Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread

[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.

[Heebie Jeebie]

Your dumb comment of course ignores that William Jennings Bryan "took over the democratic party" over a long term period of heavy infighting resistance from the business-friendly Cleveland establishment, including direct criticism of their policies that was much, much uglier and nothing like the civil discourse between Hillary and Bernie

I'm well aware of the history, and nowhere did I suggest that today's arguments are nearly as heated as the ones back then.  Heck, they're nowhere near as venomous as the inter-party fights just 30 years ago--remember the vitriol between Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton in 1992?  But that doesn't change the substance of my criticism!  There are plenty of politicians who criticize leaders in the party without rejecting the party itself.  Elizabeth Warren has made a political career out of that.  And that's good!  There should be debate and competition within--I wish Warren had challenged Clinton in 2016. 

But Sanders's shtick is a whole different thing.  His whole reason for being is to divide and weaken the party, not to reform it.  The man has no appreciation for the value of institutions, just a bottomless pride in his own lily-white purity.  That's not only childish and self-aggrandizing--it's dangerous.   He's doing his best to convince a whole generation that the only reason we're not living in utopia is because the leaders of the Democratic Party have sold them out to the rich, have betrayed them.  He's convinced thousands, maybe millions, that the Democratic Party is hopelessly corrupt, is unworthy of their commitment.  He sows divisions between the people and their greatest ally.  So I say again, F that guy.

[Xing]

Not surprised to see that Bernie derangement syndrome is alive and well, and many of the same people who complained about Hillary being held to an unrealistic standard hold Bernie to a similarly unrealistic standard. He's not a saint, and there are votes and statements of his worthy of criticism. (While I get what he's saying about white voters being "uncomfortable" with black candidates, i.e. xenophobia and racism are not the same thing, I think he could've used better wording, which is a common issue for him.)

However, the attacks on him "not being a Democrat", not doing "enough" for Hillary in 2016, being too old, being too "soft" on guns and/or Russia, and the mere fact that some DINOcrats in states like KY, OK, and WV voted for him come across as nothing more than people holding a grudge on him from 2016 for committing the act of domestic terrorism known as challenging Hillary to a primary, and continue to blame him for her loss, when he's one of the last people who should be blamed.

I know it probably feels easier for you to just ignore the substance of the Sanders criticisms and pretend it's all petty Clinton supporters holding a grudge, but just try for a moment to imagine we're speaking in good faith.  The Democratic Party is important.  If you want to see political and social progress in this country, it's going to happen through the Democratic Party.  Recognizing this fact is why I've invested so much of my own time, money, and energy in supporting the party and its candidates, why I've run for local office as a Democrat myself.  When Sanders claims to be committed to progressive, liberal values while at the same time rejecting the only political organization that can realize those values--well, like I said, as a proud Democrat I feel personally insulted.

I know that the stereotypical Sanders supporter might be a college kid with no previous investment in politics, but some of us have been involved with the Democratic Party for a while. I've seen plenty of people "loyal to the Democratic Party" fail to deliver on the promise of a progressive agenda time and time again, despite promises to voters. At least Sanders has (for the most part) the voting record to back up the idea that he's committed to progressive values, whereas many Democrats will turn on their voters when it suits them politically. I'm tired of the insistence that we can't run people because they're too far left, and then the more "electable" Democrat loses anyway. I'm also tired of seeing Republican-lite candidates get lauded as heroes.

Isn't it more important that he caucuses with the Democrats, doesn't fail the Democrats when they need him, and always endorses the Democratic candidate than it is that he simply isn't a registered Democrat? Would Jim Webb, who is a registered Democrat, but rejects most progressive principles and didn't even support Clinton, be preferable?

[Scottholes 2.0]

Young and fresh-faced Beto O'Rourke will steal his shine!

[gottsu]

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

1) What the hell does that mean, "stop doing what they are doing?"
2) Do democrats refrain from criticizing each other's record during a primary?  It is, after all, a primary

1) To stop breaking Democratic Party from the inside with their destructive approach, to treat moderates or mainstreamers nearly as the same enemies like GOP. When you're a part of a family, you don't act like that, you don't simply try to hijack the whole Democratic Party, you know that there is a hierarchy you must abide and follow.
2) Yes, I am aware that this is primary and all in all, politics, but please look at my reply above.

[Heebie Jeebie]

I know that the stereotypical Sanders supporter might be a college kid with no previous investment in politics, but some of us have been involved with the Democratic Party for a while. I've seen plenty of people "loyal to the Democratic Party" fail to deliver on the promise of a progressive agenda time and time again, despite promises to voters. At least Sanders has (for the most part) the voting record to back up the idea that he's committed to progressive values, whereas many Democrats will turn on their voters when it suits them politically. I'm tired of the insistence that we can't run people because they're too far left, and then the more "electable" Democrat loses anyway. I'm also tired of seeing Republican-lite candidates get lauded as heroes.

Isn't it more important that he caucuses with the Democrats, doesn't fail the Democrats when they need him, and always endorses the Democratic candidate than it is that he simply isn't a registered Democrat? Would Jim Webb, who is a registered Democrat, but rejects most progressive principles and didn't even support Clinton, be preferable?

These kinds of comments frustrate me so much.  Part of me is genuinely sympathetic to what you're saying.  I too wish we lived in a world where the morally pure could just speak truth to power and then utopia descend from on high.  But politics is not a morality play!  Does every Democratic politician remain steadfast, loyal, and true to progressive principles at all times?  Of course not.  Good politicians are necessarily opportunists and compromisers--that's how politics works.  And yet, despite all the inconstancy and double-dealing of individual politicians, despite the constant compromises and set-backs, the party as a whole has been dragging this country ever leftward for the last 125 years.  We're not constantly being betrayed--progress is just really, really hard and tedious work.  There's a Max Weber quote I'm sure you've heard before:  "Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.  It takes both passion and perspective."  And it's true--politics is strong, and slow, and boring.  The party faithful have the perspective to see that; the Bernie faithful have all of the passion but none of the perspective.

Anyway, I'm glad Sanders caucuses and votes with Democrats--that's certainly preferable to the alternative.  I just wish he, and his devotees, would recognize that the Democratic Party is not the enemy.  It's home.

[Zaybay]

Do some posters seriously still believe that Sanders primary voters cost her the election? Wow, didnt think people would still believe such a falsehood.

Just to give some historical context:
(The first number supported their nominee, the second number defected to the other side)

Sanders: 91/9

GOP 2016(Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, etc.): 89/11

Clinton 2008: 73/27

Historically, the defect from Sanders to Trump was one of the lowest in recent electoral history, and yet people still say "His supporters held out and ruined Clinton's Election". Its a falsehood that has no basis in reality.

[Zaybay]

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.

I have to agree here. Its so weird how people are treating criticism of any candidate as some kind of attack that cannot be allowed(weird enough, its coming more from the anti-Bernie crowd than the Pro-Bernie crowd). The whole point of a primary is for divisiveness so you can air out grievances and pick a candidate that the party can largely agree on. If a candidate cannot be fact-checked or criticized, whats the point of a Democratic Primary?

[gottsu]

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.

I have to agree here. Its so weird how people are treating criticism of any candidate as some kind of attack that cannot be allowed(weird enough, its coming more from the anti-Bernie crowd than the Pro-Bernie crowd). The whole point of a primary is for divisiveness so you can air out grievances and pick a candidate that the party can largely agree on. If a candidate cannot be fact-checked or criticized, whats the point of a Democratic Primary?

But do all the democratic banter, the cause of conflict, of division in democracy justify outright acting against the rest of the party like most of progressives does? Most of progressives doesn't seem to care about these things, they just like to whine and bitch about "Bernie would have won" or "corrupt Clintons", "corrupt Democratic Party". The priest forgets that he was a clerk. 

[Zaybay]

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.

I have to agree here. Its so weird how people are treating criticism of any candidate as some kind of attack that cannot be allowed(weird enough, its coming more from the anti-Bernie crowd than the Pro-Bernie crowd). The whole point of a primary is for divisiveness so you can air out grievances and pick a candidate that the party can largely agree on. If a candidate cannot be fact-checked or criticized, whats the point of a Democratic Primary?

But do all the democratic banter, the cause of conflict, of division in democracy justify outright acting against the rest of the party like most of progressives does? Most of progressives doesn't seem to care about these things, they just like to whine and bitch about "Bernie would have won" or "corrupt Clintons", "corrupt Democratic Party". The priest forgets that he was a clerk. 

You've spent way too much time on the internet, my friend.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

I have to agree here. Its so weird how people are treating criticism of any candidate as some kind of attack that cannot be allowed(weird enough, its coming more from the anti-Bernie crowd than the Pro-Bernie crowd). The whole point of a primary is for divisiveness so you can air out grievances and pick a candidate that the party can largely agree on. If a candidate cannot be fact-checked or criticized, whats the point of a Democratic Primary?

But do all the democratic banter, the cause of conflict, of division in democracy justify outright acting against the rest of the party like most of progressives does? Most of progressives doesn't seem to care about these things, they just like to whine and bitch about "Bernie would have won" or "corrupt Clintons", "corrupt Democratic Party". The priest forgets that he was a clerk. 

You've spent way too much time on the internet, my friend.

You post 20 messages per day.

[gottsu]

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.

I have to agree here. Its so weird how people are treating criticism of any candidate as some kind of attack that cannot be allowed(weird enough, its coming more from the anti-Bernie crowd than the Pro-Bernie crowd). The whole point of a primary is for divisiveness so you can air out grievances and pick a candidate that the party can largely agree on. If a candidate cannot be fact-checked or criticized, whats the point of a Democratic Primary?

But do all the democratic banter, the cause of conflict, of division in democracy justify outright acting against the rest of the party like most of progressives does? Most of progressives doesn't seem to care about these things, they just like to whine and bitch about "Bernie would have won" or "corrupt Clintons", "corrupt Democratic Party". The priest forgets that he was a clerk. 

You've spent way too much time on the internet, my friend.

Not on the progressive side of it, that is true.

[Xing]

I know that the stereotypical Sanders supporter might be a college kid with no previous investment in politics, but some of us have been involved with the Democratic Party for a while. I've seen plenty of people "loyal to the Democratic Party" fail to deliver on the promise of a progressive agenda time and time again, despite promises to voters. At least Sanders has (for the most part) the voting record to back up the idea that he's committed to progressive values, whereas many Democrats will turn on their voters when it suits them politically. I'm tired of the insistence that we can't run people because they're too far left, and then the more "electable" Democrat loses anyway. I'm also tired of seeing Republican-lite candidates get lauded as heroes.

Isn't it more important that he caucuses with the Democrats, doesn't fail the Democrats when they need him, and always endorses the Democratic candidate than it is that he simply isn't a registered Democrat? Would Jim Webb, who is a registered Democrat, but rejects most progressive principles and didn't even support Clinton, be preferable?

These kinds of comments frustrate me so much.  Part of me is genuinely sympathetic to what you're saying.  I too wish we lived in a world where the morally pure could just speak truth to power and then utopia descend from on high.  But politics is not a morality play!  Does every Democratic politician remain steadfast, loyal, and true to progressive principles at all times?  Of course not.  Good politicians are necessarily opportunists and compromisers--that's how politics works.  And yet, despite all the inconstancy and double-dealing of individual politicians, despite the constant compromises and set-backs, the party as a whole has been dragging this country ever leftward for the last 125 years.  We're not constantly being betrayed--progress is just really, really hard and tedious work.  There's a Max Weber quote I'm sure you've heard before:  "Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.  It takes both passion and perspective."  And it's true--politics is strong, and slow, and boring.  The party faithful have the perspective to see that; the Bernie faithful have all of the passion but none of the perspective.

Anyway, I'm glad Sanders caucuses and votes with Democrats--that's certainly preferable to the alternative.  I just wish he, and his devotees, would recognize that the Democratic Party is not the enemy.  It's home.

I never said that the Democratic Party is the enemy. It'd be hard to explain my voting history if I actually believed that. I'm saying that ideology means more to me than simply whether or not someone is a registered Democrat. I get that no politician is perfect. Bernie isn't perfect, and I get that they're all going to be a bit opportunist at times. I know that politics is slow-moving at times, and real progress takes time, but I at least want a nominee who will make a concerted effort to move the needle, won't go back on their promises when push comes to shove, and won't back down at the first sign of push-back in the name of "compromise." And while progress has been made on some fronts recently, in the age of Trump, the Overton Window has been stampeding to the right.

Now, if someone like Gillibrand won the nomination, would I vote for her? Absolutely. Especially with Trump on the ballot, I wouldn't have to think twice about that. However, the fact that she's clearly positioning herself to the left despite her history suggesting that she has not been anywhere near as progressive as she's portraying herself certainly rubs me the wrong way, and in a primary, I'll certainly go for Warren or Sanders over her.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

According to this website, every other declared major Democratic is more progressive than Bernie Sanders.

Harris, Warren & Gillibrand all have a more progressive record than Bernie.

SOURCE: https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

[MAINEiac4434]

According to this website, every other declared major Democratic is more progressive than Bernie Sanders.

Harris, Warren & Gillibrand all have a more progressive record than Bernie.

SOURCE: https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

Tf is this random website

[GoTfan]

According to this website, every other declared major Democratic is more progressive than Bernie Sanders.

Harris, Warren & Gillibrand all have a more progressive record than Bernie.

SOURCE: https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

Tf is this random website

I'm instantly skeptical of a site that proclaims Gilibrand and Harris and more left-wing than Sanders.

[GoTfan]

Young and fresh-faced Beto O'Rourke will steal his shine!

O'Rourke's a ex-three term Congressman who's only qualification is that he made a race against Ted Cruz.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Young and fresh-faced Beto O'Rourke will steal his shine!

O'Rourke's a ex-three term Congressman who's only qualification is that he made a race against Ted Cruz.

More experience than the current President! 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Young and fresh-faced Beto O'Rourke will steal his shine!

O'Rourke's a ex-three term Congressman who's only qualification is that he made a race against Ted Cruz.

And Obama was a first term senator whose only qualification was beating Alan Keyes.

[GoTfan]

Young and fresh-faced Beto O'Rourke will steal his shine!

O'Rourke's a ex-three term Congressman who's only qualification is that he made a race against Ted Cruz.

And Obama was a first term senator whose only qualification was beating Alan Keyes.

Yeah, if you can't spot the difference between O'Rourke and Obama, then I don't know what to do.

And no, I do not mean their skin colour before someone decides to call me racist.

[Bidenworth2020]

Looking forward to all the BernieBros refusing to vote for some equally progressive dem when Bernie loses the primary.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Young and fresh-faced Beto O'Rourke will steal his shine!

O'Rourke's a ex-three term Congressman who's only qualification is that he made a race against Ted Cruz.

And Obama was a first term senator whose only qualification was beating Alan Keyes.

Yeah, if you can't spot the difference between O'Rourke and Obama, then I don't know what to do.

And no, I do not mean their skin colour before someone decides to call me racist.

Please inform us.

Looking forward to all the BernieBros refusing to vote for some equally progressive dem when Bernie loses the primary.

That's because most of them aren't Democrats. They are extreme leftists whose only goal was to hijack the party and now that they have failed there is no reason for them to support the eventual nominee.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Looking forward to all the BernieBros refusing to vote for some equally progressive dem when Bernie loses the primary.

[GoTfan]

Looking forward to all the BernieBros refusing to vote for some equally progressive dem when Bernie loses the primary.

It's been repeated countless times, but I'll say it again: More Sanders 2016 supporters voted for Clinton that Clinton 2008 supporters voted for Obama.

[Jersey Jimmy]

https://twitter.com/JediofGallifrey/status/1089291084000346112