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

[Shadows]

Warren has a long history of twisting reality to her advantage. It's no coincidence that this falsehood emerges in a moment of desperation. Only a fool would believe her.

She chose her ego over the movement. Now the movement is in serious, serious danger because of her betrayal.

How does the press report regarding a closed door meeting between her & Bernie 1 day before the Iowa Debate? How?

No1 knows about this story. Bernie calls it flat out false. His campaign manager calls it an outrageous lie & asks Warren to denounce it. If this was true, why was this story not told a year back? Why is this "Fake" story being leaked 1 day before the Iowa Debate.

Why is this coincidental with Warren's push to win more female voters & his push against Bernie? This is taking politics to the sewer.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I will definitely be tuned in for the debate! 👀

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

If she thinks we'll forget this in a few years, she'll be in a rude ****ing awakening when AOC takes the stage.

[Shadows]

You see, this is what irks me. Besides the fact that he probably didn't even say this (or even if he did, it was likely an articulate discussion outlining the well-documented handicaps that certain groups of people face when running for office), there's a lot of people taking Warren's side who don't even support her simply because she's not Bernie, who are also going around yelling "Biden is the most electable!" - because he does on average about one point better than Sanders in hypothetical GE polling.

Yet - and admittedly based on a handful of old studies we have - the conclusions from those studies showed that women earn 1-2 points less on average than men among identical electorates.

So which is it? Do we care about electability or do we care about making a statement? If ruling out Sanders as an electable candidate because he's polling a point or so behind Biden in polls months before the election, then shouldn't an even forceful argument be made against Warren - who is not only demonstrably doing far worse in this kind of polling, but is also potentially subject to her own handicap by virtue of being female?

At least be consistent. Note: if you say it doesn't matter or that it shouldn't matter, then you're explicitly arguing that sexism is politics is dead.

I think Warren after dropping out after NH will herself admit that what said was probably not true & Bernie told the truth.

The problem here is different. It is not if it is true or not. It is also why this reported by the media if it was not leaked by Warren because there was no1 else in the room. She chose to weaponize a private conversation 1 year back & leak it to the media 1 year before the Iowa Debate when Bernie had all the momentum & was going after Biden.

And the supposed conversation as per Bernie is "False". We can do the "He said" & "She said" but to leak parts of a private conversation (Maybe even twist & lie about it) 1 year after & 1 day before the Iowa Debate is vile. Now this entire debate will be about Warren & Sanders which is precisely what she wants.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Warren has a long history of twisting reality to her advantage. It's no coincidence that this falsehood emerges in a moment of desperation. Only a fool would believe her.

She chose her ego over the movement. Now the movement is in serious, serious danger because of her betrayal.

How does the press report regarding a closed door meeting between her & Bernie 1 day before the Iowa Debate? How?

No1 knows about this story. Bernie calls it flat out false. His campaign manager calls it an outrageous lie & asks Warren to denounce it. If this was true, why was this story not told a year back? Why is this "Fake" story being leaked 1 day before the Iowa Debate.

Why is this coincidental with Warren's push to win more female voters & his push against Bernie? This is taking politics to the sewer.

Answer Shadows' questions, cowards!

[soundchaser]

God, I’m so ing ready for this primary to be over.

[Beet]

You see, this is what irks me. Besides the fact that he probably didn't even say this (or even if he did, it was likely an articulate discussion outlining the well-documented handicaps that certain groups of people face when running for office), there's a lot of people taking Warren's side who don't even support her simply because she's not Bernie, who are also going around yelling "Biden is the most electable!" - because he does on average about one point better than Sanders in hypothetical GE polling.

Yet - and admittedly based on a handful of old studies we have - the conclusions from those studies showed that women earn 1-2 points less on average than men among identical electorates.

So which is it? Do we care about electability or do we care about making a statement? If ruling out Sanders as an electable candidate because he's polling a point or so behind Biden in polls months before the election, then shouldn't an even forceful argument be made against Warren - who is not only demonstrably doing far worse in this kind of polling, but is also potentially subject to her own handicap by virtue of being female?

At least be consistent. Note: if you say it doesn't matter or that it shouldn't matter, then you're explicitly arguing that sexism is politics is dead.

Sexism in politics is no more dead than racism in politics is dead. That being said, using it to argue we shouldn't nominate a woman is as ridiculous as using racism to argue that Barack Obama shouldn't have been nominated. Clinton nearly beat Trump and she ran an awful campaign, had the e-mail thing, getting hacked, and her own overconfidence to deal with. Yet she still won by 3 million votes. Sanders shouldn't be ruled out because he's polling a point or two behind behind Biden, either.

The point is that when primary electorates are too explicitly focused on electability -- such as when Republicans nominated Romney in 2012, McCain 2008, or when the Democrats chose Clinton or Kerry, the candidates ironically tend to lose. Meanwhile, all of the winning candidates in recent times have been nominated as the less or least electable candidates in their fields (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump). In other words, primary electorates are bad at judging electability. Often choosing a more inspiring candidate works out better than expected.

[Adam Griffin]

You see, this is what irks me. Besides the fact that he probably didn't even say this (or even if he did, it was likely an articulate discussion outlining the well-documented handicaps that certain groups of people face when running for office), there's a lot of people taking Warren's side who don't even support her simply because she's not Bernie, who are also going around yelling "Biden is the most electable!" - because he does on average about one point better than Sanders in hypothetical GE polling.

Yet - and admittedly based on a handful of old studies we have - the conclusions from those studies showed that women earn 1-2 points less on average than men among identical electorates.

So which is it? Do we care about electability or do we care about making a statement? If ruling out Sanders as an electable candidate because he's polling a point or so behind Biden in polls months before the election, then shouldn't an even forceful argument be made against Warren - who is not only demonstrably doing far worse in this kind of polling, but is also potentially subject to her own handicap by virtue of being female?

At least be consistent. Note: if you say it doesn't matter or that it shouldn't matter, then you're explicitly arguing that sexism is politics is dead.

Sexism in politics is no more dead than racism in politics is dead. That being said, using it to argue we shouldn't nominate a woman is as ridiculous as using racism to argue that Barack Obama shouldn't have been nominated. Clinton nearly beat Trump and she ran an awful campaign, had the e-mail thing, getting hacked, and her own overconfidence to deal with. Yet she still won by 3 million votes. Sanders shouldn't be ruled out because he's polling a point or two behind behind Biden, either.

The point is that when primary electorates are too explicitly focused on electability -- such as when Republicans nominated Romney in 2012, McCain 2008, or when the Democrats chose Clinton or Kerry, the candidates ironically tend to lose. Meanwhile, all of the winning candidates in recent times have been nominated as the less or least electable candidates in their fields (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump). In other words, primary electorates are bad at judging electability. Often choosing a more inspiring candidate works out better than expected.

I really don't disagree with anything you say, but again - for those who are outraged about this and who also love to make the "electability" argument - there is much they should consider with regard to their argument's consistency. As both racism and sexism still live, both female candidates and candidates of color still face electoral disadvantages.

Ultimately, Democratic candidates who have won presidential elections as of late did so because they 1) were perceived as "authentic" and 2) absolutely lit fires under the American people's a[inks]es - so much so that they overcame any disadvantages or handicaps they may have had. All of the candidates you mentioned (including the Republican ones) both had tangible handicaps and unique gifts that inspired unique groups of voters to compensate for it. If you or anybody else honestly believes that Warren can spark enough enthusiasm to counteract her handicaps, then that's a fair argument that can be made. Otherwise...

[Eraserhead]

Ideally they can sort of hash this out at the debate in a respectful manner. It's not gonna help either of them, it's only going to help Biden.

[redjohn]

Elizabeth Warren has been shown to be a pathological liar (lying about being Native American for much of her life, lying about supporting M4A, etc). Today's disgusting smear also proves that she is a traitor to progressives. Unfortunately, she proved me wrong this time. I thought Warren was a progressive, I have had her as my first choice for much of this cycle and then my second choice for the past few months.

I won't vote for Elizabeth Warren. In the strange case that the primary race is Biden vs Warren, I will vote for Biden. Hugely disappointed in Liz. For her to completely misconstrue a conversation with Sanders in the sole attempt to smear her friend just proves that she's the backstabbing tool some leftists have been accusing her of being this whole time.

[Shadows]

Ideally they can sort of hash this out at the debate in a respectful manner. It's not gonna help either of them, it's only going to help Biden.

Which is probably what Warren wants. I wouldn't be surprised if being VP of Biden was on the table given that she didn't criticize him for anything in this cycle. Either ways, this is going to help Biden when the debate was about Biden trying to erase his Iraq War vote or about his support for Social Security cuts.

It has damaged Bernie & has helped Biden & won't help Warren 1 bit. Not 1 bit. This was Bernie's last chance to criticize Joe's record before Iowa & he was doing it well & this has killed the entire debate.

I am sure Bernie is overjoyed to see this kind of Lies & accusations 1 day before the Iowa Debate from her friend Elizabeth Warren about closed door conversations held 1 year back. There is no going back from this.

Warren has destroyed the chances of a Bernie-Warren ticket. She really has.

[ProudModerate2]

Good God, Atlas is going nuts over this Warren-Bernie story.
And HockeyDude is having a conniption fit over it.
Why don't we all just wait to see how they handle the situation on stage tomorrow.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Good God, Atlas is going nuts over this Warren-Bernie story.
And HockeyDude is having a conniption fit over it.
Why don't we all just wait to see how they handle the situation on stage tomorrow.

As he should (and every other Bernie supporter on here). The woman who has claimed to be fighting for us for 8 years betrayed us today. If there wasn't any doubt when she pushed Medicare for All to the second half of her term in favor of Petecare, there sure as hell wasn't any now.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Good God, Atlas is going nuts over this Warren-Bernie story.
And HockeyDude is having a conniption fit over it.
Why don't we all just wait to see how they handle the situation on stage tomorrow.

As he should (and every other Bernie supporter on here). The woman who has claimed to be fighting for us for 8 years betrayed us today. If there wasn't any doubt when she pushed Medicare for All to the second half of her term in favor of Petecare, there sure as hell wasn't any now.

You guys already chanted "WE TRUSTED YOU!" over her speech at the convention in 2016.  I don't think anyone really believed you wouldn't burn the bridge again at the first opportunity.

[It’s so Joever]

It’s kinda ironic how the same Sanders supporters who ardently supported Christine Ford (which was a good thing) are now complaining about “suspect timing” and are calling Warren an opportunistic liar. Literally a year ago, the Republicans were saying these things about a different women.

[redjohn]

Good God, Atlas is going nuts over this Warren-Bernie story.
And HockeyDude is having a conniption fit over it.
Why don't we all just wait to see how they handle the situation on stage tomorrow.

As he should (and every other Bernie supporter on here). The woman who has claimed to be fighting for us for 8 years betrayed us today. If there wasn't any doubt when she pushed Medicare for All to the second half of her term in favor of Petecare, there sure as hell wasn't any now.

You guys already chanted "WE TRUSTED YOU!" over her speech at the convention in 2016.  I don't think anyone really believed you wouldn't burn the bridge again at the first opportunity.

She was my top pick for the majority of this cycle (see my first post on Atlas, ever). She lost me with her lack of trustworthiness and a pattern of dishonesty that has become very apparent. Complete shame. This move has made me really dislike her.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

It’s kinda ironic how the same Sanders supporters who ardently supported Christine Ford (which was a good thing) are now complaining about “suspect timing” and are calling Warren an opportunistic liar. Literally a year ago, the Republicans were saying these things about a different women.

There's a difference between a credible accusation of sexual assault and a banal throwaway comment (both of which I believe happened).

That's part of what I find to be so bizarre about this story. In any reasonable context this isn't a newsworthy comment. But it's likely to energize and elicit defensive responses from certain voters. If er campaign had anything to do with it, it's highly cynical and distorting.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

As long as the Progressives duke and it allow rational candidates to come out on top I'm fine with it

[redjohn]

Comparing Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault to Bernie telling Warren that Trump will use her being a woman against her is asinine and a really bad comparison.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If she thinks we'll forget this in a few years, she'll be in a rude ****ing awakening when AOC takes the stage.

Dude, AOC would be lucky to finish in the top four in even a single state if she ever ran for President.  Also, how about we wait and see how they each handle this at the next debate?  I mean, Bernie Sanders isn't the entire progressive movement

[Beet]

If she thinks we'll forget this in a few years, she'll be in a rude ****ing awakening when AOC takes the stage.

Dude, AOC would be lucky to finish in the top four in even a single state if she ever ran for President.

I mean, there are really only a few possibilities for AOC's future.

1. A moderate wins the D nomination and loses to Trump. In this case, it sets up AOC to run in 2024. But I don't think most progressives would be too happy with that scenario. For one, the Supreme Court would be something like 7-2 conservative by that point and could just declare everything AOC tries to do unconstitutional even if she wins.

2. A progressive (Sanders or Warren) wins the D nomination and loses to Trump. In that case, it again sets up AOC to run in 2024. But besides have all of the negatives of scenario #1, it has the additional negative that D's will probably want a moderate in 2024 after a progressive lost.

3. A moderate wins the D nomination and wins. In this case, the moderate will probably run for re-election in 2024, or their VP is. In that case, AOC would not be able to take the lead until 2028, regardless of how the 2024 election turns out. Further, by that time the Democrats would face either running against an incumbent (with all the disadvantages that entails) or the eight-year itch, in which the opposite party typically wins the GE.

4. A progressive (Sanders or Warren) wins the D nomination and wins. In this case, all of the same disadvantages as scenario #3 exist, with the added fact that a progressive president won't seem so revolutionary after we've already had one. AOC would be running as the establishment candidate at best, as progressive try #2 after a failed progressive presidency ended in 2024 at worst.

So in other words, there aren't really any good scenarios for AOC's national future, other than where she already is.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

It’s kinda ironic how the same Sanders supporters who ardently supported Christine Ford (which was a good thing) are now complaining about “suspect timing” and are calling Warren an opportunistic liar. Literally a year ago, the Republicans were saying these things about a different women.

"An accusation of sexism is equivalent to accusations of sexual assault"

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

It’s kinda ironic how the same Sanders supporters who ardently supported Christine Ford (which was a good thing) are now complaining about “suspect timing” and are calling Warren an opportunistic liar. Literally a year ago, the Republicans were saying these things about a different women.

"An accusation of sexism is equivalent to accusations of sexual assault"

*SNIP, modded*

It's a shame that after years of knowing me and my character, you'd stoop so low as to make such a vile accusation against me. I'd expect this from MacArthur, but I didn't expect this from you.

[Shadows]

It’s kinda ironic how the same Sanders supporters who ardently supported Christine Ford (which was a good thing) are now complaining about “suspect timing” and are calling Warren an opportunistic liar. Literally a year ago, the Republicans were saying these things about a different women.

No they are not. They are angry @ a good man who has been fighting for women for 30-35 years arguing about women should run for Presidency in the 1980s being smeared falsely. They are angry because Sanders wanted Warren to run in 2015. While Sanders supported women, Warren supported Republicans & Reagan who waged a war on women & single mothers.

They are angry because Warren has a history of lies - From her Native American heritage to ambassadorship & so on. This is about a good man & one of the most pro-woman candidates who has the least sexist voter base (Based on actual polling data from 2016) being smeared.

This is how dirty politics is & how power hungry people get. This is also coincidental with Castro & Warren's team viciously attacking Bernie & with her numerous interviews about dating/fashion etc & her wooing the female vote.

It is cheap & disgusting.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

It’s kinda ironic how the same Sanders supporters who ardently supported Christine Ford (which was a good thing) are now complaining about “suspect timing” and are calling Warren an opportunistic liar. Literally a year ago, the Republicans were saying these things about a different women.

"An accusation of sexism is equivalent to accusations of sexual assault"

Somehow I think you would not be happy with Warren if she had accused Sanders of sexual assault.

It's a shame that after years of knowing me and my character, you'd stoop so low as to make such a vile accusation against me. I'd expect this from MacArthur, but I didn't expect this from you.

*SNIP*

Public, high-profile psychotic breakdown that gets me demodded: *crickets*

Calling out the candidate you like for her smears, a disagreement on the importance of someone saying a woman can't win an election: Proof of my mental instability, and it must mean that I approve of sexual assault if it's from someone I like.

Beet logic, ladies and gentlemen.