NYT: For Bernie Sanders, Holding Onto Support May Be Hard in a 2020 Bid

[Nocturnal]

If Dems had their coronation of Clinton, it would have played into Trump's campaign to an even greater degree. People are failing to acknowledge this, but if she ran unopposed how exactly would have it looked in the general? They should be thankful Bernie ran and she didn't lose by an even greater amount against the biggest joke candidate of all time in US politics.

​

​

 

[Ichthyosaurus]

My point is, in 2016 we were told that if we didn't support hilary clinton we would have a conservative court and all hell would break loose. Bernie supporters such as myself were mocked and ridiculed for daring to support someone we truly believed in. However, bernie supporters in the end voted for hilary (even me) and we still lost. And guess what? That conservative majority in the court was brought to us because hillary neglected to camping in the rust belt. She lost the most winnable election in history. SO now the same people that told us how easy hillary would beat trump want to tell us that those of us that are skeptical of more centrists are hurting the party because we actually want someone more in line with leftism. Fam, the more you guys want to smear bernies supporters, the more i want to vote for him. I'm sure others feel the same way. DO i think he can win? Maybe, but id rather vote for someone that i believe in than another centrist i don't.

Click to shrink...

Are you talking about the primaries or presidential election? In the primaries vote for whoever you want, that's the process. However, it's vital for losing candidates to coalesce around the winner for the presidential because they will be the only option between a Democrat and a Republican. You may not like everything they say, or do, you may loathe them but with a Dem you'll get the chance for them to at least try to enact your policies or a watered down version becoming law, Republicans will put children in cages and take away the rights of the oppressed and destroy the economy to hurt the libs.

You weren't mocked for what you believe in or supporting Bernie. Criticising Bernie's tactics in elections is not the same as saying he should not have run.

Yes, we lost. It is terrible when that occurs but it is something unavoidable in politics. This is not an excuse to say we didn't put our best against Trump or other candidates in the past. We did our best and we still lost because of many legit reasons, Hillary lost for various reasons and some were outside her control and would have happened to any Dem who ran in the presidential (Comey, Russia). She campaigned poorly in some areas, made bad decisions, she also messed up by Bernie (and he's continued being a thorn in the side of the party ever since) etc.

Everyone thought Hilary had it in the bag, due to how politic works and they were right to think so. That Trump overcame this (with assistance from various outside factors) does not change this fact. Hindsight and all that. Trump was not an easy opponent, and you're failing to heed that lesson by blaming it all on the loser rather than acknowledging the circumstances about why she lost. Had Bernie won he likely would have had a harder road ahead, this is the man who gave up entirely on the South in the primaries. The GOP had a whole binder full of baggage to throw at him, with numerous avenues to attack him from (they'd paint him as a USSR loving Communist, his problematic poem about rape, voted to dump nuclear waste in a Latino community, his wife being investigated by the FBI etc). There is no guarantee he would have had an easier chance at winning over Hillary. If he failed to beat Hillary in an election he was never going to beat Trump.

We're not smearing Bernie, you're failing to acknowledge that he has many flaws as a candidate. He's a man, not a deity.

It's fine to vote for whoever you like in the primaries, that's fine. Your reasons are your own, but it's not on us when a candidate like bernie loses. He isn't built to win nominations like this, which is a deliberate choice on his part. Maybe one day we'll get a progressive/Leftist/Socialist candidate who will become the nominee, except that won't happen unless they fully adapt to the Democratic primaries and learn from Bernie's failures. This may take a generation or two to fulfil as they aren't as savvy about politics like the centrist wing is, which is why they were able to swiftly take over the party leadership after Carter.

you don't listen to us when we say it ten million times, maybe you'll listen to Noted MSNBC-Show-Haver Chris Hayes?

Click to shrink...

It's wrong when people say this, and wrong when Hayes says it. Electibility is a massive factor in perceived value both in activating followers and being a worthy opponent in elections. Why? Politicians are utterly useless to us if we agree 100% with them but they can't get elected dog catcher. The point in politics is to get your agendas implemented through congress/presidency, if we don't the Republicans will.

It's not so much that nobody is neutral to positive as it is that there is this visceral LOATHING of Bernie and his fans, like he and they are personally responsible for every ill of Trumpism.

Click to shrink...

That's not happening here. I've tried to make sure I don't conflate regular pro-Bernie supporters with the Bernie Bros, or Bernie himself. Bernie is not responsible for everything Trump did, but he's no innocent flower in all this, either. He has a lot to answer to for maintaining the rift in the party for his own ends.

 

[pigeon]

It's wrong when people say this, and wrong when Hayes says it. Electibility is a massive factor in perceived value both in activating followers and being a worthy opponent in elections. Why? Politicians are utterly useless to us if we agree 100% with them but they can't get elected dog catcher. The point in politics is to get your agendas implemented through congress/presidency, if we don't the Republicans will.

Click to shrink...

This doesn't address Hayes's point. He's not saying electability doesn't matter, he's saying nobody is actually able to judge it. Almost everybody uses "electability" as a gloss for "what I personally like in a candidate."

 

[TarNaru33]

First, let me apologize for the assumptions I made. There's just been a common line with Bernie supporters on this forum where they basically place Obama as a neoliberal centrist/buzzword of the day that basically means "unacceptable" for them. And I'd much prefer if talks about the nitty-gritty of candidate's policy positions were more like this post, because then there'd be a conversation to be had.

First, for rural areas I do agree they're dying because the type of service economy that's been built up does not favor rural areas. I disagree that the average "city"(The majority don't deserve the name) in a place like Florida would be better off with a $15 minimum wage. A $15 minimum wage would be the equivalent of $31,200 a year full time. Some of those "cities" in florida have a median personal wage of 25-30k, but because of cost of living, that's a solidly middle class income. On the other hand, in a place like New York, you'd be all but living on the street making $15 an hour. Which is why it doesn't make any sense for $15 to be the target for the entire nation.

And, let me just say, I voted for Gillum in Florida despite the fact that I find his goal of making the state's minimum wage $15 unreasonable.

Click to shrink...

I understand where you are coming from.

You need to remember, the minimum wage wont just shoot up to $15, it will take years (like 5 years) to reach and inflation along with cost of living will still be increasing. The reason I believe it should be $15 is because its already behind and I dont see significant damage in raising it to that. I couldn't find any studies where raising or creating a minimum wage caused any significant negative effects.

I still dont think we should go with a lower standard, because Republicans still control states will great cities, they block municipalities from raising theirs to suit their standards of living.

I think it's worse to have people living with wages under their standards of living and struggling than those who will have to adapt to the higher wage, which will have some negative impacts, but it's really just theoretical.

 

[medinaria]

It's wrong when people say this, and wrong when Hayes says it. Electibility is a massive factor in perceived value both in activating followers and being a worthy opponent in elections. Why? Politicians are utterly useless to us if we agree 100% with them but they can't get elected dog catcher. The point in politics is to get your agendas implemented through congress/presidency, if we don't the Republicans will.

Click to shrink...

The point isn't "ability to get elected doesn't matter". The point is "nobody has any idea what 'electability' actually is". Donald Trump was not "electable". He was, in fact, one of the most "unelectable" major party candidates of all time. He is currently the president, having been elected. This ought to have caused a great deal of anguish amongst all the amateur soothsayers out there that game out "who is the most electable candidate" and assume they have full knowledge of the electorate and its preferences. It ought to have caused people to say "wait, we actually have no idea who is and isn't electable". And yet, we're here.

Nobody knows who is electable. Nobody has any supreme insight into what America supports or doesn't support, outside of polling that can vary by 20-30% depending on how questions are phrased. People need to stop acting like it. It's a tool used to push down candidates that don't fit into certain ideological boxes, and nothing more.

 

[Ichthyosaurus]

The point isn't "ability to get elected doesn't matter". The point is "nobody has any idea what 'electability' actually is". Donald Trump was not "electable". He was, in fact, one of the most "unelectable" major party candidates of all time. He is currently the president, having been elected. This ought to have caused a great deal of anguish amongst all the amateur soothsayers out there that game out "who is the most electable candidate" and assume they have full knowledge of the electorate and its preferences. It ought to have caused people to say "wait, we actually have no idea who is and isn't electable". And yet, we're here.

Nobody knows who is electable. Nobody has any supreme insight into what America supports or doesn't support, outside of polling that can vary by 20-30% depending on how questions are phrased. People need to stop acting like it. It's a tool used to push down candidates that don't fit into certain ideological boxes, and nothing more.

Click to shrink...

We're here because for now he's an out of context problem for politics, and the GOP aren't mass producing Trump's by the dozens or we'd have seen them in the mid-terms. You're right about how people underestimated his electability but it's not like he didn't have an impressive track record before the presidential elections - he had to electable to some degree or he wouldn't have become the Republican presidential nominee. Another factor is that people do make mistakes, big ones. Nor is anything a "sure thing". Hillary was the best shot at winning a presidential election for the Democrats, that remains true - but she still could be defeated by a Republican nominee. Being electable is ultimately a gamble by acknowledging the odds based on candidates, sometimes they win sometimes they lose and sometimes there are things people cant plan for. I find it hard to believe had Bernie won the nomination he'd have overcome the elements like FBI or Russia interfering. Nor has he truly been tested thoroughly in elections, he's typically safe operating in Vermont were he wins on easy mode and Hillary cleared the field for him in the primaries so he gobbled up all the anti-Hillary voters because he was the only there who posed the slightest competition and he still spent most of the primary out of his depth because he refused to obey the customs of primaries by quitting when it becomes apparent his campaign won't win.

Sure we do, there are entire industries who do this. It's just more of art, then a science. If you're correct what categories candidates belong to wound't stop them getting elected. Being electable isn't just about analysing data it's also getting results, which is what primaries are good for as they are elections and typically progressives are less electable than liberals or centrists. That's why they end up winning more elections. Going into primaries without a solid coalitions of institutions at their back + not being engaged with party brass + having less financial stability/size of their war chest are logical signs that a candidate is going to lose against someone who doesn't have those disadvantages. Which happens like clock work in elections. If what you were saying were true a lot more progressives and socialists would have been elected all over the country and not just this year, but decades ago. But they're not doing that for a lot of reasons, and that impacts on their electability.

 

[Soliloquy of a Dogge]

The sooner Bernie goes away, the better.

 

[Steel]

I understand where you are coming from.

You need to remember, the minimum wage wont just shoot up to $15, it will take years (like 5 years) to reach and inflation along with cost of living will still be increasing. The reason I believe it should be $15 is because its already behind and I dont see significant damage in raising it to that. I couldn't find any studies where raising or creating a minimum wage caused any significant negative effects.

I still dont think we should go with a lower standard, because Republicans still control states will great cities, they block municipalities from raising theirs to suit their standards of living.

I think it's worse to have people living with wages under their standards of living and struggling than those who will have to adapt to the higher wage, which will have some negative impacts, but it's really just theoretical.

Click to shrink...

The thing is, with the places where $15 is higher than the median wage, people won't be adjusting to a higher standard of living because the local market wouldn't be able to sustain it and they'll be unemployed, even after a gradual ramp up of 5 years(Because inflation has been very minimal for a long while now, as has wage growth). There will be plenty of places where $15 is good or where $15 is too little, but there will be a lot of places where it's too much. I do strongly believe we need a higher minimum wage, it's been higher in the past due to inflation adjustment, I also believe $15 is too high a number considering where wages sit now.

Hillary was the best shot at winning a presidential election for the Democrats, that remains true - but she still could be defeated by a Republican nominee.

Click to shrink...

I disagree, she was damaged goods by primary season and her "scandals" ripped her to shreds. Her approval rating was in the 30s. She was about the only candidate who could lose to Trump, honestly. I thought she was the least political savvy in the primary, as well, even if she was the most technically qualified. I just didn't think people would be so dumb as to get Trump in given ANY alternative. Then again, I didn't even vote in primary season as my state doesn't allow NPAs to vote in primaries.

Would Bernie have won? Maybe. Biden probably would've won a general as well. Is it useful to constantly re-litigate this? No. Hillary was a uniquely hated and attacked candidate and even then she won the popular vote and barely lost(Likely the straw that broke that camels back was simply Comey's last minute report on EMAILS).

 

[Kirblar]

This doesn't address Hayes's point. He's not saying electability doesn't matter, he's saying nobody is actually able to judge it. Almost everybody uses "electability" as a gloss for "what I personally like in a candidate."

Click to shrink...

Counterpoint: Almost everyone sees the issues with Warren.

 

[medinaria]

Hillary was the best shot at winning a presidential election for the Democrats, that remains true

Click to shrink...

This isn't true, though. If we look at "electability" solely as "can this person win the upcoming general election", every poll for 8+ months had Sanders beating Trump at far larger margins than Clinton. From that perspective, Sanders was the "electable" candidate. (note: I am not saying this means Sanders would have won, don't start that argument, I'm not here to open that can of worms)

The narrative pushed around that was "oh well Sanders hasn't had the opposition research done, he hasn't been in the debates, etc, etc", but that's all hypotheticals! That's the point being made here. People looked at a candidate who was underperforming relative to her competition and said "well, after you add in these things that may or may not come to pass, the opposite is actually true". That's where her so-called "electability" came from. My point is that this has to stop. What happens when we talk about electability is that certain types of people project certain types of biases and beliefs onto the American electorate writ large, and then impute what "will happen" based on those beliefs. This doesn't work. It didn't work in 2016, and it doesn't work now. All of this metagaming and election forecasting is colored more by personal desires and biases than by actual knowledge, because the actual knowledge doesn't exist. Nobody knows who is "electable".

It's important to have a candidate that can win an election. This is factually true. What that candidate looks like is entirely unknown and unknowable.

Counterpoint: Almost everyone sees the issues with Warren.

Click to shrink...

Are they issues, though? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that the american electorate gives one iota of a shit about her six-minute "here's my family history" video that almost assuredly none of them watched? Or is this the media and political operatives saying "WOW THAT'S DISQUALIFYING, AMERICA WON'T LIKE THAT" because that's what they think?

 

[Tracygill]

Wrap it up Bernailures. It's over.

 

[Steel]

The narrative pushed around that was "oh well Sanders hasn't had the opposition research done, he hasn't been in the debates, etc, etc", but that's all hypotheticals! That's the point being made here. People looked at a candidate who was underperforming relative to her competition and said "well, after you add in these things that may or may not come to pass, the opposite is actually true".

Click to shrink...

On the one hand, if Bernie had had the decades long crusade against him that Hillary had, I do believe he would be in a worse situation. Of course, that would've been impossible in that time-scale. That being said, Bernie hadn't really been heavily attacked before the primaries ended, and if he made it to the general, his numbers would've gone down as he was attacked. Hell, Hillary's numbers went down after the primary as well.

Bernie was a better speaker than the low bar of Hillary, for sure, in either case.

Are they issues, though? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that the american electorate gives one iota of a shit about her six-minute "here's my family history" video that almost assuredly none of them watched? Or is this the media and political operatives saying "WOW THAT'S DISQUALIFYING, AMERICA WON'T LIKE THAT" because that's what they think?

Click to shrink...

Couple things. You're basically saying that since Trump was "electable" that any common notion of electibility should be thrown out. But, let's be honest, republicans and democrats hold their candidates to separate standards. Republicans line up behind just about anyone with an R next to their name. Hillary had a lot of signs of being damaged goods before the primary. Warren has about as much charisma as Hillary and Bernie is far more politically savvy than her in the same wing of the party. Warren is prone to gaffes. She has all the same warning lights as Hillary. And, let me be honest, I'd much rather have Warren as President than Bernie.

You and I might care about policy details, but the public sure as hell doesn't. I mean, they elected Donald J Trump.

 

[Deleted member 19003]

Beto / Harris or Biden/Beto are the only winning tickets. Rest have a lot of unfavourables

Click to shrink...

A Biden/Beto ticket could be really good. Then tee up Beto for a presidential run 8 years later.

 

[Super Corpse Soldier]

It's wrong when people say this, and wrong when Hayes says it. Electibility is a massive factor in perceived value both in activating followers and being a worthy opponent in elections. Why? Politicians are utterly useless to us if we agree 100% with them but they can't get elected dog catcher. The point in politics is to get your agendas implemented through congress/presidency, if we don't the Republicans will.

Click to shrink...

Every body KNEW Trump was the least electable candidate in the Primaries. Every body KNEW he didn't have a chance to win. Every body here CHEER the further along in the primaries he got. Every body on Gaf CHEERED when he won the Republican nomination, because now Hillary is a sure thing.

And then it turned out he was the most electable person on the stage and it took only a few variables such as Hillary running a lazy god awful general election campaign where she couldn't be bothered to get her ass out of Matha's Vineyard to actually try and get swing states and problem states to vote for her, and the Comey letter.

 

[Kirblar]

Are they issues, though? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that the american electorate gives one iota of a shit about her six-minute "here's my family history" video that almost assuredly none of them watched? Or is this the media and political operatives saying "WOW THAT'S DISQUALIFYING, AMERICA WON'T LIKE THAT" because that's what they think?

Click to shrink...

When you are massively pissing off people in your own coalition with how you have mishandled the topic, yes, it is a very real issue. I absolutely understand Warren's personal desire to defend her family history against the attacks. She also screwed up badly when a professor, and doubled down on that screwup in a way that showed a remarkable lack of the type of coalition-building leadership that you need as President, and a continuing lack of personal judgement on a sensitive subject.

She also ran behind Hillary's 2016 margin in Massachussets Not spending a cent on TV ads (almost certainly hoarding for a 2020 run given 0 GOP incumbents in the House) likely contributed to that.

And I need to point this out- I really like Elizabeth Warren! I wish Hillary had picked her for VP. I also wish she had run in 2016, there's a good chance I would have voted for her since she and Hillary both have some of the same weaknesses as candidates beyond the fact that being an older woman is going to come with a penalty. It's the same feeling I got with Kerry in '04, where he was my favorite, but I didn't think he could win. And then no one better came along and he kinda won by default. I also voted against Hillary because of the electoral concerns in '08, and those same concerns would have led me to strongly consider Biden or Warren.

So no, no one has a perfect read- but people can make educated guesses.

 

[Super Corpse Soldier]

edit: derp wrong person

 

[Deleted member 3896]

A Biden/Beto ticket could be really good. Then tee up Beto for a presidential run 8 years later.

Click to shrink...

Oh god no.

No to Biden, no to two white men on the ticket.

 

[jeelybeans]

Biden Harris sounds better to me. Beto should really just run again in Texas.

Bernie should disappear forever

 

[jack_package_200]

Guys

Beto 2020

AOC 2028

 

[Deleted member 3896]

Guys

Beto 2020

AOC 2028

Click to shrink...

AOC needs to primary Schumer first and take his seat.

 

[Super Corpse Soldier]

Guys

Beto 2020

AOC 2028

Click to shrink...

At least half of the people here pretending to like AOC would turn on her the moment she set her eyes on the presidency because they hate economic leftism. Seriously, 100% of the vitriol Bernie gets here would just be thrown at her instead.

 

[Deleted member 3896]

At least half of the people here pretending to like AOC would turn on her the moment she set her eyes on the presidency because they hate economic leftism. Seriously, 100% of the vitriol Bernie gets here would just be thrown at her instead.

Click to shrink...

AOC is different from Bernie in that she knows how to articulate her positions and isn't an out of touch racist.

The notion that people's problem with Bernie is economic leftism is honestly lol-worthy.

 

[Super Corpse Soldier]

Unlike Bernie, AOC knows how to articulate her positions and isn't an out of touch racist.

Click to shrink...

You can drop the act any time. You aren't fooling me.

 

[Kirblar]

At least half of the people here pretending to like AOC would turn on her the moment she set her eyes on the presidency because they hate economic leftism. Seriously, 100% of the vitriol Bernie gets here would just be thrown at her instead.

Click to shrink...

I think AoC's racial gaffe count is at like, 0 at this point. So no. Bernie's inability to actually campaign for minority votes, history of gaffes, and inability to actually express an intersectional understanding of class issues that isn't stuck in the 1950s.

I personally like AOC! I don't agree w/ her on economics, but she's a pragmatist and I can play ball with that, and she's an excellent messenger- she just needs to tigten up a bit on stuff like that HC tweet.

 

[Fantastical]

So people staning Biden just don't give a shit about his record and creep factor?

 

[Deleted member 3896]

You can drop the act any time. You aren't fooling me.

Click to shrink...

And which act is that?

 

[Kirblar]

So people staning Biden just don't give a shit about his record and creep factor?

Click to shrink...

It's basically "I love Obama, Biden was Obama's VP." It's not more complicated than that.

 

[Lebron]

At least half of the people here pretending to like AOC would turn on her the moment she set her eyes on the presidency because they hate economic leftism. Seriously, 100% of the vitriol Bernie gets here would just be thrown at her instead.

Click to shrink...

Nah, she actually understands the minority struggle.

 

[Super Corpse Soldier]

Nah, she actually understands the minority struggle.

Click to shrink...

But she cares about the poor and the harm of capitalsm and calls herself a socialist and we can't have that.

 

[Deleted member 3896]

But she cares about the poor and the harm of capitalsm and calls herself a socialist and we can't have that.

Click to shrink...

Are you so deluded that you think THAT is the issue people have with Bernie?

You can drop the act any time. You aren't fooling me.

Click to shrink...

And which act is that again, darling?

 

[Deleted member 19003]

Oh god no.

No to Biden, no to two white men on the ticket.

Click to shrink...

I'd prefer Harris, yes, but it's not the worst outcome.

 

[sphagnum]

I think if AOC runs when she's older, there will certainly be some opposition due to her economic stances, but not as much as some would imagine. That's because she is - as of now at least - demonstrably a social democrat policy-wise rather than a democratic socialist. So the main arguments would be "MY TAXES HOW WILL YOU PAY FOR THIS" rather than "I don't want this at all".

If she actually starts promoting democratic socialist policies...that's a whole 'nother ball game and the party will sink their knives into her.

 

[Super Corpse Soldier]

Are you so deluded that you think THAT is the issue people have with Bernie?

Click to shrink...

It's a large part of it. The rich hate Bernie. That hatred filters through news outlets like CNN and MSNBC, not in direct orders, but the type of people hired slant towards those who approve of the status quo, that filters through twitter and forums and Resetera.

And which act is that again, darling?

Click to shrink...

Pretending to like AOC. You might think she's neat when she's nonthreatening. But there's a looooot of people here who pretend to like AOC, who talks about actual justic, while talking up Harris like she's the second coming and will be the greatest president ever when her biggest accomplishment was letting Steve Mnuchin get away with literally illegally seizing people's homes, a miscarriage of justice and reinforcing the two tiered justice system in the United States. At the end of the day, something is going to give and I think a lot of those people including you would chose to protect the rich from the consequences of their own abuses against economic and social justice when the chips are down.

 

[Kirblar]

I think if AOC runs when she's older, there will certainly be some opposition due to her economic stances, but not as much as some would imagine. That's because she is - as of now at least - demonstrably a social democrat policy-wise rather than a democratic socialist. So the main arguments would be "MY TAXES HOW WILL YOU PAY FOR THIS" rather than "I don't want this at all".

If she actually starts promoting democratic socialist policies...that's a whole 'nother ball game and the party will sink their knives into her.

Click to shrink...

The ruthless pragmatism is reminiscent of Pelosi. (This is a compliment.)

 

[sphagnum]

The ruthless pragmatism is reminiscent of Pelosi. (This is a compliment.)

Click to shrink...

If she has real demsoc at her core, this will come out when she starts saying "workplace democracy" instead of "seize the means of production".

 

[Deleted member 3896]

It's a large part of it. The rich hate Bernie. That hatred filters through news outlets like CNN and MSNBC, not in direct orders, but the type of people hired slant towards those who approve of the status quo, that filters through twitter and forums and Resetera.

Pretending to like AOC. You might think she's neat when she's nonthreatening. But there's a looooot of people here who pretend to like AOC, who talks about actual justic, while talking up Harris like she's the second coming and will be the greatest president ever when her biggest accomplishment was letting Steve Mnuchin get away with literally illegally seizing people's homes, a miscarriage of justice and reinforcing the two tiered justice system in the United States. At the end of the day, something is going to give and I think a lot of those people including you would chose to protect the rich from the consequences of their own abuses against economic and social justice when the chips are down.

Click to shrink...

Really bizarre post.

You're literally inventing narratives that don't exist and putting words in people's mouths.

I've never talked shit about AOC and I've never talked up Harris like the second coming, ever.

You think I want to "protect the rich"? What the fuck are you even talking about? Please, please point to where I've ever said anything even close to that.

 

[lenovox1]

It's a large part of it. The rich hate Bernie. That hatred filters through news outlets like CNN and MSNBC, not in direct orders, but the type of people hired slant towards those who approve of the status quo, that filters through twitter and forums and Resetera.

Click to shrink...

That is indeed deluded. Sanders has a wide breadth of support from people of every economic status. People who work at Google were his highest contributors even.

Pretending to like AOC. You might think she's neat when she's nonthreatening. But there's a looooot of people here who pretend to like AOC who talks about actual justice while talking up Harris like she's the second coming and will be the greatest president ever when her biggest accomplishment was letting Steve Mnuchin get away with literally illegally seizing people's homes, a monstrous miscarriage of justice and reinforcing the two tiered justice system in the United States. At the end of the day, something is going to give and I think a lot of those people including you would chose to protect the rich from the consequences of their own abuses against economic and social justice when the chips are down.

Click to shrink...

Why go down this path? You obviously don't know Mercury Fred.

I would suggest you go to a little place called and look through his post history. He's one of the most "far left" people on this board.

 

[Armaros]

That is indeed deluded. Sanders has a wide breadth of support from people of every economic status. People who work at Google were his highest contributors even.



Why go down this path? You obviously don't know Red Mercury.

I would suggest you go to a little place called and look through his post history. He's one of the most "far left" people on this board.

Click to shrink...

Because anyone that doesn't bow down to the most outspoken Bernie supporters here must be a Centrist Estabishment supporter.

And must be a fake if they say they are supporting progressive ideas and candidates.

They have taken unto themselves the job of being the GateKeepers of Progressive ideas.

 

[Suzushiiro]

It's wrong when people say this, and wrong when Hayes says it. Electibility is a massive factor in perceived value both in activating followers and being a worthy opponent in elections. Why? Politicians are utterly useless to us if we agree 100% with them but they can't get elected dog catcher. The point in politics is to get your agendas implemented through congress/presidency, if we don't the Republicans will.

Click to shrink...

When's the last time a party has chosen the more "electable" candidate who the base wasn't wild about over one that the base was genuinely excited about (or at least liked more) and won, though? McCain and Romney were seen as RINOs, HIllary was seen as too centrist/friendly with the 1% among other issues, and in 2004 there was literally a website called JohnKerryIsADouchebagButImVotingForHimAnyway.com. Meanwhile, Dubya, Obama, and Trump were all candidates who were arguably less "electable" than the people they beat in the primaries (well, less arguably for Trump than W/Obama) but won due to being candidates that most if not all of their bases were excited to vote for, rather than someone who they'd hold their nose and vote for to keep the other guy from winning.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, of course- there's a lot more to why those elections went the way they did than how much the candidates were liked by their respective bases. But at the same time proving causation generally requires correlation, and at least on the presidential level there's very little correlation between what we generally define as "electibility" and a candidate's actual chances of winning in this day and age.

Personally, I think anyone who could possibly get the nomination and then proceed to apply even half of the lessons learned from the 2016 and 2018 cycles can beat Trump. It took a perfect storm of fuckups on the part of a number of people (including but not remotely limited to Hillary herself) to put him in the White House, the most important of which was the assumption made by a lot of people that he couldn't possibly win, which they obviously won't make this time (shit, if anything the media/pundit-sphere will probably overcorrect and assume Trump will win even when polling decisively points to him losing, kinda like what happend in VA last year.) In terms of primary support I'm less concerned with "electibility" and more concerned with nominating someone who I can trust will actually fix the broken shit that resulted in Trump in the first place once they're in office.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Are they issues, though? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that the american electorate gives one iota of a shit about her six-minute "here's my family history" video that almost assuredly none of them watched? Or is this the media and political operatives saying "WOW THAT'S DISQUALIFYING, AMERICA WON'T LIKE THAT" because that's what they think?

Click to shrink...

The biggest argument against Warren on electability is that in 2018, during a Democratic wave year, running against a non-entity of an opponent, she wasn't able to beat Hillary margins in her own state, despite it being an incredibly liberal state. A Liz Warren who can win a Presidential election should be getting 75-80% in this past election in Massachusetts, not doing just as well as Hillary.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Are they issues, though? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that the american electorate gives one iota of a shit about her six-minute "here's my family history" video that almost assuredly none of them watched? Or is this the media and political operatives saying "WOW THAT'S DISQUALIFYING, AMERICA WON'T LIKE THAT" because that's what they think?

Click to shrink...

Warren is one of the few candidates that we can completely rule out because she's not even super popular in her own state as of November 2018, an election notable for democratic surges in local elections and hyper-partisan voting in state-wide elections.

 

[Kirbivore]

At least half of the people here pretending to like AOC would turn on her the moment she set her eyes on the presidency because they hate economic leftism. Seriously, 100% of the vitriol Bernie gets here would just be thrown at her instead.

Click to shrink...

Im glad to know that I can count on you to throw black people under the bus if need be if you wont even take a bredth of concerns people have of your lord and savior

 

[Ichthyosaurus]

AOC is different from Bernie in that she knows how to articulate her positions and isn't an out of touch racist.

The notion that people's problem with Bernie is economic leftism is honestly lol-worthy.

Click to shrink...

AOC's definitely a step up from Bernie, she has learnt from many of his mistakes. She still has many flaws to iron out before running on a larger scale, of course. The real test for her will be if she gets the opportunity to run against a competent liberal/centrist in a primary or Republican who is trying to win and has a decent shot. The next 2 years will be very interesting to see where her career takes her in congress.

At least half of the people here pretending to like AOC would turn on her the moment she set her eyes on the presidency because they hate economic leftism. Seriously, 100% of the vitriol Bernie gets here would just be thrown at her instead.

Click to shrink...

We don't hate economic leftism, we just don't agree with it. Of course we won't all immediately be converted to her side had she run in a presidential primary, she has to earn our votes just like everyone else. It's not any different than Leftists who aren't inclined to sign up for liberal/centrist politicians in a primary. Another factor is that she will have a more difficult time articulating how she's going to achieve her goals. If she says stuff like "free college" without an actual realistic plan how to get it, then no I'm not going to hold back criticising her opinions.

It's a large part of it. The rich hate Bernie. That hatred filters through news outlets like CNN and MSNBC, not in direct orders, but the type of people hired slant towards those who approve of the status quo, that filters through twitter and forums and Resetera.

Pretending to like AOC. You might think she's neat when she's nonthreatening. But there's a looooot of people here who pretend to like AOC, who talks about actual justic, while talking up Harris like she's the second coming and will be the greatest president ever when her biggest accomplishment was letting Steve Mnuchin get away with literally illegally seizing people's homes, a miscarriage of justice and reinforcing the two tiered justice system in the United States. At the end of the day, something is going to give and I think a lot of those people including you would chose to protect the rich from the consequences of their own abuses against economic and social justice when the chips are down.

Click to shrink...

I don't think the rich spent much time concerned about Bernie, to be honest. He's not a threat to them. His movement, however, has got some sweating bullets. IMO they're overthinking the Leftists/Socialists political adaptability. They have a lot to learn before they can pose a real threat to the Powers That Be, which is a shame as many of their goals I can get behind. But if they can't actually back it up with action through congress or landing a POTUS, why should I side with them?

People can like politicians but not want them to win. Bernie has many fantastic ideas I'd be for, except he's really bad at navigating the government and refuses to put in the work with relationships and gaining the political pressure to make his goals achievable. Or water them them down enough so they can be achievable. He's not a wonk like Warren, to his detriment.

Here's the thing, you're framing is wrong about why we're disagreeing. It's not because we love the status quo, it's because we're working with what we have and you're not offering anything that's a game changer. Assuming that some day "things will have to give" it's not going to occur any day now, and in a decade, because the Leftists are not that organised to do it. When they get their shit together sure I'll listen, but until then it's all talk.