Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread

[Adam Griffin]

https://twitter.com/tomwatson/status/1088999602848714752

What does this even mean? Hes had the most sizable influence on D politics in a while now, considering many house candidates and presidential candidates are copying his playbook, and many candidates he endorsed were able to win their races.

Seriously, what is this guy using to grade Sanders?

The measurement here for him and many of his affiliation is how many cardboard cutouts a particular influencer can put into office, irrespective of whether they share the same views (or even the party's views) on key issues. In their eyes, Sanders is a failure because most of his endorsed candidates either didn't win their primaries or lost their general elections. It's the same reason they fixate so much on him "not being a Democrat": it's all about labels, branding and superficial belt notches for them.

Of course, they overlook that Sanders' foray into presidential politics started not because he wanted to win an electoral contest, but because he wanted to steer the narrative of the Democratic Party. By that measurement, he has been far more successful than any other Democratic politician in many years, including the candidate he lost to in 2016 (does anybody really remember any unique policies Clinton championed?). Practically every presidential candidate who has entered the race or is expected to enter has cozied up to him on all of his core issues, including substantially higher taxes on the wealthy, $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, and so forth. Just three years ago, virtually no prominent Democrat would be caught near these issues.

By and large, Bernie Sanders doesn't need to win the endorsement/brand game of checkers in random congressional and statewide primaries because he has taken charge of the chessboard upon which the game is played. The candidates and politicians now sing his tune; in a large number of cases, whom he picks in primaries is merely a potential cherry-on-top kind of branding/notch game victory just like the #Resistance types value.

[Adam Griffin]

The measurement here for him and many of his affiliation is how many cardboard cutouts a particular influencer can put into office, irrespective of whether they share the same views (or even the party's views) on key issues. In their eyes, Sanders is a failure because most of his endorsed candidates either didn't win their primaries or lost their general elections. It's the same reason they fixate so much on him "not being a Democrat": it's all about labels, branding and superficial belt notches for them.

Of course, they overlook that Sanders' foray into presidential politics started not because he wanted to win an electoral contest, but because he wanted to steer the narrative of the Democratic Party. By that measurement, he has been far more successful than any other Democratic politician in many years, including the candidate he lost to in 2016 (does anybody really remember any unique policies Clinton championed?). Practically every presidential candidate who has entered the race or is expected to enter has cozied up to him on all of his core issues, including substantially higher taxes on the wealthy, $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, and so forth. Just three years ago, virtually no prominent Democrat would be caught near these issues.

By and large, Bernie Sanders doesn't need to win the endorsement/brand game of checkers in random congressional and statewide primaries because he has taken charge of the chessboard upon which the game is played. The candidates and politicians now sing his tune; in a large number of cases, whom he picks in primaries is merely a potential cherry-on-top kind of branding/notch game victory just like the #Resistance types value.

Give me a break. Sanders's influence on Democratic Party orthodoxy is wildly overstated. It's not like establishment Democrats thought "higher taxes on the wealthy, $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, and so forth" were bad ideas or not worth pursuing--the only difference between Sanders and the establishment was that the former was/is willing to make empty promises and the latter is actually interested in what is politically possible.  You want to credit Sanders for moving the party to the left, but the real credit belongs to two others:  Mitch McConnell, for completely destroying the notion that compromise  with Republicans is possible, and Trump, for being so unpopular that Democratic majorities in Congress after 2020 are now a distinct possibility.

What are you, 17? That's exactly what happened.

And I somehow highly doubt that a man who's been hated by the Democrats for years and the pushing of a bunch of Kasich-loving suburbrons into the party is more responsible for its leftward shift.

[Adam Griffin]

Hillary voters were significantly more likely to be anti Muslim than Bernie supporters, and so were probably also more likely to be racist.

If we’re taking this polling at face value, we’re also saying that Sanders voters are more conservative on healthcare than Clinton voters, but something tells me that Sanders voters would reject that characterization.

To be fair, there are only 3 issues here where the difference is large enough not to be chalked up to statistical noise or potential margins of error (#2, #5 & #7). However, given that Sanders did have a meaningful number of protest-voters, independents and other quirky types in his support bloc, the true gulf between Clinton and Sanders supporters who were self-identified Democrats on these issues is probably even bigger than it appears here (i.e. the conservative preferences of "Democratic" Clinton voters were even stronger).

[Adam Griffin]

If his supporters will stop doing what they are doing, I will wish him well. Democrats must act united.

No, that's literally the opposite of the purpose of a party primary. Might as well abolish primaries altogether if no criticism of fellow candidates is allowed for fear of "disunity".

Truly amazing how many people (presumably mostly the younger types) think 2016 or 2020 thus far has been "nasty" or "divisive"; they must not remember what 2008 was like.

[Adam Griffin]

This Chicago rally feels a hell of a lot more electric than yesterday's. No idea how many people are there; it may just be that since it's indoors, it sounds bigger and louder from the echoes.

[Adam Griffin]

LOL

[Adam Griffin]

wtf we fighting bout over a shower door

Me walking into this thread right now

[Adam Griffin]

How many times has Trump gone to MSNBC?
To CNN?
Nobody thinks the way you say.

[Adam Griffin]

Anyway, this is a pretty dumb argument. There are millions of people who aren't diehard Republicans who casually watch short bursts of Fox on a regular basis because they live in Red America. Pretty much every TV or radio station in a public space outside of core urban areas is tuned to Fox (or stations that broadcast their content) - anybody sitting in a doctor's office, auto shop, restaurant or comparable place in these areas is going to absorb at least a few minutes of their content every time they do so. We lose nothing by potentially reaching some of them - especially when Fox is going to lambaste the eventual nominee no matter what happens (getting your own message out there beforehand isn't stupid).

The target audience won't even necessarily be those who watch it live (i.e. the rabid, partisan and reliable primetime viewers), but those who'll see clips and the like being regurgitated in the days following.

[Adam Griffin]

How many times has Trump gone to MSNBC?
To CNN?
Nobody thinks the way you say.

LOL, that's literally from four years ago. It's telling that you had to go back then (when Trump still hadn't labeled the media as "enemy of the people") to find something.

Uhh, yeah (though not 4 years ago), when he was actually running for something?

Surely your argument [now] isn't that Trump doesn't do townhalls in the years in between elections, but somehow Sanders is in the wrong for doing the same as a candidate. Way to defend Trump!

And way to move the goalposts. It's obvious you just pulled your initial quip out of your ass without realizing what actually happened.

[Adam Griffin]

Uhh, yeah (though not 4 years ago), when he was actually running for something?

Surely your argument [now] isn't that Trump doesn't do townhalls in the years in between elections, but somehow Sanders is a hypocrite for doing the same as a candidate.

Way to move the goalposts. It's obvious you just pulled your initial quip out of your ass without realizing what actually happened.

What goalposts did I move? Trump has given a zillion interviews to Fox as president but not a single one to CNN or MSNBC. And he is running for reelection, as far as I know.

I must have missed the part where Sanders simultaneously became President. I don't expect any Democratic President will be going on Fox to do townhalls 2 years after their election and 2 years before their re-election (because it's pointless). It's not pointless for candidates from either party to maximize their media exposure as a challenger or a non-incumbent.

Additionally, Trump isn't actively campaigning for re-election yet in the traditional sense. If/once he does, he will appear on these networks at minimum during the general election (there isn't going to be a serious primary for him this time, so of course he won't be going on these networks during that period). This election is different from 2016 because there's an incumbent/it's not a completely open race for both parties in both sets of elections.

[Adam Griffin]

Uhh, yeah (though not 4 years ago), when he was actually running for something?

Surely your argument [now] isn't that Trump doesn't do townhalls in the years in between elections, but somehow Sanders is a hypocrite for doing the same as a candidate.

Way to move the goalposts. It's obvious you just pulled your initial quip out of your ass without realizing what actually happened.

What goalposts did I move? Trump has given a zillion interviews to Fox as president but not a single one to CNN or MSNBC. And he is running for reelection, as far as I know.

I must have missed the part where Sanders simultaneously became President. I don't expect any Democratic President will be going on Fox to do townhalls 2 years after their election and 2 years before their re-election (because it's pointless). It's not pointless for candidates from either party to maximize their media exposure as a challenger or a non-incumbent.

Additionally, Trump isn't actively campaigning for re-election yet in the traditional sense. If/once he does, he will appear on these networks at minimum during the general election (there isn't going to be a serious primary for him this time, so of course he won't be going on these networks during that period). This election is different from 2016 because there's an incumbent/it's not a completely open race for both parties in both sets of elections.

Um, Obama actually gave a lot of interviews to Fox during his presidency. What Trump does (boycotting major news channels) is actually unprecedented.

And don't give me this crap that Trump isn't actually campaigning yet. The hell he does, like all his predecessors.   

Alright, so now you're arguing that Sanders should be behaving like Trump, when your original claim was that even Trump didn't behave this way?

There's a huge difference between being in active campaign mode and what presidents do on a 24/7 basis. The point is that Trump isn't in a position where he needs to be pitching to a wide audience, because he's the president. A challenger who doesn't hold the office is a completely different story.

[Adam Griffin]

Bernie Hosts SC Education and Criminal Justice Town Hall

[Adam Griffin]

Sanders receives endorsements from 7 African American state legislatures in South Carolina.

https://wtop.com/government/2019/04/sanders-gets-endorsements-from-7-black-s-carolina-lawmakers/

That's one-sixth of the entire SC House Democratic caucus: not shabby at all. It probably doesn't hurt that Sanders is putting in a lot of work in SC (to be fair, he also did in 2016 - it was just too late in the game to make a difference by the time he started).

[Adam Griffin]

Sanders receives endorsements from 7 African American state legislatures in South Carolina.

https://wtop.com/government/2019/04/sanders-gets-endorsements-from-7-black-s-carolina-lawmakers/

That's one-sixth of the entire SC House Democratic caucus: not shabby at all. It probably doesn't hurt that Sanders is putting in a lot of work in SC (to be fair, he also did in 2016 - it was just too late in the game to make a difference by the time he started).

What do you think is the best case scenario for him % wise in Carolina-South?

Assuming Biden is in, he's going to suck up a sh**t-ton of black and older voters in the South, so a (relatively) strong second in the low to mid 20s is about as good as I could expect as of now (we're still a long ways out).

[Adam Griffin]

All too many Americans don't understand the point of incarceration. Most people aren't locked up for life. The incarceration and loss of freedom is the punishment. This notion that you should then also make every living moment as hellish as possible, remove every vestige of normal society from the equation and strip people of their humanity is in my view excessive, damaging and pointless. These people are going to be getting back out - except now they've been institutionalized and isolated from society before moving into your neighborhood.

Even prisoners are subject to public policy. Decisions are made that affect their living conditions (most notably, criminal justice and prison-related policy changes) and their wages and taxes - for those grinding at slave wages and making products for private prison companies - still contribute to society. If you're an adult and a citizen, then you should have a say in what your government is doing. Using specific criminal acts as justification for why people shouldn't be allowed to vote are nothing more than logical fallacies that attempt to appeal to emotion. We don't (or shouldn't) decide public policy based on such nonsense.