every Dem in SC leans Conservative. It’s one of the least Progressive states in the nation.
-->

Does it speak to ascendant status with black voters in the aggregate?* Tune in at 11 to find out!



*(Okay, not even a local TV reporter would use such forced flowery language. The copyeditor must have a real inferiority complex.)

When you live in Vermont every Black friend counts

After all - that’s what this post is about: who is the most electable based on the demographics. Not surprisingly - you’ve been dead wrong throughout.
-->

Cuban B'd it until the votes said otherwise.

Spreading that photo of Obama in traditional Muslim garb and feeding into the birtherism hysteria for her own political gain.
-->

woman as VEEP. I'd enthusiastically vote for him.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

as long as you vote for the Dem in the general.. that’s all that matters.

>RE: Lmao at enthusiastically voting if he does everything you want.. lol

for about a year.

its not even being discussed...but bernie or liz winning by themselves means dems are prolly gonna need to flip 5 senate seats to get anything. 4 seats just to get to 50-50 (net 3 seats with doug jones losing his seat) with vp breaking ties. plus 1 more seat to make up for repub gov of vt or ma replacing them with a repub senator.

either of them getting a cabinet position would add another seat they would need to flip to offset the loss.

and thats all assuming every dem senator votes in lockstep.

its likelier dems will be shorthanded in the senate if bernie and/or liz get elected for at least a year.

even assuming they win those seats back in a special election...theres a very good chance the next dem president gets *nothing* done. no major legislation, no judges, no nothing.

you got a year of complete gridlock with senate repubs even refusing to fill administration positions or judicial appointments. then the next year is an election year with folks hesitant to move on anything other than spending bills. then dems will prolly be losing seats in those midterms like most presidents parties do. then you have a worsening economy under their watch and most likely a lame duck prez along with their party getting their ass kicked at every level of government.

bleak af

Sanders was looking to make her VP and treasury secretary

Maybe VP goes to Ro Khana now

But I think she’s a lock for treasury secretary, no matter the nominee

...knowing bernie he will forgive and still offer it to her

Have you ever had a girlfriend? How'd that relationship go?

the context of the electability of women in our current environment is proven true by the fact that Warren's camp is taking more heat for this perceived attack than Bernie is for what for the most part seems sensationalized

her backtracking on M4A (which i think is probably the wisest policy choice but an ill-advised campaign pivot) seems to have contributed to further the poll drops

I'm perfectly ok with either candidate...shit, I liked Mayor Pete for a hot second bc of what i thought was smart pragmatism

the focus on the candidates bases is interesting though. People wanna throw out anecdotes as if many of the progressive darlings aren't throwing more support Sander's way

I'm more focused on getting Biden out the way at the right time bc I feel like Pete could leech the moderate voters away from biden while the older black vote of Biden could be splintered all over the place. Biden should be around for the long haul but if trends shift too hard too fast...yikes

That cease fire wasn't going to last forever but a claim of sexism being what sort of ended it seems to have some fooled as if he's been attacking her all along, lol

And actually related to the original post lol - thanks for that.

But yea - the bitter focus on a candidate’s supporters is a cheap way of attacking the candidate via proxy.

I can’t imagine the amount of petty it would take to not support a candidate because of a dislike for some of his/her supporters. Nobody would earn a vote if that’s the litmus test.

But as to your (excellent) point - Warren’s fall is attributed to many factors. She was already in decline when she threw the “sexism!” Hail-Mary. But that just solidified it for many on the fence voters.
-->

I assume some of you have seen this delightful video of Binyamin Appelbaum of the New York Times figuratively pushing Pete Buttigieg down a flight of stairs, but if you haven't then take a gander:

https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1218322895958609921

mayonnaise

Dude was an analyst. He probably didn't even have any context of what he was working on. The bosses just give you data and tell you to make some pitch decks.

The fact that he worked an entry level job at a consulting firm seems like such a weak criticism

Defend Tulsi, attack Hillary and help Bernie it's the trifecta for the bros.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/tulsi-gabbard-sues-attention/605374/

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016f-cdbf-df03-a1ff-fdbffaf00000


Representative Tulsi Gabbard today filed a defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton in federal court.

The basis for the suit is a comment Clinton made to the former Obama-campaign manager David Plouffe in an October 2019 podcast. Clinton suggested that Republicans were grooming an unnamed person as a third-party candidate. She added:

She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset.

Gabbard claims that the “she” in the above paragraph refers to herself, and not to Jill Stein.

It’s hard to take seriously Gabbard’s feelings of affront. Gabbard is herself one of the most vituperative people in U.S. politics. She replied to the Plouffe podcast with a multipart tweet that opened: “Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic party.” Her lawsuit brims with rhetoric far more malignant than anything Clinton said about that unnamed person to David Plouffe.

It’s even harder to take seriously the legal merits of Gabbard’s lawsuit. Gabbard is a public figure. To win a defamation suit, she would have to, first, prove that Clinton’s comment referred to her, then prove that Clinton’s statement was both false and malicious: that Clinton knew it to be false, or else recklessly disregarded its falsity. The case seems unlikely to survive half a minute in legal proceedings.



But then, much of Gabbard’s complaint reads less like a legal argument than a stump speech. It is not easy to imagine that any federal judge would look with much favor on the relentless boasting and self-promotion in a lawsuit that opens:

1. Tulsi Gabbard has lived her life with one guiding principle: putting the needs of others before her own. That’s why she joined the Army National Guard. That is why she campaigned for and was elected to the United States House of Representatives. And that is why she is running for President.

The 14-page brief crams in 13 references to Gabbard’s service in the Army National Guard.

Rather than being structured to convince a judge, the brief wishes to invite belief in an alternative universe where Hillary Clinton is running for president in 2020—and in which Gabbard somehow presents an important obstacle to Clinton’s ambitions.

Tulsi Gabbard is running for President of the United States, a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain. In October 2019—whether out of personal animus, political enmity, or fear of real change within a political party Clinton and her allies have long dominated—Clinton lied about her perceived rival Tulsi Gabbard. She did so publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent. Tulsi has been harmed by Clinton’s lies—and American democracy has suffered as well. With this action, Tulsi seeks to hold Clinton, and the political elites who enable her, accountable for distorting the truth in the middle of a critical Presidential election.

This kind of rhetoric could help build a mailing list among die-hard Clinton haters. But what does Gabbard need a list for? She’s not running for re-election to her House seat in Hawaii. Her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, always far-fetched, is now all but dead. She last appeared on a Democratic debate stage in November, and she scarcely registers in the Democratic primary polls.

But Gabbard has understood all along that pro-Trump actors hope to wedge the hard left from the mainstream of the Democratic Party, as they did in 2016, so that Trump can again win re-election with way less than a majority of the vote. Gabbard is entrepreneurially agitating to claim a piece of that action. As politics, it’s a dead end. But as a grift, it could pay.

She making sure her name still out there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/25/us/politics/democratic-iowa-poll-sanders.html

With solid support from liberals, Mr. Sanders appears to be peaking just as the caucuses approach. But many Iowa voters said they could still change their mind.


Which of these Democrats would be your first choice in the Iowa caucuses?
Sanders
25%
Buttigieg
18%
Biden
17%
Warren
15%
Klobuchar
8%
Steyer
3%
Yang
3%
Note: Candidates who polled below 3 percent are not shown in this chart.Source: New York Times/Siena College poll conducted Jan. 20-23.
Jonathan MartinSydney Ember
By Jonathan Martin and Sydney Ember
Jan. 25, 2020
Updated 10:36 a.m. ET

DES MOINES — Senator Bernie Sanders has opened up a lead in Iowa just over a week before the Democratic caucuses, consolidating support from liberals and benefiting from divisions among more moderate presidential candidates who are clustered behind him, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll of likely caucusgoers.

Mr. Sanders has gained six points since the last Times-Siena survey, in late October, and is now capturing 25 percent of the vote in Iowa. Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. have remained stagnant since the fall, with Mr. Buttigieg capturing 18 percent and Mr. Biden 17 percent.

The rise of Mr. Sanders has come at the expense of his fellow progressive, Senator Elizabeth Warren: she dropped from 22 percent in the October poll, enough to lead the field, to 15 percent in this survey. Senator Amy Klobuchar, who is garnering 8 percent, is the only other candidate approaching double digits.
GET OUR NEW MORNING POLITICS NEWSLETTERSign up for On Politics and we’ll take you inside the state of the race every weekday.
The changing fortunes of the two liberal candidates, and the secondary position of the two leading centrists, underscores the volatile nature of the Democratic primary after more than a year of campaigning, as voters wrestle with which of the contenders can defeat President Trump. At various times over the past six months Ms. Warren and Mr. Buttigieg had surged in Iowa, only to fall back, while Mr. Biden’s strength has ebbed and flowed here even as he remained at the top of the polls nationally.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
But Mr. Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist from Vermont making his second run for the White House, appears to be peaking at the right time: this month was the first time he has finished atop a poll in Iowa, after also leading a Des Moines Register-CNN survey two weeks ago. The Times-Siena poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 4.8 percentage points.

Unlock more free articles.
Create an account or log in
Despite Mr. Sanders’s ascent, the combined strength of the moderate candidates is unmistakable. The poll showed that 55 percent of those surveyed said they preferred a standard-bearer who is “more moderate than most Democrats.” Just 38 percent said they wanted one who is “more liberal than most Democrats.”

Which of the two types of Democrats would you be likely to support? A Democrat who …
Brings politics in
Washington back to
normal
Promises fundamental
systematic change to
American society
42%
51%
You agreed with most
on the issues
Has the best chance to
beat President Trump
48%
49%
Is more moderate than
most Democrats
Is more liberal than
most Democrats
55%
38%
Source: New York Times/Siena College poll conducted Jan. 20-23.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
A victory by Mr. Sanders in Iowa, where he suffered a narrow loss to Hillary Clinton four years ago, would represent a remarkable comeback for a 78-year-old candidate whose heart attack in October threatened to upend his candidacy. It would also create a moment of high anxiety for establishment-aligned Democrats who are deeply alarmed about a potential Sanders nomination.
Should he prevail in Iowa and face a similarly fractured field of mainstream rivals in New Hampshire, where he also currently leads in the polls, Mr. Sanders could be difficult to slow.

Several voters who backed Mr. Sanders cited the consistency of his positions over the course of his career, and their ideological alignment with his views.

“Bernie’s authentic,” said Austin Sturch, 25, of Evansdale, adding, “Pretty much everything he’s saying — I can’t put it better than he can.”

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
NEED A RECAP?Here’s what happened on the campaign trail this week.
Still, much here remains uncertain. Iowa voters are famous for settling on a candidate late, and this year is no different; Mr. Sanders, along with the other senators in the race, is pinned down in Washington during Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial and unable to campaign here on weekdays. And the final results could turn on two factors that will not be known until caucus night: the size and composition of the electorate, and the preferences of voters whose first choices are eliminated because of the arcane caucus rules.

Our 2020 Election Guide
Updated Jan. 24, 2020

The Latest
The goal of defeating President Trump isn’t enough for some Democrats to commit to backing the eventual nominee. Party leaders are anxious.
Iowa’s growing Latino population could be a powerful force, but efforts to make caucus sites friendlier to Spanish speakers have fallen short.
State of the Race
After stalling or slipping in the polls for most of 2019, Bernie Sanders is closing hard just before the leadoff contests. Here’s our latest analysis.
Meet the Candidates
Learn more about the top-polling Democratic presidential contenders.

Joe Biden

Michael R. Bloomberg

Pete Buttigieg

Tulsi Gabbard

Amy Klobuchar

Bernie Sanders

Tom Steyer

Elizabeth Warren

Andrew Yang

READ MORE
If the other leading candidates finish bunched together on caucus night on Feb. 3, it is unlikely any of them will drop out of the race after Iowa. Each of the three top hopefuls trailing Mr. Sanders has the money to compete in New Hampshire, which is just a week later.

And should no clear moderate alternative to Mr. Sanders emerge from the early nominating states, the self-financing Michael R. Bloomberg, who has already spent more than $260 million on advertising and hired more than 1,000 staff members, is awaiting the field on Super Tuesday in early March.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
But first is Iowa, where the race remains up for grabs to an unusual degree so late in the race: In the Times poll, nearly 40 percent of voters said they could still be persuaded to caucus for a different candidate.

Mr. Sanders, however, has some of the most committed supporters in the race and, significantly, his advantage with Iowa Democrats does not ebb when the field is narrowed to only the top four candidates. The Vermont senator still leads by seven points in that scenario, according to the survey, capturing 30 percent of the vote while Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg both win 23 percent and Ms. Warren garners 19 percent.

These results are important because of how the caucuses work in Iowa. Candidates must receive 15 percent support in a precinct to reach what is called viability, meaning they are eligible to win delegates. If a candidate falls short of that number, his or her supporters can either leave the caucus or support better-performing contenders for the second and final vote of the evening. So voters’ second choices can prove crucial.

Ms. Warren, according to the poll, is the top second-choice preference of caucusgoers, which could lift her candidacy after the initial vote. But that is in part because she is the preferred alternative for those who support Mr. Sanders, who will most likely meet the viability threshold in nearly all of the caucuses.

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Ms. Klobuchar’s supporters could play the most crucial role, though, should she fail to achieve 15 percent in most precincts. When voters were asked whom they would support if they were left with only four choices — Mr. Sanders, Mr. Buttigieg, Mr. Biden and Ms. Warren — Mr. Biden was the overwhelming favorite of Ms. Klobuchar’s backers. He received 55 percent of them in this scenario while Ms. Warren received 18 percent.

One troubling sign for Mr. Sanders came in an ideological matchup with Mr. Trump. In The Times/Siena poll, 56 percent of caucusgoers said they thought a democratic socialist would have a harder rather than an easier time defeating the president — a higher number than those who said the same about a woman, a gay candidate or one over 75.

In fact, among general election voters in Iowa, a state he carried by nearly 10 points four years ago, Mr. Trump defeated all of the top five candidates as well as Mr. Bloomberg in head-to-head matchups. He bested Mr. Sanders, 48 percent to 42 percent.

If the 2020 U.S. presidential election were held today, who would you vote for?
Trump
45%
Buttigieg
44%
Trump
46%
Biden
44%
Trump
46%
Klobuchar
41%
Trump
47%
Warren
42%
Trump
48%
Sanders
42%
Trump
47%
Bloomberg
39%
Source: New York Times/Siena College poll conducted Jan. 20-23.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
More broadly, the survey of Iowa Democrats showcases the same generational and ideological divisions that the party is grappling with nationally — and helps illuminate why voters are so deeply divided over whom to support.

Mr. Sanders leads with Iowa voters under 30, taking 40 percent of that bloc, which is more than double his nearest competitor in the demographic. But he is winning only 9 percent among voters 65 and older. At the same time, Mr. Biden is capturing 32 percent of the vote among those over 65 but receiving just 10 among the youngest Iowa caucusgoers.

Mr. Sanders’s advantage owes largely to voters who align with his progressive agenda: 43 percent of caucusgoers who call themselves “very liberal” are supporting his bid, well above the next closest candidate.

At the same time, those voters who are closer to the political center are split. Among moderate or conservative caucusgoers, 25 percent are backing Mr. Biden, 21 percent are for Mr. Buttigieg and 12 percent are with Ms. Klobuchar. Among those who say they are “somewhat conservative,” Ms. Klobuchar garners 28 percent, Mr. Buttigieg 17 percent and Mr. Biden 15 percent.

Of course, voters here do not always fall neatly along ideological lines. Shawn Reynolds, a 68-year-old retired art teacher from Des Moines, said she supported Ms. Warren but Mr. Biden was her second choice.

“I’m really on the fence I guess between the two of them,” said Ms. Reynolds, adding that she planned to caucus for Ms. Warren and had even volunteered to help set up the Warren corner at her precinct on caucus night despite her ambivalence.


ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story

If you support one of the following candidates as your first choice, who among these four do you think has the best chance of defeating President Trump?
SUPPORT:
Biden
BEST CHANCE:
Warren 1%
Biden
Sanders
82%
7%
Buttigieg 1%
SUPPORT:
Sanders
BEST CHANCE:
Warren 2%
Sanders
Biden
79%
10%
Buttigieg 1%
SUPPORT:
Warren
BEST CHANCE:
Warren
Biden
Sanders
51%
19%
10%
Buttigieg 2%
SUPPORT:
Buttigieg
BEST CHANCE:
Buttigieg
Biden
Sanders 4%
48%
34%
Warren 2%
Source: New York Times/Siena College poll conducted Jan. 20-23.
There were several signs in the poll illustrating why Ms. Warren has fallen in Iowa since her peak last fall.

Many voters in Iowa are fixated on elevating a candidate who can beat Mr. Trump, but 38 percent of likely caucusgoers said they thought a female candidate would have a harder time beating Mr. Trump. And only 51 percent of those who indicated Ms. Warren was their first choice said she would be the best at beating Mr. Trump.
And while Ms. Warren’s support fell across nearly all groups in the poll, her decline was particularly pronounced among young voters. Just 16 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds supported her in the poll, down from 38 percent in October.

Ms. Warren has also been trying to quell concerns about her sweeping agenda — particularly “Medicare for all” — and its impact on the general election. Those efforts appear to have hurt her with some voters here. The poll showed that only 18 percent of likely caucusgoers think she would be best at improving health care — compared to 32 percent for Mr. Sanders.

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Those findings bode well for Mr. Sanders. If Ms. Warren does not regain her footing, he can continue to solidify the backing of progressive voters who say they want fundamental change.

Another advantage for Mr. Sanders is that he has retained many of his supporters from 2016, when his near-victory against Mrs. Clinton turned him into a credible threat for the Democratic nomination: 48 percent of likely caucusgoers who said Mr. Sanders was their first choice said they had caucused for him last time, too.

Among those voters was Deborah Marlin, a 54-year-old small business owner from Clarinda, who said her top issues were Medicare for all and student debt.

“He gives people a voice who have not had a voice before,” she said. “He sees the unseen such as people with disabilities, low-income workers, people with medical conditions. He sees the younger people in financial distress.”

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Asked whether she had a second-choice candidate, she said she did not. “I’m a ‘Bernie-or-Bust,’” she said.

Nate Cohn and Nick Corasaniti contributed reporting.
The New York Times/Siena College Research Institute survey of 1,689 registered voters in Iowa, including 584 Democratic caucusgoers, was conducted from Jan. 20 to Jan. 23. The margin of error due to sampling is plus or minus 4.8 percentage points for the Democratic caucus electorate and plus or minus 2.8 percentage points for registered voters.

https://electionbettingodds.com/
https://primary.guide/
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination

let's get him elected

.

if the polls are accurate i wonder what percentage of warren voters would still support bernie if she dropped out.

im still hopefully she will surprise in some of these early states.

i really hope we see the youth turn out strong in the primaries.

Riiiiight

2008 Iowa

Polls
Barack Obama - 32%
Hillary Clinton - 25%
John Edwards - 24%
Bill Richardson - 6%
Joe Biden - 4%
Christopher Dodd - 2%
Dennis Kucinich - 1%
Mike Gravel - 0%
Not sure/Uncommitted - 6%

Results
Barack Obama - 37.6% 16
John Edward - 29.7% 14
Hillary Clinton - 29.4% 15
Bill Richardson -2.1% 0
Joe Biden - 0.9% 0
Uncommitted - 0.2% 0
Christopher Dodd -0.0% 0

the difference between early polling and candidate may shock you a bit.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

then went on to win the nomination, shocking.

Bernie Sanders and His Internet Army

At the start of his 2020 bid, the Vermont senator told his supporters that he condemned bullying. Is it his problem if many don’t seem to listen?

Supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders during a rally in Las Vegas last month.Credit...Bridget Bennett for The New York Times

By Matt Flegenheimer, Rebecca R. Ruiz and Nellie Bowles

Jan. 27, 2020
Updated 2:00 p.m. ET

The defense from Bernie Sanders was straightforward: It wasn’t me.

He had been milling about on the Senate floor one day in the summer of 2017 when a colleague, Kamala Harris, stepped toward him. “Do we have a problem?” Ms. Harris asked, according to Democrats familiar with the exchange.

Some prominent Sanders supporters had been flaming Ms. Harris publicly as the preferred choice of the corporate Democratic establishment against which Mr. Sanders had long railed, a view amplified among Sanders-boosting accounts across social media. “Pre-emptive strike,” one person wrote on the popular SandersForPresident Reddit group, where Sanders fans were sharing details of Ms. Harris’s recent fund-raising swing in the Hamptons with former Hillary Clinton donors. “Start the conversation now, end it before 2020.”

Mr. Sanders assured Ms. Harris that there was no issue, the Democrats familiar with their conversation said. He insisted that he could not control how his followers communicated.

But two years later, as both senators pursued the party’s 2020 presidential nomination and Ms. Harris returned to the Hamptons to collect campaign checks, Mr. Sanders broadcast an observation of his own after Ms. Harris raised doubts about his “Medicare for all” plan. “I don’t go to the Hamptons to raise money from billionaires,” he tweeted last August, elevating a message that supporters had already been pushing. Thousands of retweets followed.
Get The Times’s New Morning Politics Newsletter
Sign up for On Politics and we’ll take you inside the state of the race every weekday.

Since the start of Mr. Sanders’s first presidential campaign in 2016, his colossal online support base has been by turns a source of peerless strength and perpetual aggravation — envied and caricatured by rivals who covet such loyalty, feared by Democrats who have faced harassment from his followers, and alternately cherished and gently scolded by the candidate himself.

The zeal of Mr. Sanders’s fans has helped establish him as one of the 2020 front-runners a week before the Iowa caucuses. No other Democrat attracts supporters more dedicated to forcefully defending their candidate and lashing his foes, more willing to repeatedly donate their time and money to sustain his bid. Through the end of 2019, Mr. Sanders had raised nearly $100 million from over five million individual donations, without ever holding traditional fund-raisers, leading the primary field.

Yet as Mr. Sanders moves to position himself as a standard-bearer for a party he has criticized from the left for decades, the power of his internet army has also alarmed Democrats who are familiar with its underside, experienced in ways large and small.

Some progressive activists who declined to back Mr. Sanders have begun traveling with private security after incurring online harassment. Several well-known feminist writers said they had received death threats. A state party chairwoman changed her phone number. A Portland lawyer saw her business rating tumble on an online review site after tussling with Sanders supporters on Twitter.
Editors’ Picks
After Culinary and Literary Acclaim, She’s Moving to the Woods
The Big Myth Behind the ‘Real New Yorker’
Astros Fire Two, but That Won’t Clean Out Baseball’s Den of Thieves

Other notable targets have included Ady Barkan, a prominent liberal activist with A.L.S. — whom some Sanders-cheering accounts accused of lacking decision-making faculties due to his illness as he prepared to endorse Senator Elizabeth Warren — and Fred Guttenberg, the father of a shooting victim from the 2018 Parkland massacre, who had criticized Mr. Sanders’s statements about gun violence.

“Politics is a contact sport,” said Bakari Sellers, a former South Carolina State legislator who supported Ms. Harris in the Democratic primary. “But you have to be very cognizant when you say anything critical of Bernie online. You might have to put your phone down. There’s going to be a blowback, and it could be sexist, racist and vile.”

In recent days, he said, one man sent a profanity-filled private message on Instagram, calling Mr. Sellers, who is black, an “Uncle Tom” and wishing him brain cancer.

When Mr. Sanders’s supporters swarm someone online, they often find multiple access points to that person’s life, compiling what can amount to investigative dossiers. They will attack all public social media accounts, posting personal insults that might flow in by the hundreds. Some of the missives are direct threats of violence, which can be reported to Twitter or Facebook and taken down.

More commonly, there is a barrage of jabs and threats sometimes framed as jokes. If the target is a woman, and it often is, these insults can veer toward her physical appearance.

For some perceived Sanders critics, there has been mail sent to home addresses — or the home addresses of relatives. The contents were unremarkable: news articles about the political perils of centrism. The message seemed clear: We know where you live.
‘I condemn bullying and harassment of any kind and in any space.’

— Bernie Sanders, in a 2019 letter to supporters

Interviews with current and former staff members and major online supporters make clear that top advisers — and often, Mr. Sanders himself — are acutely aware of the bile spread in his name.

In February 2019, shortly after announcing his second presidential run, Mr. Sanders emailed a letter to surrogates. “I want to be clear,” he said, “that I condemn bullying and harassment of any kind and in any space.”

That he felt compelled to append this note to his national reintroduction was perhaps as telling as its contents.
ImageMr. Sanders at a campaign rally in Queens in October.
Mr. Sanders at a campaign rally in Queens in October. Credit...Christopher Lee for The New York Times

The Sanders campaign declined to discuss its 2020 digital operation and the extent to which it monitored social media discussions.

A spokesman, Mike Casca, flagged Mr. Sanders’s call for civility from last February. The campaign also released a statement from a spokeswoman, Sarah Ford, emphasizing the candidate’s previous remarks. “As the senator has said loudly and clearly,” she said, “there is no room in the political revolution for abuse and harassment online.”

Sanders aides routinely decide against commenting publicly about an online spat, reasoning that to do so would only elevate the conflict. The candidate’s defenders are quick to reject any suggestion that Mr. Sanders is responsible for the most egregious conduct of his followers, who are disproportionately young and overrepresented online, when the vast majority proceed with greater care.

His allies also argue that online combat is not unique to the Sanders side, with some high-profile women who support the senator saying they have been attacked, too.

“The same folks who want to complain that Sanders supporters are more vicious than anybody else never come out to chastise the supporters of other candidates,” said Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator and Mr. Sanders’s national campaign co-chair.

But many political veterans outside the Sanders operation fault the campaign’s handling of the vitriol.
Our 2020 Election Guide

Updated Jan. 27, 2020

The Latest
Bernie Sanders is sounding confident of victory in Iowa, and he has good reason to hope. Read more in our new morning tip sheet.
We sat down with six Democratic presidential candidates and asked them a new set of questions on video. Watch what they had to say.
State of the Race
After stalling or slipping in the polls for most of 2019, Mr. Sanders is closing hard just before the leadoff contests. Here’s our latest analysis.
Meet the Candidates
Learn more about the top-polling Democratic presidential contenders.
Joe Biden
Michael R. Bloomberg
Pete Buttigieg
Tulsi Gabbard
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders
Tom Steyer
Elizabeth Warren
Andrew Yang

Jess Morales Rocketto, a progressive strategist who worked on campaigns for Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton, said Mr. Sanders had empowered aides and surrogates who “have a tendency to aggressively amplify things that a campaign would normally shut down amongst supporters.”

“There are always people who say things that are problematic. It’s not that that is unique to Bernie’s campaign,” she said. “What’s unique is it is a consistent problem in the universe of Bernie Sanders.”
‘You can’t control these folks.’

— RoseAnn DeMoro, a Sanders supporter and former leader of National Nurses United

With more than 10 million followers on Twitter, Mr. Sanders has a larger audience on the platform than Ms. Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Senator Amy Klobuchar combined. A sizable number could be automated bots or fictitious accounts. Federal prosecutors have detailed coordinated efforts by Russian nationals to interfere in the 2016 election, with an emphasis on two candidates — Donald J. Trump and Mr. Sanders — whom the Russians hoped to bolster while denigrating their opponents.

In a party gripped with anxiety about unifying to defeat Mr. Trump, the venom among Sanders backers and their counterparts supporting other candidates is of serious concern to Democrats.

Peggy Huppert, an Iowa activist who consulted for the 2016 Sanders campaign, said she had decided to support Mr. Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., in 2020 “in large part because of the way he conducts himself.” She praised Mr. Sanders’s letter to supporters after his announcement but said that this message had plainly failed to resonate.

“Obama set the tone for his campaign: ‘You are positive, you are respectful, you are civil,’” Ms. Huppert said. “I guess Bernie hasn’t.”

In recent days, Sanders supporters have filled the social media feeds of Ms. Warren and her allies with snakes — emojis, GIFs, doctored photographs — following the candidates’ quarrel over whether Mr. Sanders had told Ms. Warren privately in 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency. And last week, Mrs. Clinton resurfaced to revisit old wounds, telling The Hollywood Reporter that Mr. Sanders was to blame for permitting and “very much supporting” a toxic campaign culture.

For many of Mr. Sanders’s admirers, the interview only reinforced a conviction that traditional Democratic forces wish him political harm.

So why, they ask, should he be expected to stifle his most potent megaphone?

“You can’t control these folks,” RoseAnn DeMoro, a vocal Sanders supporter and former leader of National Nurses United, said of his online base. “I should say, ‘us folks.’”
Image
With more than 10 million followers on Twitter, Mr. Sanders has a larger audience on the platform than his four closest Democratic competitors combined.
With more than 10 million followers on Twitter, Mr. Sanders has a larger audience on the platform than his four closest Democratic competitors combined.Credit...Elizabeth Frantz for The New York Times
The 2016 roots of the Bernie Sanders internet

There was a running joke inside the Clinton campaign’s 2016 Brooklyn headquarters: The cruelest surprise her digital team could pull on staff members was to retweet their personal account from the candidate’s handle, putting them on the radar of Mr. Sanders’s followers.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides mostly marveled at the scope and intensity of an ostensible long shot’s online base.

Mr. Sanders’s supporters, now often identified on Twitter by the rose emoji of the Democratic Socialists of America, loosely coordinated in private channels on Slack, a messaging service designed for the workplace, and congregated on Reddit, posting memes, news and jokes. (Today, there are 384,000 members in the SandersForPresident group on Reddit. The central group for Mr. Biden has about 3,100.)
‘It would stun me that he wouldn’t know what was going on.’

— Michael Ceraso, a 2016 Sanders aide

Top Sanders aides initially worked to assemble traditional campaign infrastructure with staff on the ground in early nominating states like Iowa and New Hampshire. But much of the rest of the map was effectively the province of volunteers, who were responsible for helping to translate online enthusiasm into in-person support.

To Mr. Sanders, who had long bet his career on the power of mass movements, the online momentum did not necessarily register as unusual, even if he did not understand all the nuts and bolts.

Zack Exley, a senior adviser in 2016, said someone once asked Mr. Sanders how he had managed to draw so many people to his events.

“What do you mean?” the candidate replied, according to Mr. Exley. That was just how movements worked.

“If you’re in that position,” Mr. Exley said, “I don’t think you’re actually curious about how they got there.”
Image
Through the end of 2019, Mr. Sanders had raised nearly $100 million from over five million individual donations, without ever holding traditional fund-raisers, far outpacing the 2020 field.
Through the end of 2019, Mr. Sanders had raised nearly $100 million from over five million individual donations, without ever holding traditional fund-raisers, far outpacing the 2020 field.Credit...Jenn Ackerman for The New York Times

Others suggested that Mr. Sanders was highly attuned to what was happening online. His campaign aides tracked popular hashtags and, at times, encountered caustic posts. The candidate was particularly cognizant of, and grateful for, his online supporters’ capacity for small-dollar fund-raising.

“It would stun me that he wouldn’t know what was going on, positive or negative, online,” said Michael Ceraso, a Sanders aide in 2016 who worked for Mr. Buttigieg’s presidential campaign for part of last year.

While Mr. Sanders has said he does not have Twitter or any other apps on his phone, he is aware of the power of his online platform. “Given the fact that I have more social media followers than maybe all of my opponents combined, I guess we’re doing something right on that,” he told The New York Times editorial board. “What I have recognized is the importance of it.”

Ro Khanna, a California congressman who is now Mr. Sanders’s national campaign co-chair, said that the same internet that helped usher in the presidencies of Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama had made Mr. Sanders an unlikely juggernaut.

“If it weren’t for social media, if it weren’t for the use of email, Bernie Sanders would never have been a major contender,” he said. “It’s a glimpse, I think, into what the future of what campaigns may be.”
‘You better watch where you’re going or something’s going to happen to you.’

— a message received by Maya Contreras, co-founder of a feminist think tank who has been critical of Mr. Sanders

That is precisely what some Democrats fear. As the 2016 primary grew increasingly fractious, Mr. Sanders’s campaign found a drawback to such fervor: the online bullying among some supporters.

Sady Doyle, a progressive feminist author and Sanders critic who has been the subject of his followers’ ire, recalled one message she received from a stranger: “If you ever have a child, I’m going to dash it on the walls of Troy.” She said her husband asked her not to attend protests alone while pregnant.

Maya Contreras, a graduate student and co-founder of a feminist think tank who has criticized Mr. Sanders on Twitter, recalled a deluge in the lead-up to the 2016 election. “I got messages saying ‘go back to where you came from’ — which is Denver, Colorado, where I was born,” she said.

“Someone tweeted and said ‘You better watch where you’re going or something’s going to happen to you,’” Ms. Contreras added. “I also got ‘die bitch.’”

In person, serious violence has been avoided, it seems, though there have been occasional low-grade clashes. A May 2016 fight over delegates in Nevada included reports of thrown chairs, which some Sanders supporters dispute, and threats against the state party chairwoman, Roberta Lange, who changed her phone number after receiving a torrent of menacing messages about her, her grandchild and other relatives.

Former Senator Barbara Boxer of California, a Clinton supporter who had been at the Nevada convention, said she worried for her safety after being booed offstage.
Image
Supporters of Mr. Sanders lashed out at the Nevada State Democratic Party’s 2016 convention.
Supporters of Mr. Sanders lashed out at the Nevada State Democratic Party’s 2016 convention.Credit...Chase Stevens/Las Vegas Review-Journal, via Associated Press

“After the incident, Bernie and I talked on the phone, and he said, ‘I can’t believe that, my supporters would never do that,’” Ms. Boxer recalled. “I said, ‘Well, you ought to get to the bottom of it, Bernie.’”

She said Mr. Sanders responded, “Those cannot be my people.”

By early 2016, the behavior of Mr. Sanders’s online supporters, short-handed in the media as “Bernie Bros,” had become a stubborn trope, diagnosed as a political problem at the highest levels of the senator’s campaign, even as aides largely blamed Mrs. Clinton’s operation for overblowing it.

At times in public, Mr. Sanders tried to disclaim unseemly conduct. “We don’t want that crap,” he said in February 2016.

But he and his senior team also nursed a sharp sense of grievance. Jeff Weaver, a top Sanders strategist, played down the gravity of the Nevada unrest, telling CNN afterward that “no one had a right to feel threatened.”

“What happens,” he said, “is that when you rig the process and you get an angry crowd, you know, they’re not used to that.”
Image
From left, Jane Sanders, Nina Turner and Shaun King at Mr. Sanders’s campaign kick-off event in Brooklyn in March 2019.
From left, Jane Sanders, Nina Turner and Shaun King at Mr. Sanders’s campaign kick-off event in Brooklyn in March 2019.Credit...Michael Nigro/Sipa, via Associated Press
How 2020 built on what 2016 created

When the story broke this month detailing the private conversation between Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren about female electability, Sanders surrogates received a message from the campaign, advising them against going out of their way to engage with it publicly.

But later that day, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, told CNN that whoever had pushed the Warren story was lying. Shaun King, a civil rights activist and prominent Sanders supporter with more than one million Twitter followers, said he saw an opportunity.

Among other widely circulated tweets, Mr. King wrote that he had spoken to Warren campaign staff members who reported that she “routinely embellishes stories.” He alleged that the Warren campaign and its allies “leaked this attack against Bernie to the press for political gain.”

Eventually, Ms. Turner, the campaign co-chair, got in touch. “She called me and said, ‘Shaun, just let up on it,’” he said. He did, to an extent. But by then, much of the Sanders-aligned internet was about to begin tweeting snakes at Ms. Warren and her supporters en masse.

In that instance and more than a handful of others over the past year, the campaign has publicly distanced itself from the rancor. Mr. Sanders’s wife, Jane, called for unity as the Warren squabble persisted. Mr. Sanders weighed in when some followers scorched Mr. Barkan, the activist with A.L.S., after his endorsement of Ms. Warren. “Bernie and all of his staff and surrogates were incredibly gracious and kind when I made the difficult decision to endorse one of my heroes over the other,” Mr. Barkan said in a statement.

The campaign recognizes the possible political downsides in any extreme behavior, but aides are perhaps most wary of the “bro” portion of the “Bernie Bro” descriptor, as Mr. Sanders prepares to make his case to a diverse Democratic electorate later in the primary calendar. Ms. Ford, the Sanders spokeswoman, said opponents were perpetuating “a false myth to discount the diversity of our supporters.”
Image
The zeal of Mr. Sanders’s supporters has helped establish him as one of the front-runners in the race and is perhaps the best argument for his viability as a general election challenger against President Trump.
The zeal of Mr. Sanders’s supporters has helped establish him as one of the front-runners in the race and is perhaps the best argument for his viability as a general election challenger against President Trump.Credit...Rozette Rago for The New York Times

While Mr. Sanders’s poll numbers with nonwhite voters are stronger than many rivals’, female and nonwhite Sanders critics say they continue to face disproportionate harassment from ostensibly progressive forces. “People talk about white dudes getting radicalized on the right,” said Imani Gandy, a senior legal analyst for Rewire.News behind a popular Twitter account, @AngryBlackLady. “I feel like white dudes in Brooklyn are being radicalized too.”

Candice Aiston, a lawyer who supported Ms. Harris before she left the primary, sparred with Sanders supporters last year and found herself targeted beyond Twitter: Some condemned her in Google reviews of her law practice and reported her to the Oregon state bar association, which dismissed the complaints.

(“She’s O.K. at her job, but her right wing ideology screams too loud,” one online review read. “Would not recommend.”)

For the campaign, the balance is delicate — tut-tutting at times without diluting the force of online support. Mr. Khanna, the congressman and campaign co-chair, called Mr. Sanders “the one person on our side who can counter what Trump’s formidable presence is going to be online.”

This view is shared among some online supporters who have turned Sanders fandom into something approaching a full-time job. Rodney Latstetter, a 62-year-old retiree in Illinois who posted repeatedly in 2017 about Ms. Harris’s Hamptons fund-raising, said he and a partner spent about seven hours a day running dozens of pro-Sanders social media groups. His Twitter page boosts Mr. Sanders and raises doubts about his rivals to more than 17,000 followers.

“Some of my followers — there are a few of them that have a little bit of an issue with their mouth or something like that,” Mr. Latstetter said, adding that he was unsure if he would support any of the other Democratic candidates if they won the nomination. “I also have my moments, too, where I have my limits, and I come out fighting.”

Such digital combat has seeped perceptibly into popular culture. The singer John Legend, endorsing Ms. Warren in a tweet this month, added a note of caution for Sanders supporters: “Try not to drive people away with your nastiness. I will happily vote for him if he wins the primary. Chill.”

This did not necessarily land with its intended audience.

“Some of you millionaires need to realize that many of us actually *need* Bernie Sanders to win the Presidency,” one account replied. “We can’t just ‘chill.’”

"The defense from Bernie Sanders was straightforward: It wasn’t me."

" the Democrats familiar with their conversation said. He insisted that he could not control how his followers communicated."


I've read something similar

"The campaign first denied the script, blaming it on a rogue volunteer or staffer, with surrogates pushing out an unsourced Tweet" - Johnny Come Lately Bern

but even suggesting that gets met with a shit ton of resistance and whataboutism.

I can’t see how a politician can control crazy asses who support him.

>I can’t see how a politician can control crazy asses who
>support him.
>
He could come out and in all sincerity and say it like HE MEANS it.

If many/most don't listen and respect what he says then he's not a leader - he's a figurehead.

and Bernie is using the rogue staffer/surrogate excuse as plausible deniability.

Whenever you feel the need to defend him, ask: did Trump make the same excuse when he was called out for the same kind of shit?

If so, find a different excuse.

I just don’t see how you tell extremist to stop being so extreme on the Internet and they will listen.

Please stop?

That ain’t working. Just like saying “please vote Dem if I’m not the candidate” ain’t going to work with a segment of that group.

would be a start

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Let them stick with Lyndon LaRouche (if he's still around), Mimi Soltysik, Jill Stein, whoever. Or just let them remain unengaged. If they're not adding anything useful to the political conversation or to the real progressive movement, let them continue to be irrelevant. If you give those people a place to be, then they will be at your place, and they might do more harm than good.

What exactly are you talking about?

He doesn’t personally accept everyone like some cult leader in the woods.

How did that come to be?

He's the one saying his campaign is activating people who otherwise wouldn't have been engaged. All I'm saying is that some fraction of those people should have been filtered out of he didn't want to face this criticism.

that fed on Islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, misogyny, etc.

Trump's embrace of the alt-right, the nazis, the rednecks armed to the teeth, were very purposeful and active asks. 'Join me if you are sick of the miscegenation of our White America,' he said.

Are you really going to compare these dog whistles to (and I'm really doing you a favor by making this comparison for you) Bernie saying his supporters are 'the worst nightmare' of Trump and the billionaire class?

Is it possible that the things plaguing the more aggressive and immature fringes of his supporters plague young (white) men in general these days? Alienation, hours on the internet or gaming, depression, a feeling of disenfranchisement or apprehensiveness about their future?

This Trump supporter comparison is just lazy, unless you really want to pick apart the demographics and ask what the differences and similarities are.

Bernie vs the Bernie bro is a different dynamic

I mean it's the classic false equivalency right.

Bernie supporters are rabid and vulgar about wanting to wipe out all student loan debt and give everyone healthcare and shit like that.

Orange Soprano supporters are rabid about like, genocide and murdering all non-white people and journalists.

Not quiiiiiite the same.

I don't think anyone- and I mean anyone- here has claimed that a Bernie admin would be anything like a Trump one.


I also don't think anyone has criticized the issues that Bernie supporters are passionate about.

Quite the opposite in a few cases.

For instance I've gone hard lately because I realized that the hardcore supporters are actually hustling backwards.

Online raging at anyone who doesn't pass their purity tests will push enough people away that any kind of progressive movement will lose momentum.

And thats before we even get to the point where a hypothetical President Sanders will have to compromise.

And he would have to- its literally how our system is set up. If this ever happened (A Pres Sanders compromising on say...M4A) I truly wonder/worry how the Bros will handle it.


I'm rambling, but basically Im saying I probably agree with the policy position of Bernie and the bros 90%+ of the time.

Their antics, though, make success far less likely because only a small group will meet their purity standards.

So...no one is down on the bros for being for M4A. You know that.

Its how they will burn it all down if its not their way.


Look how they did Warren man (I thought you were a Warren guy?)


Actually, its pretty lazy to ignore the similarities.

Bernie doesn't lose, he is cheated.

The corporate media hate Bernie, ignores him. (which is probably true, but most bros won't be honest about the potential benefits of this...like Warren taking all of the M4A heat)

Different standards are applied to him than his opponents.

I mean, Biden got rightfully attacked for the Crime Bill. Reeq posts a clip of Bernie passionately supporting it, it just gets deflected.

They attack anyone who goes against their guy- same party or not.

I mean, it couldn't just be "I don't believe Liz, whats up with her" it was scorched earth #neverWarren, snake, etc.

And again, with regards to Liz, we are talking about the most progressive serious candidate in decades...outside of Bernie.

So, to them I'd assume, she is 2nd best. Look how they treat(ed) her. Their 2nd best option was fucking torched because she a)wasn't Bernie and b)tried to primary him and c)didn't shake his hand.

That doesn't sound at least a little Trumpian? I mean, compare how Bernie fans on twitter talk about Liz to how MAGAs talked about say Cruz.

And, after a while, its hard to tell if they love the man because of his policies or love the policies because of the man.

Trump has done a 180 on a couple things that his supporters have passionately rolled with.

I get the impression Bernie bros would do the same.



No one is saying Bernie bros = Trump supporters.


But they do act very cultish not unlike Trump supporters. Not unlike rabid Hillary supporters who weren't willing to talk about their candidate's limitations.


I just don't think anyone, no matter how noble the cause, should treat a politician like a fucking deity, man.



And again, I like Bernie. But he absolutely could do more. Could have publicly defended Liz. Could have helped take some M4A heat. Ask his supporters to focus their energy on getting him elected, rather than tearing others down. On and on.

Like someone said, I think we can all see Obama doing something like that.

If Bernie wants to be President, he has to be president to more than his supporters. If he wants to be the nominee, he has to be the leader of the entire party. He will want to provide a "tent" for Warren fans and even Biden fans.

Unless, he takes a Trump approach.

... and specifically the NYT article. Not people here.

I just find it really disingenuous to compare the two candidates and their supporters.

Yes some Bernie bros are super annoying, and borderline awful people. But I'd say that's a loud and wrong minority (though I don't exactly have statistics to back that up).

And I'm not gonna allow a small faction of a candidate's supporters talk me out of voting for someone who I may think is the best candidate (emphasis on "may").

And to that end/to answer your question, I was a Warren guy, and still am to a certain extent. But the stuff w/Bernie (which I blame her for 100%) combined w/her recent penchant for backing off progressive platforms has me far less enthusiastic than I once was. And I don't think it's a coincidence that she's plummeted in the polls since those two things have happened.

She's become Hillary 2.0 on some levels and that's just a huge turnoff.

But make no mistake, when all's said and done I'll vote for whoever the fuck is up on that stage at the DNC.

>
>Is it possible that the things plaguing the more aggressive
>and immature fringes of his supporters plague young (white)
>men in general these days? Alienation, hours on the internet
>or gaming, depression, a feeling of disenfranchisement or
>apprehensiveness about their future?
>
>This Trump supporter comparison is just lazy, unless you
>really want to pick apart the demographics and ask what the
>differences and similarities are.
>
>

"Other notable targets have included Ady Barkan, a prominent liberal activist with A.L.S. — whom some Sanders-cheering accounts accused of lacking decision-making faculties due to his illness as he prepared to endorse Senator Elizabeth Warren — and Fred Guttenberg, the father of a shooting victim from the 2018 Parkland massacre, who had criticized Mr. Sanders’s statements about gun violence.

“Politics is a contact sport,” said Bakari Sellers, a former South Carolina State legislator who supported Ms. Harris in the Democratic primary. “But you have to be very cognizant when you say anything critical of Bernie online. You might have to put your phone down. There’s going to be a blowback, and it could be sexist, racist and vile.”

"When Mr. Sanders’s supporters swarm someone online, they often find multiple access points to that person’s life, compiling what can amount to investigative dossiers. They will attack all public social media accounts, posting personal insults that might flow in by the hundreds. Some of the missives are direct threats of violence, which can be reported to Twitter or Facebook and taken down.

More commonly, there is a barrage of jabs and threats sometimes framed as jokes. If the target is a woman, and it often is, these insults can veer toward her physical appearance.

For some perceived Sanders critics, there has been mail sent to home addresses — or the home addresses of relatives. The contents were unremarkable: news articles about the political perils of centrism. The message seemed clear: We know where you live.

‘I condemn bullying and harassment of any kind and in any space." -Bernie Sanders, in a 2019 letter to supporters

"

Bernie's just not doing enough. He denounces here and there but he seems scared to go too hard. Probably not so much that they'll turn on him but more that he's scared it will be distracting and kill his momentum. That the more he does it, the more he's gonna get pressed to comment on every tweet from someone who likes him.

but he wants to lead so

Why would Bernie own up to all the online bullies who like him?

If he sincerely ask his “supporters” to stop it means anyone can go hard and it will fall on Bernie.

And there's no real Obama equivalent to Bernie bros.

If there was I could easily see him giving some kind of balanced speech asking them to chill

Bernie Bro’s isn’t one guy.

Why should a politician have to apologize for having some crazies in their group who go hard online?

We haven’t even got to the trashed headquarters and carved letters in cheeks type of nonsense yet.

Or him and rev Wright? I don't remember it referring to a large group of people

when they are in a basement posting online.

I can see if it’s at a rally at Bernie is present but wtf is he supposed to do if some dude in Nebraska is posting wild shit online?

Bernie isn’t responsible for crazy asses.

of course he can't control everyone, and everyone has their dick supporters, but there's not really a left supporter base equivalent to the bernibro. i think he can speak on it without being shitty about it, and if anything i think it serves as a message to potential supporters he's not cool with certain antics/tactics.

he's done this to a degree but he's been kinda tepid/dismissive about it. and partially I understand why given the way certain media outlets treat him. he doesn't want the next debate moderator to be like. "Brett, a supporter of yours in Nebraska says Warren is a vile c-word snake. Would you like to address Brett here directly, Senator Sanders, or do you agree with Brett?"

....and she leaked a photo of him dressed as a Somali elder, in hopes people would be appalled and turn against this "Muslim".

Could you ever imagine any other candidate besides maybe trump getting away with this kind of outrageous behavior? That's your hero Hilary though. So classy.

since we're on the subject Hillary also wa the one who strong armed Obama into denouncing farrakhan on tv. Another shitty thing to to. But he did it because he knew everyone would forget a day later vs. if he didn't he would have had to carry it around and keep answering for everything he ever said

Hillary used a lot of trash tactics against obama but he seems pretty over it to say the least. and it's not like shes in the race.

It's not as easy for us to notice how Bernie eggs them on.

I'm not gonna pretend that Bernie has done anything like offering to pay your legal bills if you beat up his opponents' supporters. But a lot of how Trump eggs on his supporters is a subtler matter of how he uses language to channel the rage that's central to his movement.

Bernie might say something most of us can agree with around here, and if he says it in a way that needlessly escalates the divisions within the party, we might just let it pass, or not even notice it at all.

I'm not saying it's easy, but this is the price he pays for running an anti-establishment campaign. It's one thing to say "the status-quo isn't good enough anymore" or "it's time to reevaluate our core beliefs as a party," or even to say "I'm the only one willing to reevaluate those core beliefs." But when that bleeds over into something like "the mainstream media/DNC/billionaire class/academics are trying to take away your voice," or "the elites are scared and they're trying to stop us at any cost," or "the Democratic party isn't interested in real change that helps real people," then that directly influences how his supporters view the race and how they act in response. And he does do that on purpose. His goal isn't to make people act like assholes to other Democrats, but his goal IS to make his supporters actively feel aggrieved and to behave in the way that aggrieved people behave. The bro-ism is a side effect. Cultivating a sense of victimhood is a very effective way to win a primary and maybe even a general election, as Trump has shown. But it leaves a lot of long-term division and disunity in its wake.

as a side effect of victimhood

is it an aggrieved demographic turning to the 'ways of bro' to become the aggressor? like how the most effective 'red-pilling' seems to feed on anxieties of the dusk of the white majority in the US and the imagined closing of the chapter on the Western, Aryan identity? I think the bro-ism of young man bullying and online shenanigans is a separate thing entirely from what you are characterizing as the politics of the aggrieved.

I see the aggrieved feeling Sanders amplifies to be taking place in two separate spheres. one economically and socially as a country and caused by unchecked financial institutions etc., and one politically that is caused by a somewhat real, somewhat perceived media quarantine of the Sanders campaign that seems to be the unsaid m.o. of liberal news sources. I was still undecided on who I would back ultimately during the early dem debates but it seemed pretty blatant how my usual news sources (mostly WaPo and NYT) were spinning or refusing to cover Sanders. I don't see how these fairly innocuous claims can be interpreted as harmful to others or cultish.

And most, if not all of the democratic candidates were running on the steam of moral outrage. The degree to which they expressed or channeled the real, palpable outrage at this administration and at shortsightedness and hatefulness of the right as well as the degradation of our society by unchecked capitalism has varied even when examining singular candidates. As far as the ramping up of the outrage, is it merely a campaign strategy that is effective in uniting and motivating action or is it a dangerous lighting of a match in a boat at sea filled with gunpowder? I'm not seeing the latter. How is the way Bernie uses outrage different from how Warren used it (sporadically), or Beto or Castro or Kamala, besides it being more consistently, loudly and uncompromisingly expressed? Why has the consistency of the vehemence become valued in and of itself (the incessant picking apart of careers and track records)? I think there's a reason for people being drawn to stubbornness and lack of compromising in protecting ideals and it doesn't necessarily have to do with some kind of character defect or an unhealthy predisposition to belonging.

when CNN does shit like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI7Ivo2gie0

most notably the framing of the opening question and 1:28

And that those people don't wanna hear the old "civil discourse" platitudes. Especially since, with passionate followers of most any major candidate on Twitter, there's no such thing as civil discourse anyway. And Bernie's most vitriolic Extremely Online fans are all young anyway. No angry Extremely Online kid is gonna play nice just because Dad said so. Especially when they (rightfully) feel the fate of their future is at stake.

It also often feels like a deflection from media members and people who don't like Bernie: "forget his policies, some douchebag neckbeards on Twitter called me a whatever! Bernie's fault!" Like, he's the candidate more than any that's hanging his hat on a focus upon firm principles. If people liked the policies he stood for, they'd ignore the trolls. If they don't like the policies, then nicer trolls wouldn't make a difference, lol.

Finally, it's not like other Democrat nominees have had these sweet and understanding fanbases, lol. Lord knows people who were anti-Obama at the turn of last decade weren't met with open arms for courteous debate by every single Obama fan. And Hillary fans have been contentious in multiple primaries. This season, Hillary fans, Pete fans, even Kamala fans on Twitter have allllll been pricks too, lol. There just happen to be more Bernie fans on Twitter because Twitter runs young (that's why you don't see nearly as many Biden or Steyer Hives online).

(I also know you know all this, I'm just getting grouchy about the sheer amount of coverage about Bernie's online Bros, as if he doesn't have a shitload of not-online working class fans, women fans, etc.)

this is mentioned as a counterpoint to the bro thing, but I haven't seen the article that claimed his support is exclusively male and/or online

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

-->

They turn a lot of ppl off, even those who may considering him. Just saying.

Like give me a single example of someone who, rather than voting their ideologies, principles, and shared platforms ... is voting *against* a candidate solely due to a loud, small group of undesirable fans of said candidate ?

Just one example.

but I can’t see anyone saying.. that’s my guy but I just can’t because the Bro’s go hard online.

no one ever says “damn those Bernie Bro’s were wildin out downtown”

I’ve tapped out this election but I really think a lot of these discussions about Bernie Bro’s are strictly online a deep in political circles where people are entrenched already.

Average voters give no fucks about a Bernie Bro.

They travel in packs.

Now, this year is different because Liz is there.

But I know of several people who are Warren voters because of bernie bro antics- at least in part. And I think this dude at work is a Yang fan (sigh).

Now that obviously isn't significant, but I think you are really downplaying the potential damage *those* kind of Bernie supporters do.

And if it came down to Bernie or Biden, most of them would probably be Bernie I'd imagine.


But the argument isn't "bernie bros are making people support Biden" its "bernie bros are probably hurting his support at this point" and I scratch my head that you cant at least admit its a possibility.

Especially when you consider how much more productive they would be by just informing/education/etc rather than attacking/harassing/etc.

For the record, none of them are white. *shrugs*


Again, not significant but you asked for one example. Can you imagine some Hillary fans turned people off on her?

Have you ever talked to someone who's been harassed by a Bernie bro?

I'm not trying to be an ass, but I think you are underestimating this or have a slight blind spot or something.

... have said, unequivocally, that they were or would be Bernie voters, that they agree with his general platforms, ideologies, principles, history in the senate, etc. who decided that they'd be rescinding their support for him SOLELY because some "Bernie bro" "harassed" them ?

That's the criteria here. I want people who agree with him on most things, socialist/progressive ideals, etc., who are so weak mentally that they will vote against their own beliefs simply because they had a bad experience with some ardent, asshole supporter.

You know people like this ?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Instead - expect some obtuse point about “Bernie Bros” this and “Sandersistas” that.

Inexplicable how the focus is more on voters on the sidelines than the actual candidate - but hey - we’re in bizarro world.

Like, imagine hating on Warren because of some of her obnoxious supporters (and they certainly do exist) - and spouting off about “Lizzo’s libs” all day like a child.

The logic is fascinating though. It’s like a sports fan refusing to enjoy or support a team/player because they don’t like some of the fan-base. Imagine being that governed and bothered by unimportant factors that you can’t even enjoy the game? Lol

-->

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Somebody says something generic and uncontroversial, he argues back about something way more specific, just so that he can be arguing back and muddying the waters.

(Actually reminds me of how the Bernie Bros immediately jumped to the ridiculous conclusion that he'd been accused of saying a woman could never be president, when in fact he'd only ever been accused of saying a woman couldn't win in 2020.)

I didn't know it was that bad with his supporters hurting him until I read the article in this thread.

Lizzo 4th.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/480454-poll-biden-leads-in-iowa-with-sanders-in-close-second

Former Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead in Iowa just before the first-in-the-nation caucuses, but Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is closing the gap between himself and the front-runner, according to a Monmouth University poll released Wednesday.

The poll, conducted from Jan. 23-27, found Biden with 23 percent support among likely Democratic caucusgoers, roughly on par with a previous Monmouth survey from earlier this month that showed him at 24 percent in the Hawkeye State.

Sanders, however, is within the margin of error for first place, notching 21 percent in the latest poll — a 3-point gain since the early January survey.

This part right here though, damn

"Only 11 percent of respondents said Sanders was their second choice in the Democratic field."

In any district, if some candidate doesn't reach some cutoff percentage of caucusgoers (I think it's 15%, but I could be wrong), they need to choose another candidate.

Warren is the second choice of like 70% of the people who aren't planning to caucus for her. So she might get a big bump out of this. Biden and Buttigieg might get a couple points as well.

Normally, this phenomenon isn't enough to turn many districts. But with the race as close as it is, and with so many candidates who will frequently or usually fall below the cutoff (Bennet, Steyer, Bloomberg, and in many districts Klobuchar), it'll be a lot more pronounced.

>In any district, if some candidate doesn't reach some cutoff
>percentage of caucusgoers (I think it's 15%, but I could be
>wrong), they need to choose another candidate.
>

Yep in the rest of the article it says

"In most Iowa precincts, candidates need to win at least 15 percent support to be considered viable. Caucusgoers whose candidates don’t meet that threshold will then have to realign and support a different candidate."

>Warren is the second choice of like 70% of the people who
>aren't planning to caucus for her. So she might get a big bump
>out of this. Biden and Buttigieg might get a couple points as
>well.
>
>Normally, this phenomenon isn't enough to turn many districts.
>But with the race as close as it is, and with so many
>candidates who will frequently or usually fall below the
>cutoff (Bennet, Steyer, Bloomberg, and in many districts
>Klobuchar), it'll be a lot more pronounced.
>

Could be a problem for the Berns and Biden

n/m

>Warren is the second choice of like 70% of the people who
>aren't planning to caucus for her. So she might get a big bump
>out of this. Biden and Buttigieg might get a couple points as
>well.

Sanders won on the first vote count (popular vote) *and* the realignment vote.


-->

Cheering executions in the park (c) Chris Matthews

something something devoid of Bloomberg criticism

Yeah, no bias here.

We've had a year of posturing, pontificating and speculating -- now we're finally getting actual results.

While some here said that the nominee would "definitely be Biden or Warren" - let's reflect a bit on that - shall we?

The original post made the case for Sanders over Warren - precisely because of the demographics - which we are already starting to see play out (Sanders dominated the young/diverse vote in Iowa/NH and those gains will become very real in Nevada, California & South Carolina). I don't know that anyone would've predicted Warren to drop this badly - but she is barely able to keep her head above water in this race.

As for Biden? lol. Looks like some of us here were absolutely correct on the artificiality of his front-runner status. He under-performed egregiously in Iowa and NH - and he is crumbling even in South Carolina. I think the prediction was made that he won't even be around after Super Tuesday - that's looking like a gold prediction.

It takes maturity to do that - even though your predictions weren’t nearly as off as some others here lol.

To be fair - almost everyone on MSM who are paid to give their political opinion got it wrong as well.
-->

voters but Biden looks like he wants no part of this office.

and we've still got significant time before the SC primary.


-->

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/18/national-latino-group-endorses-bernie-sanders-115712

These false narratives are falling one by one
Minority voter problem...actually...no problem
Voter turnout...actually...increasing (70K early votes in NV = 16' total turnout)
MCA costs too much...actually...will save $450B

I'm waiting for the 'pie in the sky' contingent to realize Sanders' policies are supported by the MAJORITY of americans

They'll keep feeding you bullshit if you keep eating it.

https://imgur.com/ssKzZni

wait...

https://images.app.goo.gl/zqea7vCEnUf2uLjQ6

Repugs are Red
Sur-dems are Blue
AOC is a bad chick, ay
All my dogs Berniefoos

https://twitter.com/AnnieLinskey/status/1230568225273835520

NEWS: Warren refuses to disavow a superPAC created for her, saying the men in the race either have superPACs or are billionaires— so she and Klobuchar should have them too.

So now she's flipped on Super PACs, the electoral college, M4A, 2016 was rigged, sorry no it wasn't, what else? Way to hold on to your "convictions."

for various online activities...

...you cool with bernie blaming russia for his online supporters activities?


https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1230617411516272643
-----
Sanders implies Russia, not his supporters, may be to blame for online vitriol. Experts aren’t so sure.

https://t.co/voTyLS9eCE
-----

medical records, m4a/public option, superdelegates/popular vote, russia blaming, etc.

a lot of 180s being done lately in bernieland.

just showing off how fit he is.

if bernie gets the nom...and russia helps trump beat him (as theyre actively doing right now according to new reporting)...i wonder if bernie supporters will accept the intelligence/data/truth then.

will glenn greenwald call himself a russiagate truther? lol.

>for various online activities...
>
>...you cool with bernie blaming russia for his online
>supporters activities?
>
>
>https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1230617411516272643
>-----
>Sanders implies Russia, not his supporters, may be to blame
>for online vitriol. Experts aren’t so sure.
>
>https://t.co/voTyLS9eCE
>-----
>
>medical records, m4a/public option, superdelegates/popular
>vote, russia blaming, etc.
>
>a lot of 180s being done lately in bernieland.

Not releasing his health records should be a much bigger story. I haven't seen an even half-logical defense for it.


The flip on the public option even surprised me, though. I figured it would happen if/when he got elected and couldn't pass M4A...they are going all in now on moving the goal post. Its unreal. Warren was called a fake, phony, snake, ex-republican.


As far as the russian bots, it should very concerning TO ALL OF US that Bernie doesn't do consistently better with obvious questions.

I like Bernie even. I just don't think he is ready for this. Not every response can be "billionaire class" or whatever.


Last night, he even started down the path of the right answer for the bro question...then threw in Russia to mix things up.

im not on twitter so i dont know what exactly you guys are talking about. specifically about the public option. is he now supporting a public option? is this regarding what AOC said...i havent watched/read what she said. i think i only read what some of yall said.

the health records thing...i get it. what is commonly released? have others matched what he has released? his explanation of what he released last night seemed fine to me but could have been that awesome spin.

a physical for all of them seems reasonable to me.

on the russia thing, i have to say i was thinking it before he said it lol. i wouldnt say its likely or he shouldnt be criticized for saying it. it all seems a bit overblown to me. might be my berniefoo kicking in.

>im not on twitter so i dont know what exactly you guys are
>talking about. specifically about the public option. is he now
>supporting a public option? is this regarding what AOC
>said...i havent watched/read what she said. i think i only
>read what some of yall said.

I'm referring mostly to what AOC and some other supporters have said online. I think someone else in his camp admitted it won't pass recently.

Either way, it is extremely disappointing to see it be accepted from the Sanders supporters, when Warren was called a snake and fake progressive, etc.

And I like AOC. Hell, I like Bernie for the most part.

But this pattern from *some* of his supporters here/ on twitter/ in real life of only accepting something if it comes from Bernie, Nina, etc is like the twilight zone in the sense that...it starts to seem cult-like.

Warren got dragged over the differences between her plan to get to M4A vs Bernies...AOC admits M4A won't happen and hey thats cool.

It makes it seem like, for some it is actually "Not us HIM"

Look at the praise Warren got on here for her debate. I don't think she gets that praise from certain folks around here if she *also* took some shots at Bernie. Even though it would make sense because he is the frontrunner, I don't think *some* would accept it.

>
>the health records thing...i get it. what is commonly
>released? have others matched what he has released? his
>explanation of what he released last night seemed fine to me
>but could have been that awesome spin.
>
>a physical for all of them seems reasonable to me.

I've lost track because it looks like he did release records...but yes they should all be equally transparent.

>
>on the russia thing, i have to say i was thinking it before he
>said it lol. i wouldnt say its likely or he shouldnt be
>criticized for saying it. it all seems a bit overblown to me.
>might be my berniefoo kicking in.

hahaha!

I'm more referring to him not seeming ready for these obvious questions. And I am *worried* in the context of him being able to win the general.

For instance, if he gets labelled a socialist, he needs a better play than yelling about the billionaire class, etc. He needs to tighten up so he doesn't sound...anti-american.

Or the Warren-Bernie beef from a while back. He could have fucking nailed that answer if he did more to acknowledge that "hey, it is harder for women because of sexism" or something. He could have even referenced how much harder on the media was on Hillary than Trump, and won some goodwill with Hillary supporters still mad at him.

On the Bernie bro thing with Pete...he nailed it...kind of...at first. He said he disowns any followers doing that shit, etc. He *could* have gone further by restating that any candidate on that stage is a better option than Trump, that whoever wins all of our supporters have to come together, etc.

He could have gone on to thank all of his passionate supporters who treat people with respect, and even worked in a reference to various endorsements from women and women of color- like the squad.

It was obvious the topic was coming, and he and his folks should have rehearsed a better answer.

I don't think blaming Russia was a smart play, even if its partially true because it looks to some like ducking responsibility.

No one who has been harassed by a Bernie Bro wants to hear "hey, maybe its Russia!?!??"

Each of these are examples of issues he and his people know will come up, and offer up huge opportunities to win skeptics over. I'm concerned he isn't more prepared for these.

In other words, if Bernie is the nominee he has to learn to talk to more than just his supporters in order to win.

when he is wrong. no ability to spin/slant the truth, reframe the convo, persuade the unconverted.

just blatant flip flop or stonewalling.

his reason for not releasing medical records was that if he showed them...people would never stop digging for more information. one of the many reasons he had for not releasing his taxes too.

these are long held norms/conventions before trump/bernie. dude isnt being singled out/targeted. that excuse is a joke.

Over again. And by say I mean, yell and wag his hand.

If he ends up being the nominee, he has to tighten this shit up.

Bernie bros, socialism, owning multiple houses, his gun record, his health...all of this is OBVIOUSLY going to come up so fucking rehearse some slick answers.

He is going to have to convince people who are skeptical.


The biggest most passionate bernie bro on the planet should want Bernie more prepared for this stuff...so that he can win!

That attacked the Biden campaign because they were fake accounts setup as Sanders supporters

So, not Russians, but that’s not what I thought he meant

He was speaking to online disinformation intending to sow division

and your article actually supports that idea.

resources to locating and removing these fake Sanders supporters (not sure how much they can accomplish inside the FB apparatus), so that if Sanders makes said claim of the bad actors actually being fake accounts he can also say he is working to address the problem directly, or is that an unreasonable ask for a candidate?

FB already stated they will allow disinformation

How would Bern stop that?

I read a story that Twitter is going to a ratings of political statements truth

If the platforms allow it...how does a candidate stop It?

Maybe when he's POTUS

Are people deciding who to vote for based on online exchanges?

...you would think the party that lost in large part to the disinformation in 2016 would be out in front of this, and/or actively combating the problem...

Instead of perpetuating the trope.

not doing enough.

I'm in agreement

So glad I logged off of social media after the 16’ election

But I still heard about this bullshit from friends

What seems off IRT the Bernie Bros trope...is the stories appear sensationalized

Pointing out relationships that candidates have with big donors and industry... is not vitriolic and divisive...it’s factual

Take the Nevada service union story for example

TMK, we haven’t been provided with specific examples of the alleged attacks

Further, what got lost in that story, is it was union leaders (wink wink) were making the claim

Union members were actually supportive of M4A

The union leaders decide on which candidate to endorse

The members do not vote on the endorsement.

I say alladat to make the point...folks willfully perpetuate bullshit like Kirk’s meme...and further the Bernie Bro trope...by ignoring facts.

That’s not FB’s fault.

-->

"Researchers have found some of the most divisive tweets and memes during the 2020 election originate with specific, verified Sanders supporters. That includes the viral #mayorcheat hashtag that attacked Buttigieg for ties between the former mayor’s presidential campaign and Iowa caucus organizers, said Ben Nimmo, director of investigations at Graphika."


along with the part you mentioned.

Relationship with the app developers

Payments and campaign members with conflicts of interest

Are you saying that’s not true, nobody should have brought it up, or a trending hashtag is too much?

how the turn tables.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/bernie-sanders-briefed-by-us-officials-that-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-presidential-campaign/2020/02/21/5ad396a6-54bd-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html

U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter.

President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have also been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

It is not clear what form that Russian assistance has taken. U.S. prosecutors found a Russian effort in 2016 to use social media to boost Sanders’s campaign against Hillary Clinton, part of a broader effort to hurt Clinton, sow dissension in the American electorate and ultimately help elect Donald Trump.

“I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to The Washington Post. “My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do.

“In 2016, Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that they are doing it again in 2020. Some of the ugly stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters.”

A spokesperson for the Sanders campaign declined to comment on the briefing by U.S. officials on Russia’s efforts.

Sanders has frequently warned about the threat of foreign interference in U.S. elections and criticized Trump for not doing enough to stop it.

“Let me be clear: We must not live in denial while allowing Russia and other state actors to undermine our democracy or divide us,” the senator in January. “Russia targets the divisions in our society; we will work to heal those divisions.”

Sanders’s opponents have blamed some of his most vocal online supporters for injecting toxic rhetoric into the primaries. At a Democratic candidates debate Wednesday in Las Vegas, Sanders indirectly blamed Russia, saying it was possible that malign actors were trying to manipulate social media to inflame divisions among Democrats.

“All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our elections and divide us up,” Sanders said. “I’m not saying that’s happening, but it would not shock me.”

Also this week, a senior U.S. intelligence official said Russia had “developed a preference” for Trump in the 2020 campaign — an assessment that infuriated the president. Trump lambasted his acting intelligence director, Joseph Maguire, and DNI staff for sharing that information with lawmakers, believing that Democrats would use it to hurt Trump in the election.

Despite Trump’s skepticism of Russian efforts to damage American democracy, officials in his administration have repeatedly warned that Russia has ongoing plans to interfere in U.S. elections and foster divisions among Americans, part of a strategic goal to undermine U.S. standing in the world. Some analysts believe the Kremlin’s goal is to cause maximum disruption within the United States and that it throws the support of its hackers and trolls behind candidates based on that goal, not any particular affinity for the people running.

After Sanders’s remarks at the debate, some social media analysts were skeptical of the notion that Russians already were masquerading as the candidate’s supporters.

“We have seen no evidence in open sources during this election cycle that an online community of Sanders supporters, known as Bernie bros, were catalyzed by what Sanders suggested could be ‘Russian interference,’ ” said Graham Brookie, director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council, which tracks disinformation on social media sites. “Any candidate or public official casually introducing the possibility of Russian influence without providing any evidence or context creates a specter of interference that makes responding to real interference harder.”

It now appears, however, that Sanders may have had a reason to suspect Russia was again injecting itself into the U.S. electoral process, repeating some of what occurred in 2016.

In a February 2018 indictment of 13 Russian individuals and three companies that were alleged to have orchestrated the 2016 social media scheme, prosecutors alleged that the group “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.”

Prosecutors alleged that in February 2016, while Clinton and Sanders were locked in a bitter battle for the Democratic nomination, an internal memo was circulated at the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, which prosecutors said led the online effort, instructing their paid online trolls to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them).”

The Internet Research Agency was bankrolled by a Russian oligarch close to President Vladi­mir Putin, according to U.S. officials.

he's known about this for a whole month.

LOL!

bodied bloomberg in that little clip that i saw. how can women in the democratic
party get behind him? dc mayor bowser and others looking real suspect and
hypocritical (see: trump).

Suspect right now supporting this dude. But my cousin put it to me this way, as much as we herald Black women elected officials, they are still politicians, Bloomberg is insidious with it becuz he has poured so much into cities and fair fight and gun control and personally supporting a lot of these mayors/figures and their initiatives and now he’s calling those “favors in” . They are somewhat trapped, they don’t want to lose his support but he is way too deeply flawed.

I’m sure they are all hoping he will just lose the primary now and they don’t have to disavow him

I read about the Bloomberg internal book that had these quotes Warren used. It was basically his coworkers quoting him saying a ton of shitty things about people.

What a weird ass book to hand out for a gag gift.

What’s really crazy is this hit the NYC news on Sept 1, 2011 and he was about to get hammered for it right before the election. Then 9/11 happened and it changed the narrative.

Talk about a great conspiracy theory for 9/11.

Wit & Wisdom

32 pages of shitty Bloomberg quotes.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/booklet-mike-bloombergs-wit-wisdom-haunt-presidential-bid/story?id=67744181

PDF version of the actual book
https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/724c2901-a509-4ae8-ac09-58e6f8ac025e/note/1ed4db4a-0c8b-49e7-a6b9-eee5e090584c.pdf#page=1

>

Warren accepting SuperPac money (which is a significant flip) is telling. She's likely gearing up for the long haul to the convention, with hopes of it being a brokered convention.

-->

https://youtu.be/BrRdyE4KkbU

like a bunch of good liberals.

the "Not Me, Us" slogan.
It seems kind of cheesy on the surface but it accurately illustrates how NOT about Bernie his campaign really is.

there's a reason why I believe there's so much focus on his fuckin' Internet supporters other than the fact that they basically can't find the kind of dirt on him that usually gets the liberal vote depressed.

Even non-voter Boots Riley sees it.

Bernie Sanders could be basically any other elected official, provided they have the same/or similar record. What he represents is the lack of reception a growing number of Americans have received from their elected officials and a sincere attempt to change that. Populism 101, only used for "the public good".

this is not to paint him as a saint, I still have a lot of questions about the kind of people who might inhabit his prospective Cabinet, and also how he plans to implement some of his ideas knowing that Congress is a shithole. How if he does win, how will he deal with the pushback he will certainly get from the right wing. I expect worse than even Obama got, and that was historically horrible (and RACIST).

but damn near all the other Dems are like, "nah, we ain't doin' shit. You want Trump?"

It's been a long time since a Democrat has been able to mobilize Black voters, POC *and* working-class white voters.

The party should really be excited at what this is signaling about the strength of the Sanders candidacy. But somehow I doubt that will be the narrative dominating headlines after tonight's resounding victory for Sanders.

-->

>It's been a long time since a Democrat has been able to
>mobilize Black voters, POC *and* working-class white voters.

obama got about 95% of black vote, 70% latino vote, 45% white vote in a *general* election (not just dems). won the majority of men too.

flipped indiana(!) and virtually tied in missouri.

you think bernie is capable of posting them numbers? i dont see anyone doing it any time in the near future.

>obama got about 95% of black vote, 70% latino vote, 45% white
>vote in a *general* election (not just dems). won the
>majority of men too.
>
>flipped indiana(!) and virtually tied in missouri.
>
>you think bernie is capable of posting them numbers? i dont
>see anyone doing it any time in the near future.

Obama was a once in a generation political talent IMO, but if anyone can rally that kind of broad coalition (in this primary) - it’s clear Sanders.
-->