Current Affairs 2020 Democratic Primary

[abelard]

(Sanders) =/= (Sanders supporters)

Unless I’m misreading @Ruairi77 posts, she’s not once said that Bernie isn’t interested in down ballot races

(Edit: mistagged the wrong person)

To be clear, I have not attributed ruari's post to @LinekersLegs or asked @LinekersLegs to justify what ruairi claimed.

If the charge is that Sanders supporters won't help down ballot candidates, this is simply not true, as was amply demonstrated in 2016. For example: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/15/as-...-ballot-candidates-reap-big-bern-rewards.html

Obama [Sorry in advance if this triggers the Non-Sequitur bot again] left the Party in a dreadful state in this regard, losing thousands of Dem representatives mostly just through neglect, and this is at the heart of Sanders' critique of the Party hierarchy. So there is really no basis to think that his team won't take this seriously - it is the very essence of their theory of change. Given the amount of deadwood and corruption down-ballot, these races tend to hinge primarily on effort and turnout (as AOC demonstrated), so the organisation and commitment that Sanders (or to a lesser extent Warren) would bring here could be decisive.

However, I do find situations such a Manchin interesting. I would obviously prefer that he is replaced by a more progressive candidate but what risks does that raise in losing the seat to a Republican? I know your answer is likely that West Virginia is just itching to vote for a Sanders like candidate if only the dastardly dems would put one up but what if you are wrong?!

It's a good question. I suspect that despite the back-room scheming of Manchin and many, many others, Sanders will/would campaign for him, and back him publicly. It is bad politics to do otherwise. Rather than confront Manchin et al directly, Sanders will attempt to mobilise voters in support of M4A (in a manner which Obama could have done, were it not for his deep intellectual commitment to elitism), and pressure recalcitrant Dems (and of course Republicans) to back more sensible politcies from the bottom up. If this works, then things will change. Otherwise, they won't move publicly against ogres like Manchin - the media froth would be a distraction - but will try to give them enough rope to hang themselves with so that nobody will object too much if they're shuffled off by better, less corrupt replacements.

Of course, the best way to confront this would be to eliminate the pernicious influence of money from politics in the first place, which will also be high on a Sanders agenda.

In the past, someone like Obama could win over someone like Manchin by 'playing the game' and shuffling his enormous Wall Street slush-funds out West Virginia way, though this sort of open corruption will be more difficult for someone like Sanders (or for that matter Warren, at least in theory, though she has proven much more willing to, as one of you put it, 'appease Nancy Pelosi' and co.).

 

[abelard]

Inadmissible, I'm afraid. Nobody here supports him.

 

[mezzrow]

Inadmissible, I'm afraid. Nobody here supports him.

Last time I checked, you are correct. Good luck on Super Tuesday.

Polls looking good for Sanders right now. Enjoying the Manchin talk.

 

[abelard]

Last time I checked, you are correct. Good luck on Super Tuesday.

Polls looking good for Sanders right now. Enjoying the Manchin talk.

Na zdarovje, komrade!

 

[mezzrow]

Na zdarovje, komrade!

and to you, tovarisch...

 

[abelard]

I think this article does well to explain some of the confusion

The Cosmic Irony of Bernie Sanders’s Rise

What makes Bernie Sanders so threatening to the Democratic establishment is that he stands for what millions of Democrats thought their party stood for all along.

jacobinmag.com

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

To be clear, I have not attributed ruari's post to @LinekersLegs or asked @LinekersLegs to justify what ruairi claimed.

If the charge is that Sanders supporters won't help down ballot candidates, this is simply not true, as was amply demonstrated in 2016. For example: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/15/as-...-ballot-candidates-reap-big-bern-rewards.html

Obama [Sorry in advance if this triggers the Non-Sequitur bot again] left the Party in a dreadful state in this regard, losing thousands of Dem representatives mostly just through neglect, and this is at the heart of Sanders' critique of the Party hierarchy. So there is really no basis to think that his team won't take this seriously - it is the very essence of their theory of change. Given the amount of deadwood and corruption down-ballot, these races tend to hinge primarily on effort and turnout (as AOC demonstrated), so the organisation and commitment that Sanders (or to a lesser extent Warren) would bring here could be decisive.



It's a good question. I suspect that despite the back-room scheming of Manchin and many, many others, Sanders will/would campaign for him, and back him publicly. It is bad politics to do otherwise. Rather than confront Manchin et al directly, Sanders will attempt to mobilise voters in support of M4A (in a manner which Obama could have done, were it not for his deep intellectual commitment to elitism), and pressure recalcitrant Dems (and of course Republicans) to back more sensible politcies from the bottom up. If this works, then things will change. Otherwise, they won't move publicly against ogres like Manchin - the media froth would be a distraction - but will try to give them enough rope to hang themselves with so that nobody will object too much if they're shuffled off by better, less corrupt replacements.

Of course, the best way to confront this would be to eliminate the pernicious influence of money from politics in the first place, which will also be high on a Sanders agenda.

In the past, someone like Obama could win over someone like Manchin by 'playing the game' and shuffling his enormous Wall Street slush-funds out West Virginia way, though this sort of open corruption will be more difficult for someone like Sanders (or for that matter Warren, at least in theory, though she has proven much more willing to, as one of you put it, 'appease Nancy Pelosi' and co.).

Attacking (or at bare minimum slighting) Obama, Warren, Pelosi, the Democratic Party in general and talking about "triggering" people and throwing in denigrating nicknames, all in one post while utterly ignoring political reality.

Throw in a "Pocohontas" or a "Sleepy Joe" and this could genuinely be an extended Trump tweet.

Though I'll grant you, the spelling is better.

(Oh and fwiw, I don't think anyone accused you of attributing Ruairi's post to LL

 

[Ruairi77]

With as much respect as is possible and without wanting to further trigger sensitivities, what are you basing this on? It is simply not true.

I'm sure Sanders will encourage voting blue down ballot, as I mentioned, he needs all the down ballot support he can get if elected.
I'm talking about his supporters who have a fiercely independent streak and in a lot of cases see the DNC in the same light as the GOP. They'll vote for a progressive Sanders backed candidate if there is one. Otherwise they won't bother.
This is just from personal experience. It's an opinion and I could well be wrong.
I just don't see Sanders supporters uniting behind the Democratic cause to the same level as any of the other main candidates supporters.

 

[abelard]

Attacking (or at bare minimum slighting) Obama, Warren, Pelosi, the Democratic Party in general and talking about "triggering" people and throwing in denigrating nicknames, all in one post while utterly ignoring political reality.

Throw in a "Pocohontas" or a "Sleepy Joe" and this could genuinely be an extended Trump tweet.

Though I'll grant you, the spelling is better.

(Oh and fwiw, I don't think anyone accused you of attributing Ruairi's post to LL

Oh good grief.

'Attacking' Obama?

I stated a fact

But yes, how could anybody even dream of criticising the Party that lost to Donald Trump.

You boys are too much. It's like reasoning with 10 daveks, all at once.

PS @LinekersLegs, always appreciate the discussion

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Oh good grief.

'Attacking' Obama?

I stated a fact

But yes, how could anybody even dream of criticising the Party that lost to Donald Trump.

You boys are too much. It's like reasoning with 10 daveks, all at once.

PS @LinekersLegs, always appreciate the discussion

That wasn't the part of your post that I was referring to.

But since we're doing the insult thing... do toddle off and dig out the next pro-Sanders article you can find. Preferably from as fringe an outlet as you can manage. I'm sure it'll tell you what to think next.

 

[abelard]

I'm sure Sanders will encourage voting blue down ballot, as I mentioned, he needs all the down ballot support he can get if elected.
I'm talking about his supporters who have a fiercely independent streak and in a lot of cases see the DNC in the same light as the GOP. They'll vote for a progressive Sanders backed candidate if there is one. Otherwise they won't bother.
This is just from personal experience. It's an opinion and I could well be wrong.
I just don't see Sanders supporters uniting behind the Democratic cause to the same level as any of the other main candidates supporters.

It's much more the case that people who never dreamed of voting Democrat before, or even voting full stop, are now drawn to the party - but only because of Sanders.

In any sane world, the candidate who can manage this would be seen as an asset, but to the DNC, it is much more of a threat, to be destroyed if necessary.

Just pretend that Sanders supporters are rich white suburban George Bush voters, of the sort we need to endure Joe Manchin and Michael Bloomberg to keep on board, and the necessary calculation will suddenly make much more sense.

 

[abelard]

That wasn't the part of your post that I was referring to.

But since we're doing the insult thing... do toddle off and dig out the next pro-Sanders article you can find. Preferably from as fringe an outlet as you can manage. I'm sure it'll tell you what to think next.

You should read it.

 

[Ruairi77]

It's much more the case that people who never dreamed of voting Democrat before, or even voting full stop, are now drawn to the party - but only because of Sanders.

That's the problem, they're drawn to Sanders, not the party.

In any sane world, the candidate who can manage this would be seen as an asset, but to the DNC, it is much more of a threat, to be destroyed if necessary.

Flawed as they are, they want to support a Democrat rather than an Independent who's using the democratic platform.
His supporters talk of destroying them, can you blame them.

Just pretend that Sanders supporters are rich white suburban George Bush voters, of the sort we need to endure Joe Manchin and Michael Bloomberg to keep on board, and the necessary calculation will suddenly make much more sense.

I'm not sure I follow.
Pretend Sanders supporters are moderates who are looking for a path to the Whitehouse?
Sanders is outside the tent peeing in and people love it, it's very popular. Shake up the system with a thin fabric of promises and a history of achieving nothing of significance on a federal stage due to an inability to play well with others.
Not really what America needs at the moment.

 

[tsubaki]

Even if they are, why are the bots tearing Sanders opponents apart, could it be that Trump beats Sanders handily in the general?

As for Sanders base being cult like, they are comparable to Trump voters in that they are not, in any way, voting for the party. They have no interest in down ballot candidates, which is ironic as Sanders, more than any other candidates, needs a blue wave to enact anything he's promised.
I see AOC is rolling back on the possibility of implementing Sanders medicare for all plan.

A lot wrong with this. For a start, why is it that ""the bots" are tearing Sanders opponents apart" as an especially bad thing when all the candidates are buying ads attacking each other (and Sanders in particular), when centrists on Twitter and everyones surrogates in the media are doing the same thing?

Secondly the whole cult argument is pretty absurd, as we saw over here where long standing Labour members (and people who returned to the party) were described as such because they happened to support Corbyn.

For a start it is a bit mad that people who adopt the same language (calling other people cultists), make the same criticisms (that their opponents don't have an interest in the party as a whole), who stereotype to a level that is way beyond acceptable and profess beliefs that are if not manifestly false then extremely questionable (that a centrist candidate exists that will beat Trump and that the Dem establishment will pick that candidate) get to go around calling other people cultists.

 

[mezzrow]

It's much more the case that people who never dreamed of voting Democrat before, or even voting full stop, are now drawn to the party - but only because of Sanders.

In any sane world, the candidate who can manage this would be seen as an asset, but to the DNC, it is much more of a threat, to be destroyed if necessary.

alternate realty: time travel to February, 2016 - comments thread, American Spectator
"It's much more the case that people who never dreamed of voting Republican before, or even voting full stop, are now drawn to the party - but only because of Trump.

In any sane world, the candidate who can manage this would be seen as an asset, but to the RNC, it is much more of a threat, to be destroyed if necessary."