Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

[Deleted member 43]

If Bernie campaigned poorly, Biden campaigned catastrophically bad. He had one campaign office in California and was barely present (if he was present at all) in most of the states he won on Super Tuesday. He barely spent any money. He barely had a grassroots or a ground game.

The issue with Bernie's campaign was, as someone said earlier, that he appeared to be running against the Democrats rather than with the Democrats, especially to the black community. Whenever Bernie railed against "the establishment", people saw him railing against those very same people that have pushed for civil rights and equality, which obviously wasn't the case, but a vague term like "establishment" tends to group a lot of people together.

Click to shrink...

That's certinly part of it.

Bernie could have presented himself as the natural follow-up to FDR, JFK, Johnson, and Obama. That he was pushing the same dream and the same policies they did to the natural next step. That the Democratic Party is the institution that has fought for the rights of minorities, the rights of workers, and he will take that fight to the next level.

But, he didn't. He rallied against the body that for so long has been the only real hope of these groups. He even left the party between 2016 and 2020.

That just doesn't make sense for someone running to lead the Democratic Party, and it hurt him.

 

[Deleted member 11637]

He had less chips and put the chips where it mattered. How is that a bad campaign? Because Sanders had more money and could open up more offices he deserves the nomination?

Bloomberg dumped 500 million into the race.

I'm tired of the narrative that Biden ran a bad campaign because he had less money and less resources.

Click to shrink...

We should all be psyched that money had almost no effect on this primary. All the candidates with the most money -- Bloomberg, Steyer, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg -- failed to Biden's campaign that had been running on fumes for a long time.

 

[Lothars]

If Bernie campaigned poorly, Biden campaigned catastrophically bad. He had one campaign office in California and was barely present (if he was present at all) in most of the states he won on Super Tuesday. He barely spent any money. He barely had a grassroots or a ground game.

The issue with Bernie's campaign was, as someone said earlier, that he appeared to be running against the Democrats rather than with the Democrats, especially to the black community. Whenever Bernie railed against "the establishment", people saw him railing against those very same people that have pushed for civil rights and equality, which obviously wasn't the case, but a vague term like "establishment" tends to group a lot of people together.

Click to shrink...

Bernie ran his 2016 campaign again and failed even by a larger margin. Biden at least went and met with voters in highly contested areas that Bernie should have been meeting with to. I'm not a Biden fan but Bernie dropped the ball hard and it showed.

 

[carlsojo]

Think this covers everything except Wash Your Hands.

Click to shrink...

Wash your hands and stop touching my face.

 

[carlsojo]

We should all be psyched that money had almost no effect on this primary. All the candidates with the most money -- Bloomberg, Steyer, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg -- failed to Biden's campaign that had been running on fumes for a long time.

Click to shrink...

Does make me curious which moderate (if any) the others would have rallied behind if Biden had stepped aside.

 

[Tamanon]

I think you folks will understand why Bernie lost when you realize what Biden does fight for. This continual lying to yourself that he's a corporate stooge is just hindering things.

 

[Deleted member 43]

You're over thinking it. Sanders is, I believe, the most favorable Democrat in the country. His tent was plenty wide and exit polls show a majority of support for M4A which was the foundation of his platform. For a time right before SC he was polling better with the black community than Biden. Going into SC Sanders was slated to dominate Super Tuesday.

This entire race really just comes down to Biden crushing in SC and that caused a lot of the Super Tuesday voters to believe he was the best candidate.

Click to shrink...

Looking at polls as the end all be all is misleading. Hillary was at several points the most popular politician in this country.

Actual electoral results, which we now have, are much more telling. And they tell a very clear story.

 

[Kirblar]

trying to diagnose why bernie is losing this early is a fools errand. there were so many hot takes right trump won and everyone wanted to be the first to have the answer... when it answer was just a lot of little things all coalesced into one.

it could be bernie campaign, could be the message doesn't resonate with the masses, could be the democratic establishment smear machine, could be electability, could be all of those things.

Click to shrink...

It's not early at all, just like it wasn't early in 2019 when people were noticing the same demographic red flags popping up. Bernie's coalition shrunk because he lost conservative, predominantly white anti-Hillary voters and never managed to get them back because the moderate candidates were closer to their preferences in the first place. The rest of his coalition from 2016 stayed intact, but was only in the 30-35% range at best, and his inability to woo over a combination of prior Hillary voters or lapsed anti-H voters to get him over the top doomed his campaign.

 

[Maledict]

You're over thinking it. Sanders is, I believe, the most favorable Democrat in the country. His tent was plenty wide and exit polls show a majority of support for M4A which was the foundation of his platform. For a time right before SC he was polling better with the black community than Biden. Going into SC Sanders was slated to dominate Super Tuesday.

This entire race really just comes down to Biden crushing in SC and that caused a lot of the Super Tuesday voters to believe he was the best candidate.

Click to shrink...

Sanders is definitry not the most favourable democrat in the country. Far from it. In fact his favour ability now is where Hillary's was back in 2016...

(If you want ominious signs)

 

[The Albatross]

We should all be psyched that money had almost no effect on this primary. All the candidates with the most money -- Bloomberg, Steyer, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg -- failed to Biden's campaign that had been running on fumes for a long time.

Click to shrink...

This is a pretty good point.

In 2016, commentators thought it was only a matter of time before Jeb's insurmountable field office advantage rolled him into the nomination. And then when Iowa happened, where Trump was polling well ahead of his opponents but then failed handily to attract any voters in the 2nd round, it seemed like that would come to fruition: Cruz ground game and political acumen was more effective than Trump's celebrity.

But, then Trump -- with much less spending -- rolled his opponents. In the general election, Clinton had a clear fundraising advantage, spend more, and also lost.

And now, in 2020, Biden was outspent by almost every major campaign. The contrast between Biden and Bloomberg was most stark, where Bloomberg spent something like $12m in both Colorado and Massachusetts each, while Biden spent something like $10,000 in Colorado and Massachusetts each, and Biden mopped Bloomberg up and out of the race. It was like $25m in spending on those two states, versus $20,000.

 

[HipsterMorty]

2050 is absolutely not as bad as doing nothing. Hyperbole like that undermines your argument.

I have no idea why you and others think going on about how important it is addressed the issue of not getting it through the senate. You're ignoring the problem. A 2030 plan is not going to pass into law. Full stop, zero chance, isn't going to happen. Anyone going into the White House with that plan will end up the same place as anybody else with a slightly more conservative plan. The plans that can pass the senate are the sane for Biden and Bernie except, ironically, if Biden is able to flip the senate (which Bernie wasn't going to do). If Biden has the senate the plan he's able to pass still won't be for 2030, but it'll be closer to the green new deal he supports.

Click to shrink...

So here's the thing, even if a 2030 plan wouldn't pass the senate, it doesn't hurt to TRY. Sanders could at least TRY, and if it doesn't get through the senate, THEN you compromise. Maybe they could meet in the middle with a 2040 plan. But for fucks sake please stop saying we need to compromise before we even try. It's not like a worse plan is off the table if we try a better plan. Compromising with yourself from the get go is exactly how you end up where we are now.

 

[JahIthBer]

I think you folks will understand why Bernie lost when you realize what Biden does fight for. This continual lying to yourself that he's a corporate stooge is just hindering things.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't call him a corporate stooge, but he did start his campaign by being backed by Comcast, not a great look.

 

[Deleted member 11637]

Does make me curious which moderate (if any) the others would have rallied behind if Biden had stepped aside.

Click to shrink...

Hard to say. It's disgusting how many votes Bloomberg got on the strength of money and name ID, but I think a carpetbagging Republican would have a low ceiling of constituency. Buttigieg was a perfect Democratic candidate on paper: gay, veteran, young, might bring Indiana in play. And Beto and Warren are both progressives with cross-over appeal.

God, this would have been a much more interesting primary without Bernie and Joe.

 

[Kirblar]

You're over thinking it. Sanders is, I believe, the most favorable Democrat in the country. His tent was plenty wide and exit polls show a majority of support for M4A which was the foundation of his platform. For a time right before SC he was polling better with the black community than Biden. Going into SC Sanders was slated to dominate Super Tuesday.

This entire race really just comes down to Biden crushing in SC and that caused a lot of the Super Tuesday voters to believe he was the best candidate.

Click to shrink...

QP's 3/5-3/8 poll has Biden +5 and Sanders -6 among registered voters and Biden +64 and Sanders +54 among Dems only. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3657

 

[HipsterMorty]

Sanders is definitry not the most favourable democrat in the country. Far from it. In fact his favour ability now is where Hillary's was back in 2016...

(If you want ominious signs)

Click to shrink...

At least as of a year ago, Sanders was the most favorable Democrat in the senate. Not sure where he's at now but it's not like people hate the guy.

 

[Terra Firma]

That's certinly part of it.

Bernie could have presented himself as the natural follow-up to FDR, JFK, Johnson, and Obama. That he was pushing the same dream and the same policies they did to the natural next step. That the Democratic Party is the institution that has fought for the rights of minorities, the rights of workers, and he will take that fight to the next level.

But, he didn't. He rallied against the body that for so long has been the only real hope of these groups. He even left the party between 2016 and 2020.

That just doesn't make sense for someone running to lead the Democratic Party, and it hurt him.

Click to shrink...

Yep, that's exactly it. He was seen as an outsider because he was an outsider. You don't win party primaries by being the outsider, no matter how devoted your followers are or how great your policies are.

(well unless you're willing to act like a juvenile and throw childish insults but that's more the GOP approach and how Trump got the nomination)

Bernie ran his 2016 campaign again and failed even by a larger margin. Biden at least went and met with voters in highly contested areas that Bernie should have been meeting with to. I'm not a Biden fan but Bernie dropped the ball hard and it showed.

Click to shrink...

Bernie had an advantage in 2016, which was the absolute hatred for HRC by a large number of voters. Some people voted for Bernie in 2015/2016, but a not insignificant amount voted for Bernie to vote against HRC. There's no similar level of hatred towards Biden. Not even close. Doesn't matter if the hatred was baseless, unfounded, etc. - it was there and it won Trump the presidency.

 

[Tobor]

Looking at polls as the end all be all is misleading. Hillary was at several points the most popular politician in this country.

Actual electoral results, which we now have, are much more telling. And they tell a very clear story.

Click to shrink...

The polls aren't asking the right questions.

Do you support M4A should be question 1.

Question 2: Do you think it is possible to implement at this time.

The difference between 1 and 2 will tell the real story. I think lots of people love M4A, and should! They are also pragmatic about it's chances.

 

[Kirblar]

At least as of a year ago, Sanders was the most favorable Democrat in the senate. Not sure where he's at now but it's not like people hate the guy.

Click to shrink...

That tracking poll is based on Senators' approval within their own states.

 

[Madison]

I wouldn't call him a corporate stooge, but he did start his campaign by being backed by Comcast, not a great look.

Click to shrink...

famous freedom fighter, Comcast

 

[doomrider7]

Unity is a 2-way street. If Joe and his supporters basically just want to tell the left "fuck you we won, now fall in line" then that's the opposite of unity. If ya'll want unity, you need to do that thing called compromise that is so important when it comes to Republicans. Prove to leftists that you're willing to move further to the left and maybe they won't stay home during the General.

Click to shrink...

I'm confused now. In his speech, Biden called for unity while it's Bernie's people being "FUCK YOU, FUCK ALL OF YOU!!!" to anyone and everyone who didn't fall in line with Bernie so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[Deleted member 42472]

So here's the thing, even if a 2030 plan wouldn't pass the senate, it doesn't hurt to TRY. Sanders could at least TRY, and if it doesn't get through the senate, THEN you compromise. Maybe they could meet in the middle with a 2040 plan. But for fucks sake please stop saying we need to compromise before we even try. It's not like a worse plan is off the table if we try a better plan. Compromising with yourself from the get go is exactly how you end up where we are now.

Click to shrink...

Yes and no

First off: Odds are the "2050 plan" is already a case of them having tried. Believe it or not but not all conversations happen on twitter. The mark of an actually good politician (that's an oxymoron) is that they talk to each other when the cameras are off and see what they can actually get through.

Similarly, a 2030 plan actually COULD hurt depending on how drastic it is. People are fucking stupid. If you say "Hey. We're going to get rid of plastic bags in the next two years" people will grumble but accept it. If you say "no plastic bags as of today and anyone who uses one gets a ten dollar fine" you'll generate so much pushback against that that it will take five years to phase them out gently.
So yeah. Like it or not but trying a "better" plan can actually take a "worse" one off the table.

 

[KHarvey16]

So here's the thing, even if a 2030 plan wouldn't pass the senate, it doesn't hurt to TRY. Sanders could at least TRY, and if it doesn't get through the senate, THEN you compromise. Maybe they could meet in the middle with a 2040 plan. But for fucks sake please stop saying we need to compromise before we even try. It's not like a worse plan is off the table if we try a better plan. Compromising with yourself from the get go is exactly how you end up where we are now.

Click to shrink...

You waste time pursuing a plan that is obviously not going to pass. 2040 wont pass either. Without the senate nothing passes that the republicans don't want. That's not how I want things to work but that is how things work. Pretending it doesn't and just insisting trying hard enough will change that isn't productive, especially when people are weighing if getting someone to try this and failing is worth the risk of making the candidate the less likely option to win the general.

You understand the reasoning right? We can choose Bernie or Biden. Bernie says 2030 and Biden says 2050. Voters, rightfully, consider both plans to be further left than what is possible to actually pass. So do we nominate someone who seems less likely to win in November to pursue a plan further from what will pass, or do we nominate the person more likely to get elected who has a plan that also gets compromised down but only to the same spot the 2030 plan does? You can disagree with the designation of Biden as more likely but you can't fault the logic if that's your starting premise. Saying these people don't give a shit about climate change is wrong and insulting.

 

[The Albatross]

Sanders is definitry not the most favourable democrat in the country. Far from it. In fact his favour ability now is where Hillary's was back in 2016...

(If you want ominious signs)

Click to shrink...

His popularity has certainly fallen in the wake of this campaign, but prior to the primary, Sanders was considered one of the most popular politicians in the country. Among all Democrats, I believe Obama is still the most liked politician in the US. YouGov had Sanders ranked 4th for the nebulous "popularity" rating, but curiously, George W. Bush is ranked 5th, so ... you kinda gotta think about the value of such rankings. I believe the rankings were based on recognition ("Fame") and approval rating.

If a poll were taken "RIGHT NOW IMMEDIATELY" then the opinion of Sanders will be lower given the state of the primary, but once the election is over, in 2021, I'd imagine it would rebound, unless he does something very unexpected (like running 3rd party or something if he doesn't get the nom, which... really unlikely, not in his character)

 

[Azzanadra]

famous freedom fighter, Comcast

Click to shrink...

Corporations are people, my friend.

 

[Tobor]

His popularity has certainly fallen in the wake of this campaign, but prior to the primary, Sanders was considered one of the most popular politicians in the country. Among all Democrats, I believe Obama is still the most liked politician in the US. YouGov had Sanders ranked 4th for the nebulous "popularity" rating, but curiously, George W. Bush is ranked 5th, so ... you kinda gotta think about the value of such rankings. I believe the rankings were based on recognition ("Fame") and approval rating.

If a poll were taken "RIGHT NOW IMMEDIATELY" then the opinion of Sanders will be lower given the state of the primary, but once the election is over, in 2021, I'd imagine it would rebound, unless he does something very unexpected (like running 3rd party or something if he doesn't get the nom, which... really unlikely, not in his character)

Click to shrink...

HOLD UP. How is Ben Carson number 10 on that list?

 

[FirMatt]

Unity is a 2-way street. If Joe and his supporters basically just want to tell the left "fuck you we won, now fall in line" then that's the opposite of unity. If ya'll want unity, you need to do that thing called compromise that is so important when it comes to Republicans. Prove to leftists that you're willing to move further to the left and maybe they won't stay home during the General.

Click to shrink...

Couldn't agree more. I'm getting sick and tired of all the pandering to the center. They take us for granted because they assume that the left will just shrug and go along with them in the general. But I want them to have a reason to fear losing us... On one hand, I obviously am planning to vote D in November. But on the other, I want there to be consequences for completely blowing off the left like this. Rather than these bullshit articles from midwest diners putting old white racist ignorant ass-hats on a pedestal, I want the media and our politics to become obsessed with how to court the left. I want them to see the risks of losing us. And I can't see any other way to do that than us coming up short in urban centers this November.

I'm already so certain that we're witnessing another 2004, and going with milk-toast John Kerry inspired nobody and led to disaster in an election we honestly should have won. And hey look, that loss motivated people to vote for a (seemingly) more progressive ticket in 2008. In other words, 2024 is going to be a hell of an election for progressives, but I already feel like this one is a wash, and I've begun checking out completely from the process.

 

[Seeya]

At least as of a year ago, Sanders was the most favorable Democrat in the senate. Not sure where he's at now but it's not like people hate the guy.

Click to shrink...

It wasn't even a month or that his favourables were the highest of anyone in the field. Then he lost a bunch.

 

[Kin5290]

At least as of a year ago, Sanders was the most favorable Democrat in the senate. Not sure where he's at now but it's not like people hate the guy.

Click to shrink...

What's your point? Before her campaign, Hillary Clinton's favorables were through the roof. That doesn't stop Berniecrats from slandering her as being uniquely unpopular when the general election was decided by a few thousand votes across 3 to 4 states.

 

[Deleted member 43]

Yep, that's exactly it. He was seen as an outsider because he was an outsider. You don't win party primaries by being the outsider, no matter how devoted your followers are or how great your policies are.

Click to shrink...

Even being an outsider might not have been so bad. But he should have presented himself as an outside that will bring in new ideas to help move forward and fulfill the dream Democrats have already laid the foundation for. That he wants to help and grow the Party, not burn it down.

 

[ChippyTurtle]

Couldn't agree more. I'm getting sick and tired of all the pandering to the center. They take us for granted because they assume that the left will just shrug and go along with them in the general. But I want them to have a reason to fear losing us... On one hand, I obviously am planning to vote D in November. But on the other, I want there to be consequences for completely blowing off the left like this. Rather than these bullshit articles from midwest diners putting old white racist ignorant ass-hats on a pedestal, I want the media and our politics to become obsessed with how to court the left. I want them to see the risks of losing us. And I can't see any other way to do that than us coming up short in urban centers this November.

I'm already so certain that we're witnessing another 2004, and going with milk-toast John Kerry inspired nobody and led to disaster in an election we honestly should have won. And hey look, that loss motivated people to vote for a (seemingly) more progressive ticket in 2008. In other words, 2024 is going to be a hell of an election for progressives, but I already feel like this one is a wash, and I've begun checking out completely from the process.

Click to shrink...

Division only means Republicans win. The better option is the Tea Party way, vote republican but primary the fuck outta every moderate politician.

 

[Ripcord]

I think you folks will understand why Bernie lost when you realize what Biden does fight for. This continual lying to yourself that he's a corporate stooge is just hindering things.

Click to shrink...

How do I reconcile this idea with his, "Nothing will fundamentally change" talk he gave the elites not long ago when I'm trying to convince people to hold their nose and vote for him in Nov?

 

[Tamanon]

HOLD UP. How is Ben Carson number 10 on that list?

Click to shrink...

Lying white voters.

 

[The Albatross]

HOLD UP. How is Ben Carson number 10 on that list?

Click to shrink...

lol exactly. I tried to look up the rationale for their listings, but it wasn't really present. There's also people listed like one of the Koch Bros and it's like ...... I dunno guys. Nobody likes the Koch Brothers, even the people they give money to don't like them.

YouGov is usually "fine" for political polling, like their political race polling is considered good enough, not the best, but good enough. They're a non-US company which some people might favor them for, perhaps makin them less biased or w/e... but I think for these sorts of "omnibus" polls of generic popularity, where they base it on a lot of weird data, it seems ... hard to come up with a rationale for.

 

[Reyes]

So here's the thing, even if a 2030 plan wouldn't pass the senate, it doesn't hurt to TRY. Sanders could at least TRY, and if it doesn't get through the senate, THEN you compromise. Maybe they could meet in the middle with a 2040 plan. But for fucks sake please stop saying we need to compromise before we even try. It's not like a worse plan is off the table if we try a better plan. Compromising with yourself from the get go is exactly how you end up where we are now.

Click to shrink...

I agree we need to push Joe to do more on climate, but unless I'm reading Sanders climate change plans wrong he isn't calling for Net Zero Emissions by 2030.

Sanders Climate Plan is calling for Net Zero Electricity Emissions along with getting transport to zero emissions by 2030 (I think this was just for vehicles and trains, shipping by boat and air is a tough nut to crack due to stuff like battery and fuel though there are interesting ventures working on small planes and working on carriers) :

 

[Tobor]

How do I reconcile this idea with his, "Nothing will fundamentally change" talk he gave the elites not long ago when I'm trying to convince people to hold their nose and vote for him in Nov?

Click to shrink...

By reading the whole quote instead of just the tag line, for starters.

 

[Ripcord]

By reading the whole quote instead of just the tag line, for starters.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that's what I've been trying and it's not effective. Any other suggestions?

 

[HipsterMorty]

You waste time pursuing a plan that is obviously not going to pass. 2040 wont pass either. Without the senate nothing passes that the republicans don't want. That's not how I want things to work but that is how things work. Pretending it doesn't and just insisting trying hard enough will change that isn't productive, especially when people are weighing if getting someone to try this and failing is worth the risk of making the candidate the less likely option to win the general.

You understand the reasoning right? We can choose Bernie or Biden. Bernie says 2030 and Biden says 2050. Voters, rightfully, consider both plans to be further left than what is possible to actually pass. So do we nominate someone who seems less likely to win in November to pursue a plan further from what will pass, or do we nominate the person more likely to get elected who has a plan that also gets compromised down but only to the same spot the 2030 plan does? You can disagree with the designation of Biden as more likely but you can't fault the logic if that's your starting premise. Saying these people don't give a shit about climate change is wrong and insulting.

Click to shrink...

How do you know that a 2030 or 2040 plan is obviously not going to pass? How do you know that Sanders wouldn't be able to flip the senate? How do you know that voters consider a 2050 or a 2030 plan is further to the left than what is possible?

People say the care about climate change, but they aren't prioritizing it by voting for somebody with a worse plan. They're prioritizing beating Trump, which is short sighted.

 

[Deleted member 11637]

At least as of a year ago, Sanders was the most favorable Democrat in the senate. Not sure where he's at now but it's not like people hate the guy.

Click to shrink...

He won the Vermont primary in 2016 with 86 points, this year he only hit 51. Also, the "under 30" share of the VT vote fell from 15% to 11%. If you're losing ground with even your most natural supporters, something's wrong.

 

[Tamanon]

All politicians are popular until they run against someone.

 

[Tobor]

Yeah, that's what I've been trying and it's not effective. Any other suggestions?

Click to shrink...

I don't know what to tell you then. It's not a controversial message as a whole. You need these people to win the general election.

 

[The Adder]

Nobody else even dented it

Click to shrink...

Of the people on the ballot when primaries started, only Warren and fucking Bloomberg tried to.

 

[KHarvey16]

How do you know that a 2030 or 2040 plan is obviously not going to pass? How do you know that Sanders wouldn't be able to flip the senate? How do you know that voters consider a 2050 or a 2030 plan is further to the left than what is possible?

People say the care about climate change, but they aren't prioritizing it by voting for somebody with a worse plan. They're prioritizing beating Trump, which is short sighted.

Click to shrink...

Because the senate is controlled by a group who doesn't even believe in climate change. Those plans and certainly the green new deal, aren't going to pass without massive changes.

The numbers for Bernie to flip the senate aren't there. These are part of the sane numbers showing how badly he was going to lose after SC and ST.

It's not short sighted. Doing something is better than doing nothing, which is what happens under Trump.

 

[sangreal]

How do I reconcile this idea with his, "Nothing will fundamentally change" talk he gave the elites not long ago when I'm trying to convince people to hold their nose and vote for him in Nov?

Click to shrink...

He said nothing will fundamentally change in rich people's lives; that they'll still maintain their standard of living

It was a speech about funding programs for the poor and his point was that they, and the country, can afford it

 

[PMS341]

Well this is terrible.

The Biden Campaign is reaching out to a virulent anti-Semite who lost her original twitter account because she announced her plan to solicit women to make fake sexual assault allegations against Bernie Sanders

Click to shrink...

The Biden campaign really needs to do something about vetting his staff, this is absurd.

 

[Ripcord]

I don't know what to tell you then. It's not a controversial message as a whole. You need these people to win the general election.

Click to shrink...

My circle finds it not only controversial but damning and disqualifying.

"I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money," he said. "The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it's all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one's standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change."

Click to shrink...

I really don't think the whole thing makes it any better and when I try to play on the ambiguity of "you all know in your gut what has to be done" and say that what he means is that they're going to have to kick in, I get nothing back I can work it. So I'm frustrated already.

 

[FirMatt]

Division only means Republicans win. The better option is the Tea Party way, vote republican but primary the fuck outta every moderate politician.

Click to shrink...

That's an entirely valid point. The left needs their own "Tea Party". Are there any organizations I can donate money to that is specifically focused on Senate and House primaries pushing out establishment dems from the left? Because if so, that's where I can pour my focus into this election.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

At least as of a year ago, Sanders was the most favorable Democrat in the senate. Not sure where he's at now but it's not like people hate the guy.

Click to shrink...

Not only is this only looking at popularity among his own constituents (not national), but it explicitly lists him as Bernie Sanders (I-VT), which is not a Democrat. And, honestly, Bernie's waffling back and forth about party affiliation and only joining the Democratic fold when it's politically expedient is one of the knocks people have had against him, not just in this primary, but in 2016 as well.

 

[xenocide]

How do I reconcile this idea with his, "Nothing will fundamentally change" talk he gave the elites not long ago when I'm trying to convince people to hold their nose and vote for him in Nov?

Click to shrink...

Look at the fact that right before that he told them to their face he was raising their taxes? What he was saying was if he raised their taxes 5-10%, their quality of life wouldn't fundamentally change. And he was completely correct. Do I agree with his numbers? No. But he wants to tax the rich and improve services offered to the poor and working class. If he gets his way, he'll help people, and that's better than I can say about Donald Trump.

 

[NoName999]

So I think Sanders going on that both parties are corrupt is a problem.

The Senate GOP blocked a Dem backing bill allowing paid leave for sick workers.

When people see this, the constant tomfoolerly of the Republicans, I don't think the first thing in their mind is "both sides are bad"

 

[WarpSpeedMolasses]

So I think Sanders going on that both parties are corrupt is a problem.

The Senate GOP blocked a Dem backing bill allowing paid leave for sick workers.

When people see this, the constant tomfoolerly of the Republicans, I don't think the first thing in their mind is "both sides are bad"

Click to shrink...

Dems are just more insidious. Nothing about Biden is substantially new or progressive, so I absolutely see how someone can look at both parties and feel fed up.

I don't know what it is you think "status quo" means.

Click to shrink...

Establishment shills in this context. What we've basically always had.