Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread v2 (pg 77 - declares victory in Iowa)

[Eraserhead]

I still don’t get why Bernie does so poorly with black voters.

Because living for most of his adult life in one of the whitest states in the union he doesn't know how to appeal to these voters.

Yeah, I guess that's why he does poorly with hispanics too. Oh wait...

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I still don’t get why Bernie does so poorly with black voters.

Because living for most of his adult life in one of the whitest states in the union he doesn't know how to appeal to these voters.

You need to find better things to do with your time than cry about Bernie Sanders, dude.

[Zaybay]

I still don’t get why Bernie does so poorly with black voters. Like I completely understand why especially older black voters are drawn to Biden but I just don’t get why Bernie does as bad as he does. It’s not like he’s mayor Pete and comes off stiff and awkward when discussing civil rights issues. The man is very woke on the issues and launched his political activism with the civil rights movement. So there has been just this disconnect and I don’t get it.

I've seen an age argument used for this question. The Southern African American electorate is significantly older compared to the White electorate in the Democratic primary, and considering Sanders does poorly with older voters to begin with, its possible that he's hitting a brick wall largely due to age.

The opposite is true for Hispanics. They tend to be significantly younger than the White electorate, which may explain Sanders' ability to appeal to the group.

[Crumpets]

I still don’t get why Bernie does so poorly with black voters. Like I completely understand why especially older black voters are drawn to Biden but I just don’t get why Bernie does as bad as he does. It’s not like he’s mayor Pete and comes off stiff and awkward when discussing civil rights issues. The man is very woke on the issues and launched his political activism with the civil rights movement. So there has been just this disconnect and I don’t get it.

The best explanation I've heard (admittedly as a Bernie critic) is that those with experience fighting for civil rights have been let down before by white people promising major reforms, and know actual fundamental change takes significant time. Hence his "revolution" rhetoric is viewed very skeptically by a large chunk of the black electorate.

That being said, it's clear Bernie has made some progress since 2016 in this regard, so I don't want to be all down in the dumps on him.

[Eraserhead]

I still don’t get why Bernie does so poorly with black voters. Like I completely understand why especially older black voters are drawn to Biden but I just don’t get why Bernie does as bad as he does. It’s not like he’s mayor Pete and comes off stiff and awkward when discussing civil rights issues. The man is very woke on the issues and launched his political activism with the civil rights movement. So there has been just this disconnect and I don’t get it.

The best explanation I've heard (admittedly as a Bernie critic) is that those with experience fighting for civil rights have been let down before by white people promising major reforms, and know actual fundamental change takes significant time. Hence his "revolution" rhetoric is viewed very skeptically by a large chunk of the black electorate.

That being said, it's clear Bernie has made some progress since 2016 in this regard, so I don't want to be all down in the dumps on him.

Now that's some fair analysis from a "Bernie critic", thank you!

[Beet]

Like a super PAC, which is shorthand for super political action committee, Our Revolution can raise unlimited sums from wealthy patrons that dwarf the limits faced by candidates and conventional PACs. Unlike a super PAC, however, the group doesn’t have to disclose its donors — a stream of revenue commonly referred to as “dark money.”

Now, with less than one month to go before the Iowa caucuses, Our Revolution appears to be skirting campaign finance law, which forbids groups founded by federal candidates and officeholders from using large donations to finance federal election activity, including Sanders' 2020 bid.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/07/us/politics/ap-us-election-2020-sanders-our-revolution-1st-ld-writethru.html

[GeneralMacArthur]

Like a super PAC, which is shorthand for super political action committee, Our Revolution can raise unlimited sums from wealthy patrons that dwarf the limits faced by candidates and conventional PACs. Unlike a super PAC, however, the group doesn’t have to disclose its donors — a stream of revenue commonly referred to as “dark money.”

Now, with less than one month to go before the Iowa caucuses, Our Revolution appears to be skirting campaign finance law, which forbids groups founded by federal candidates and officeholders from using large donations to finance federal election activity, including Sanders' 2020 bid.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/01/07/us/politics/ap-us-election-2020-sanders-our-revolution-1st-ld-writethru.html

Nina Turner has been the president of Our Revolution for a while.  She is now the national co-chair of the Sanders campaign.

I'm sure there was absolutely zero illegal coordination between the campaign and the Super PAC that the candidate started and the national co-chair ran, though.

Come to think of it, when did Nina stop being president of Our Revolution?  The Wikipedia page for the Super PAC still lists her as its president, and while the website has removed her from its "Our Board" section, it has also removed the "president" position entirely.  Did they eliminate the president position after Nina joined the Sanders campaign, or is she still involved and simply not listed on the website?  Obviously her being involved with Our Revolution in any way whatsoever would be illegal.

Incidentally, the Our Revolution website has a "donors" page but it returns a 500 error.  Using the Internet Archive we can see that it was previously a list of names without any contribution details, so essentially useless as far as deciphering who/what is funding the organization.  https://web.archive.org/web/20190403215236/https://ourrevolution.com/donors/

[GeneralMacArthur]

It's worth noting that National Nurses United, as it did in 2016, continues to function as a Super PAC for Sanders while collaborating directly with the Sanders campaign.

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/vetthebern/status/1215115147728973825

[GoTfan]

https://twitter.com/vetthebern/status/1215115147728973825

It's worth pointing out that the Twitter account posting this is explicitly ant-Sanders. This is their literal description:

A project of The People's View, Vetting Bernie will expose why Bernie Sanders is unfit to be the Democratic nominee or to serve as president.

Sounds like a Fox News version of 'Fair and Balanced' to me.

[Eraserhead]

https://twitter.com/vetthebern/status/1215115147728973825

Hey, it's General MacArthur's twitter account!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

https://twitter.com/vetthebern/status/1215115147728973825

Sounds totally legit.

[Florida Man for Crime]

It is not true, I DO know who the one person is that Bernie Sanders took YUGE amounts of money from.

That is right, it is from the most vicious anti-semite ever known in history.

That's right, from JEREMY CORBYN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell Bernie Sanders to denounce Jeremy Corbyn, return the money, and root out anti-semitism from his supporters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GeneralMacArthur]

I don't really care that Bernie Sanders took $218,000, nor do I care who he took it from.  There are so many ways to raise unlimited political money in this day and age that I don't really see anything wrong with candidates taking advantage of it.  If you refuse to, you're tying one hand behind your back, because the Republicans are spending billions against us.

I do, however, think it's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy for Sanders to operate a dark-money Super PAC that accepts $218,000 from a single individual, while simultaneously making it a core plank of his campaign that other candidates are fundamentally, irredeemably corrupt for doing big-dollar fundraisers or taking donations from wealthy individuals.

It also frustrates me that Sanders has truly f**ked the party on this issue by making financial self-sabotage a purity test (especially for downballot candidates) when he himself isn't adhering to his own purity test.  I mean this was like the #1 purity test last cycle -- no PAC money, no millionaire donations, no donations from employees in loathsome fields like energy/medicine/finance -- and plenty of downballot candidates had fundraising disadvantages relative to their GOP opponents due to adherence to this purity test.  One wonders if any of the close House races could have been won if Sanders had allowed the party to raise more money, the exact same way that he's doing with Our Revolution.

[Hollywood]

https://twitter.com/vetthebern/status/1215115147728973825

Sounds totally legit.

This is ridiculous.  Two un-named donors is a shadowy group?  I think you're thinking about the Clinton Foundation.

From 2016 to 2018, this so-called "shadow group" hasn't even raised $1 million for their shadowy organization, and most of their donations went to employee salaries and rent.  There's  two donations in question that occur in tax year 2018, : 1) $195,000 and 2) $218,000. 

This is schedule B of the 990 form, which was uploaded in November by the wife of a Wall Street banker that donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign.  Missing is the rest of sections in Form 990, which would straighten out how the organization is directed as well as how the money was spent. 
https://twitter.com/m_mendozaferrer/status/1215070620289064962/photo/2

[Hollywood]

I don't really care that Bernie Sanders took $218,000, nor do I care who he took it from.  There are so many ways to raise unlimited political money in this day and age that I don't really see anything wrong with candidates taking advantage of it.  If you refuse to, you're tying one hand behind your back, because the Republicans are spending billions against us.

I do, however, think it's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy for Sanders to operate a dark-money Super PAC that accepts $218,000 from a single individual, while simultaneously making it a core plank of his campaign that other candidates are fundamentally, irredeemably corrupt for doing big-dollar fundraisers or taking donations from wealthy individuals.

It also frustrates me that Sanders has truly f**ked the party on this issue by making financial self-sabotage a purity test (especially for downballot candidates) when he himself isn't adhering to his own purity test.  I mean this was like the #1 purity test last cycle -- no PAC money, no millionaire donations, no donations from employees in loathsome fields like energy/medicine/finance -- and plenty of downballot candidates had fundraising disadvantages relative to their GOP opponents due to adherence to this purity test.  One wonders if any of the close House races could have been won if Sanders had allowed the party to raise more money, the exact same way that he's doing with Our Revolution.

He didn't take $218,000.  The story is a crock of s#!t.  Sanders is not operating any dark-money Super PAC, and any allegation that he is directing donations into the organization is frivolous.  We don't even know if he's directly benefitting from these large contributions, because an "independent board" governs all money exceeding $5,000 and no evidence has been provided to indicate 501(c)(3) expenditures.   All that exists is a three-page schedule indicated that the funds had been donated, but nothing indicates that the funds weren't all spent on employee salaries.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I don't really care that Bernie Sanders took $218,000, nor do I care who he took it from.  There are so many ways to raise unlimited political money in this day and age that I don't really see anything wrong with candidates taking advantage of it.  If you refuse to, you're tying one hand behind your back, because the Republicans are spending billions against us.

I do, however, think it's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy for Sanders to operate a dark-money Super PAC that accepts $218,000 from a single individual, while simultaneously making it a core plank of his campaign that other candidates are fundamentally, irredeemably corrupt for doing big-dollar fundraisers or taking donations from wealthy individuals.

It also frustrates me that Sanders has truly f**ked the party on this issue by making financial self-sabotage a purity test (especially for downballot candidates) when he himself isn't adhering to his own purity test.  I mean this was like the #1 purity test last cycle -- no PAC money, no millionaire donations, no donations from employees in loathsome fields like energy/medicine/finance -- and plenty of downballot candidates had fundraising disadvantages relative to their GOP opponents due to adherence to this purity test.  One wonders if any of the close House races could have been won if Sanders had allowed the party to raise more money, the exact same way that he's doing with Our Revolution.

He didn't take $218,000.  The story is a crock of s#!t.  Sanders is not operating any dark-money Super PAC, and any allegation that he is directing donations into the organization is frivolous.  We don't even know if he's directly benefitting from these large contributions, because an "independent board" governs all money exceeding $5,000 and no evidence has been provided to indicate 501(c)(3) expenditures.   All that exists is a three-page schedule indicated that the funds had been donated, but nothing indicates that the funds weren't all spent on employee salaries.

I'm part of OR and it's just a loose collection of local progressive groups that was spun off of the 2016 campaign... of course the people in it are Sanders supporters.  But the dark money operation he wants it to be?  LOL!  I wish we were a tenth as organized.

[Hollywood]

I don't really care that Bernie Sanders took $218,000, nor do I care who he took it from.  There are so many ways to raise unlimited political money in this day and age that I don't really see anything wrong with candidates taking advantage of it.  If you refuse to, you're tying one hand behind your back, because the Republicans are spending billions against us.

I do, however, think it's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy for Sanders to operate a dark-money Super PAC that accepts $218,000 from a single individual, while simultaneously making it a core plank of his campaign that other candidates are fundamentally, irredeemably corrupt for doing big-dollar fundraisers or taking donations from wealthy individuals.

It also frustrates me that Sanders has truly f**ked the party on this issue by making financial self-sabotage a purity test (especially for downballot candidates) when he himself isn't adhering to his own purity test.  I mean this was like the #1 purity test last cycle -- no PAC money, no millionaire donations, no donations from employees in loathsome fields like energy/medicine/finance -- and plenty of downballot candidates had fundraising disadvantages relative to their GOP opponents due to adherence to this purity test.  One wonders if any of the close House races could have been won if Sanders had allowed the party to raise more money, the exact same way that he's doing with Our Revolution.

He didn't take $218,000.  The story is a crock of s#!t.  Sanders is not operating any dark-money Super PAC, and any allegation that he is directing donations into the organization is frivolous.  We don't even know if he's directly benefitting from these large contributions, because an "independent board" governs all money exceeding $5,000 and no evidence has been provided to indicate 501(c)(3) expenditures.   All that exists is a three-page schedule indicated that the funds had been donated, but nothing indicates that the funds weren't all spent on employee salaries.

I'm part of OR and it's just a loose collection of local progressive groups that was spun off of the 2016 campaign... of course the people in it are Sanders supporters.  But the dark money operation he wants it to be?  LOL!  I wish we were a tenth as organized.  

I don't disagree with you about these deranged whine'n voters, but I think you guys need to turn the table and have some fun with the opposition.  I don't want to have decide between status quo Joe and DT this November.  Trump served his purpose and now it's time for change, but that doesn't mean voting for a candidate who advocates for Bush-era policies while his brain turns a corrupt politician that doesn't care about any of the voters into some Weinstein-Caligula monster.  

[GeneralMacArthur]

Oh what a surprise, the biggest troll on this forum is a member of Our Revolution.

Here are the facts.

1) Our Revolution exists purely as a mechanism for electing Bernie Sanders.  That's it.  That is its sole purpose.

2) Our Revolution is entirely composed of people who were, or are now, part of the Sanders campaign and/or his inner circle.  Its president is Nina Turner, the national chair of his campaign.

3) Our Revolution is a Super PAC that is able to accept unlimited donations from folks well above the $2,800 limit imposed on donations to presidential campaigns.  And, as we can see from direct, primary source evidence, it has (Hollywood calls it a "crock of sh#t" without any actual evidence).

4) Our Revolution does not reveal who donations come from.  I honestly don't care about this, and wouldn't be any happier if I knew that the $218,000 came from Susan Sarandon, but this fact is what makes it not just a Super PAC but a "dark money" Super PAC.

So we have a dark money [4] Super PAC [3] to elect Bernie Sanders [1] that was created by Bernie Sanders and his campaign [2].  Does anyone want to contest any of these 4 points?

If Bernie wanted to stand on his principles that any donation above $2,800 makes you a corrupt slave to corporations, he could have had OR reject any individual contributions above $2,800.  Instead, he let people donate unlimited amounts.  According to his own campaign rhetoric, this makes him corrupt.  I'm not the one saying this, he's the one saying this.

If Bernie hadn't spent the last 4 years telling us that the Democratic Party is totally 100% corrupt because we use Super PACs and accept donations from millionaires, I wouldn't give a sh*t that he's running a Super PAC that accepts donations from millionaires.  The point of this story isn't the donations, it's his own hypocrisy when he's supposed to be the super-pure man of principle.

From 2016 to 2018, this so-called "shadow group" hasn't even raised $1 million for their shadowy organization

Doesn't matter.  Bernie has spent years accusing people of corruption over fundraising practices that amounted to far less.  Also I seem to recall the entire internet having a year-long freakout when David Brock spent $1 million on "shadowy organization" Correct The Record.

most of their donations went to employee salaries and rent

The entire purpose of Our Revolution is to elect Bernie Sanders president.  It's essentially an auxiliary campaign organization, and those salaries are campaign staff salaries.  That is spending that directly aids his campaign.

[bilaps]

Not true of course. OR is a group that helps candidates down ballot, it certainly doesn't have a sole purpose of electing Bernie.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Not true of course. OR is a group that helps candidates down ballot, it certainly doesn't have a sole purpose of electing Bernie.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Not true of course. OR is a group that helps candidates down ballot, it certainly doesn't have a sole purpose of electing Bernie.

They haven't done that since 2018.  The group had zero endorsements in 2019 and has zero for 2020.

Ever since the midterms ended, the only thing they've been doing is helping Sanders become president.

That said, the candidates they endorsed and the events they held in 2017-18 were solely for the advancement of Bernie Sanders' personal agenda.  It says as much right on the website.  Trying to act like you can separate Our Revolution from Bernie Sanders is futile because OR itself doesn't make any such effort.  They are proud to be a weapon in the hands of Sanders.

You guys can keep insulting me, though, that will definitely make it non-hypocritical that Bernie and his crew made a Super PAC that raised $218,000 from a single individual.  Go get another poster to change their location to Iran and take a break from Marx to post "lol MacArthur is so dumb."  You know once you get ten hate-posts you're automatically right.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Not true of course. OR is a group that helps candidates down ballot, it certainly doesn't have a sole purpose of electing Bernie.

They haven't done that since 2018.  The group had zero endorsements in 2019 and has zero for 2020.

Ever since the midterms ended, the only thing they've been doing is helping Sanders become president.

You mean the last time OR endorsed candidates was... in literally the last midterm election?  As in, before the 2020 races for Congress have even started?  Weird!

That said, the candidates they endorsed and the events they held in 2017-18 were solely for the advancement of Bernie Sanders' personal agenda.  It says as much right on the website.  Trying to act like you can separate Our Revolution from Bernie Sanders is futile because OR itself doesn't make any such effort.  They are proud to be a weapon in the hands of Sanders.

So you admit that they did endorse other candidates.  But now the problem is that those candidates happen to support the same things OR supports?  Truly bizarre!

You guys can keep insulting me, though, that will definitely make it non-hypocritical that Bernie and his crew made a Super PAC that raised $218,000 from a single individual.  Go get another poster to change their location to Iran and take a break from Marx to post "lol MacArthur is so dumb."  You know once you get ten hate-posts you're automatically right.

To quote one pseudointellectual I've come to know, "They win by making you think you're alone."

[Diabolical Materialism]

Not true of course. OR is a group that helps candidates down ballot, it certainly doesn't have a sole purpose of electing Bernie.

They haven't done that since 2018.  The group had zero endorsements in 2019 and has zero for 2020.

Ever since the midterms ended, the only thing they've been doing is helping Sanders become president.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU ABSOLUTE LIBERAL

[GeneralMacArthur]

To repeat again:

I don't care about a $218,000 donation, I don't care what Our Revolution did with it.  Anyone making jokes about how I think OR is some "shadowy organization raising tons of money" is intentionally mis-representing my argument.

What I care about is hypocrisy.  Sanders has spent decades insisting that everyone except him is corrupt because they take all their money from millionaires and billionaires.  His campaign even says "funded by you (not the billionaires)" on all its media.  Yet he has, through his pet organization that has always functioned as an arm of his movement/campaign, engaged in exactly the same fundraising practices.

In other words, if Pete is hopelessly, cravenly corrupt for raising $2,800 from high-net-worth individuals in a wine cellar, how is Bernie not similarly for corrupt for having his campaign staff operate a Super PAC that raises hundreds of thousands of dollars in individual contributions from presumably high-net-worth individuals?

Is it because Nina Turner was the one spending it, not Bernie himself?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK.

Is it because Our Revolution doesn't explicitly say it's working for Bernie Sanders, even though it obviously is (and it does say that)?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK since no PAC can explicitly coordinate with a candidate.

Is it because the money wasn't raised at an open-to-the-press dinner in Napa Valley?

Or is is just because you like Bernie Sanders and don't like Pete Buttigieg?