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

[Gracile]

I don't understand why Sanders keeps getting criticized for not doing enough for Clinton on the stump. In my view, as a Sanders 2016 supporter, he did far more than he needed to to make a case for her. The audience Sanders was addressing was not going to be won over by gushing Clinton's personal attributes or centrist positions that were popular within her wing of the party. The fear of Trump was probably the most potent force he could have tapped into, and I think it was effective in getting a good number of his supporters to turn out for Clinton or at least not vote third-party. She didn't win, of course, but to pin a big part of her loss on Sanders' supposed lackluster campaigning for her is ignoring the flaws that were innate to her candidacy from the very beginning - particularly the left's distrust of her on various issues. Sanders also could have very well just stayed on the sidelines during the general election (which I'm sure many Clinton supporters would have been similarly angry about), but he didn't because he knew what was at stake.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

I would love it if true Trumpist Republicans forsake the primary in their party for this and allow Weld to squeak by in some states.

You would also love it if Trump lost states like Indiana and Tennessee in the general, which has the same probability as the scenario you just outlined.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I would love it if true Trumpist Republicans forsake the primary in their party for this and allow Weld to squeak by in some states.

You would also love it if Trump lost states like Indiana and Tennessee in the general, which has the same probability as the scenario you just outlined.

I know. That's why I would love it. Most things that make me happy are impossible to happen...

[GeneralMacArthur]

I don't understand why Sanders keeps getting criticized for not doing enough for Clinton on the stump.

He's criticized for it because 25% of his supporters ended up not voting for Clinton, in an election she lost by less than 1% of the vote in three states.

In my view, as a Sanders 2016 supporter, he did far more than he needed to to make a case for her.

You're entitled to your viewpoint, but there is far more that he could (and should) have done, during both the primary and the general, to avert the end result.

The audience Sanders was addressing was not going to be won over by gushing Clinton's personal attributes or centrist positions that were popular within her wing of the party.

Yes, and how did it get to that point.  Because Sanders trashed Clinton on literally every aspect of her record, platform and personality, and tarred her as corrupt and a puppet for billionaires, while also declaring war on the Democratic Party and asserting that they rigged the primary and were similarly corrupt and owned by billionaires.

Then in the general he did little to nothing to take back those assertions or counteract them, while the movement he was so proud of spent the entire election screaming them from the rooftops, which he did nothing to stop.

Then after Trump won, he went back to that movement and fell in with those exact same people who had just spent the last six months trashing Clinton and supporting Jill Stein.  Cenk Uygur, for example, spent all of 2016 trashing Clinton at every opportunity and giving a platform to insane conspiracy theorists like Jimmy Dore.  Bernie could have gone on his show to shoot down those conspiracy theories, tell him he was wrong, and pressure him to stop trashing Clinton.  Instead Bernie didn't say anything, and after the election he was back on his show, letting him run Justice Dems in Bernie's name, and now endorsing him for a house seat.

She didn't win, of course, but to pin a big part of her loss on Sanders' supposed lackluster campaigning for her is ignoring the flaws that were innate to her candidacy from the very beginning - particularly the left's distrust of her on various issues.

How many times does this strawman need to be burned down?  No Clinton supporter on earth, except for some lunatics on Twitter, is saying that Sanders is the only reason Clinton lost. 

Now is this the only reason Clinton lost?  Is Sanders solely responsible for the Clinton loss?  Of course not.  In a campaign that ultimately comes down to 0.7% of the vote in three states, it took a confluence of several different factors to take Clinton down.  If Comey hadn't dropped his phony "reopening" of the Clinton investigation over nothing a week before the election, she would have won.  If the Clinton campaign had focused 100% of their resources in October on solidifying the swing states, instead of getting overconfident and trying to spread themselves thin to help downballot candidates, they would have won.

But the evidence is pretty much incontrovertible that if Sanders had done for Clinton what she did for Obama in 2008, a full-throated endorsement and diligent, devoted effort to defeat Trump, she would have won.  Instead, we got a half-baked "Clinton is bad but she's not as bad as Trump" endorsement, a self-centered book tour disguised as campaigning that barely mentioned Clinton, his former campaign staff absconding to the Green Party, and his former media empire turning extremely anti-Clinton, none of which Bernie did anything to stop.

[Fargobison]

Hewitt is a Never Trump conservative.

He'll write in McMullin or Romney or Kasich.

No, he has gone full MAGA.

[Ebsy]

Why are people in this thread asserting that 25% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump? I've seen no convincing evidence of that figure, and much convincing evidence of a much lower share of his support defecting.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Why are people in this thread asserting that 25% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump? I've seen no convincing evidence of that figure, and much convincing evidence of a much lower share of his support defecting.

I don't think anyone is asserting that.  The assertion is that 25.7% of Sanders supporters didn't vote for Clinton.  A lot of them voted for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Harambe, Giant Meteor, wrote-in Bernie Sanders, or stayed home.

More in this thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=354294.msg7127038#msg7127038

The specific data is in this article:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-was-helped-by-the-neverhillary-vote-what-does-that-mean-for-his-chances-now/
74.3% Clinton
12% Trump
4.5% Stein
3.2% Johnson
2.5% Other
3.5% Didn't Vote

[GeneralMacArthur]

Before anyone comes along and says this was all conservative Sanders supporters coming home, here's some math for y'all.

We only have write-in results from three states (CA, VT, NH).  Those three states collectively represent 9.2M of the 65M votes Clinton received, or about 1/7.  In those three states alone, Bernie Sanders received 111,850 write-in votes.

Meanwhile Clinton lost Michigan by 10,000 votes, Pennsylvania by 45,000, and Wisconsin by 23,000.  If you took the write-in votes for Sanders from just CA, VT, NH and distributed them among MI/WI/PA, they would be enough to swing the election.

Alternatively, let's say that for every 9.2M votes Clinton got, Sanders got 111,850 write-in votes.  Multiply that ratio by how many votes she got in other states, and that's 27,583 votes in Michigan.  Which she lost by 10,000.

That's also 35,578 votes in Pennsylvania, and 16,808 in Wisconsin -- not enough to fill in the margin, but certainly not a number to be sniffed at.  And this is just write-in votes for Bernie Sanders, which we can say with near 100% confidence were disgruntled Sanders supporters.

(for those wondering, only 18,218 of those 110K write-ins were from Vermont -- still enough for Sanders to get 5% of the vote)

[Ebsy]

When the margin is so close one can argue that basically any factor was determinative in an election. Proving that it was the single most important factor is a lot harder.

[Non Swing Voter]

Hewitt is a Never Trump conservative.

He'll write in McMullin or Romney or Kasich.

I think he said he is going to vote for Bernie then Trump in the general election.

[Gracile]

He's criticized for it because 25% of his supporters ended up not voting for Clinton, in an election she lost by less than 1% of the vote in three states.

A good chunk of those supporters were never going to vote for her, to begin with. I mentioned this several times in other threads, but a large number of those Sanders/Trump voters were people who had been registered as Democrats but were effectively Republicans based on their voting history at the presidential level - and their vote was mainly done out of protest. Not to mention, a politician with Sanders' idiosyncrasies probably attracts a lot of people who do not strictly ID as Democrats to vote for him in open primary states.

You're entitled to your viewpoint, but there is far more that he could (and should) have done, during both the primary and the general, to avert the end result.

Like what? He campaigned in several key states for Clinton - making the pitch that a Trump presidency would be dire for our nation and that while not explicitly part of his wing, Clinton would be the President closest to his values. There was no benefit in trying to renounce his past criticisms of Clinton because many of his supporters would not see this as sincere. It's also not Sanders' fault that he had to defend a candidate who had low favorability ratings compared to previous Democratic nominees, and was widely seen as untrustworthy. This was the case before the primary began in earnest, and you could argue that her relative weakness as a candidate helped Sanders do as well as he did in the first place.

Yes, and how did it get to that point.  Because Sanders trashed Clinton on literally every aspect of her record, platform and personality, and tarred her as corrupt and a puppet for billionaires, while also declaring war on the Democratic Party and asserting that they rigged the primary and were similarly corrupt and owned by billionaires.

Then in the general he did little to nothing to take back those assertions or counteract them, while the movement he was so proud of spent the entire election screaming them from the rooftops, which he did nothing to stop.

What you're describing happens in pretty much every party primary. What's the point of trying to run a winning campaign if you don't attack your opponent on their record and present yourself as an acceptable alternative? And again, I doubt that actively trying to counteract his past statements would have made much of a difference in the general election when most of Clinton's detractors were set in their disapproval.

Then after Trump won, he went back to that movement and fell in with those exact same people who had just spent the last six months trashing Clinton and supporting Jill Stein.  Cenk Uygur spent all of 2016 trashing Clinton at every opportunity and giving a platform to insane conspiracy theorists like Jimmy Dore.  And after 2016 Bernie was back on his show, teaming up with him for Justice Dems and now endorsing him for a house seat.

Idk what this has to do with my initial point, but it may surprise you that your average Sanders supporter doesn't care much about Cenk Uygur or Jimmy Dore. Not to mention Sanders denounced his endorsement of  Uygur.

How many times does this strawman need to be burned down?  No Clinton supporter on earth, except for some lunatics on Twitter, is saying that Sanders is the only reason Clinton lost.

You might want to reread my post because I didn't make that argument, either. I never said that they think he was the only reason that Clinton lost, just that many of her supporters see it as a big part of her loss and overestimate the effect his campaigning had (clearly, as you decided to write a multi-paragraph polemic to my initial post that caused you so much rage that you misread my exact words).

[bilaps]

These are all washed up arguments being brought and debated again and again and again for no reason whatsoever.

In actual ontopic discussion, I've been curious to see Bernie's schedule and he'll have an event in SC tomorrow morning and 2 events in IA later, one is a forum and other one is a rally with Jayapal in Des Moines. And he will be in IA again on wednesday to hold 8pm rally at UNI.

AOC will be in IA for weekend, Bernie should be able to make it, but it's not for sure yet. I would argue that he'll probably need AOC now more then ever to literally live there in these 2 weeks. Whole election could come down to this now.

[redjohn]

Bernie can pull out Iowa. AOC is his greatest asset; the two of them campaigning are electric. I think he should up his usage of the vibes that his old ad "America" embodied. Remind his 2016 voters in Iowa (those who aren't supporting him this time around) why they caucused for him four years ago. The optimism, the fight for a better country that supports everyone. It'll lead him to victory.

[ElectionsGuy]

I wanted to post this as a separate thread but I thought it would be fine here:

How will the media react if/when Sanders wins Iowa?

How will they inevitably try and downplay his win? Will they say its an effective tie? Will they say it was inevitable that he would win Iowa and that Biden/Warren showed 'impressive' numbers?' Will they go with the talking point of Iowa and NH being super white states and that explains his victory? Lots of ways they can potentially spin it.

I predict the following headline from some major paper or cable news outlet 'Sanders comes out on top in Iowa, with other candidates right behind him' or something to the effect of that.

[redjohn]

I think the meltdown from the DNC if Sanders wins will be less dramatic than the RNC meltdown when Trump won in 2016. For sure there will be pushback and desperate attempts to prop up an establishment candidate (probably Biden) on Super Tuesday/whenever Sanders does very well, but I think by the Convention those attempts will have stopped. Hopefully.

The media would freak out and try to paint Sanders as America's Corbyn. The mainstream media seems to prefer Trump to Sanders, but that could change.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bernie can pull out Iowa. AOC is his greatest asset; the two of them campaigning are electric. I think he should up his usage of the vibes that his old ad "America" embodied. Remind his 2016 voters in Iowa (those who aren't supporting him this time around) why they caucused for him four years ago. The optimism, the fight for a better country that supports everyone. It'll lead him to victory.

I voted for him, canvassed for him, and donated to his campaign during the 2016 primary season solely because he wasn't Hillary and I'm far from the only one.  That vote was entirely about sending a message that I was pissed off at the party leadership ramming a crappy candidate who would make a lousy President down the Democratic Party's throat.  Bernie himself was completely incidental to that, he simply happened to be the most viable non-Hillary.  If Martin O'Malley was the most viable non-Hillary, then I'd have supported him just as enthusiastically for the same reason.  It had nothing to do with Sanders or his platform and at the time, I thought he'd be a lousy President if he won (but then, so would Hillary, albeit for different reasons).  In 2016, I wanted Biden to run and I still think that was his year, he'd have won...but I also think that it's only the "right year" for a Presidential candidate once.  

I'm not really sure how reminding people of 2016 would help Bernie this time around with folks who are on the fence and it could even hurt him tbh given how that primary made everyone involved look pretty bad by the end.  I go back and forth between Warren and him as my second choice after Pete.  Tbh, I could even maybe be convinced to back Biden (*yuck*) if somehow I thought he had the best chance to beat Trump, but I don't even want to think about that scenario.  However, I don't really like any of the non-Pete options that much at this point.  

Also, I completely disagree about AOC being an asset for him (much less his biggest one) and she hurts Sanders more than she helps.  The Squad are simply not popular at all outside of the far-left and they're also demagogic self-promoters who look out for no one but themselves.  They're gonna try to get attention by saying OTT nonsense that hurts the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, even Bernie.  Bernie's association with them plays into many voters' perception that he's a crazy extremist who pals around with crackpots, communists, and con-artists.  I'm not saying that is fair to Bernie or that it's true, but many - including some who would otherwise be inclined to vote for him - believe this to be the case and it's an image he needs to shed in order to win the GE.

TL;DR: It would be a serious mistake to assume that Sanders' base in 2016 was the same as his base in 2020 (although there is obviously some overlap).  Even now, I think a lot of red avatars don't really understand just how viscerally many Americans dislike Hillary on a fundamental level.*  Some folks were just misogynists, but many more weren't.  She just inspires this intense feeling of animosity in many people on an intrinsic level.  Hillary herself once asked about after coming in third in Iowa "What if they just don't like me?"  The answer is that most voters simply don't like her, they never will, and there is nothing she will ever be able to do about it.  The 2016 Democratic primaries were a referendum on Hillary, not Bernie.  

*Incidentally, while I'm not in the "Bernie definitely can't win a GE" camp (the jury's still out), a lot of his supporters on Atlas really underestimate the electability challenges he is going to face.  Like, it's one thing to say "a lot of voters are going to be skeptical and initially quite hostile to him, but here's why I think he can win them over [or make up for it elsewhere]..."  It's another thing to stick your head in the sand by ignoring all concerns about Bernie's electability or dismissing fears that nominating him could cause a repeat of the Corbyn disaster with "okay, neo-liberal/boomer."  

I'd really like to hear from Bernie supporters here how they think he'd go about uniting the party/reaching out to Democrats who are deeply skeptical/suspicious of him like the suburbanites who constituted a critical part of the 2018 Democratic coalition.  I'd also like to know how they'd address both concerns about him hurting Democrats down the ticket (and in the cycle right before redistricting, no less).  Speaking for myself, if I got good answers to these question, it would certainly make it easier for me to support him if Buttigieg loses in Iowa.  I mean, maybe there's something I haven't thought of, but I digress...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Bernie can pull out Iowa. AOC is his greatest asset; the two of them campaigning are electric. I think he should up his usage of the vibes that his old ad "America" embodied. Remind his 2016 voters in Iowa (those who aren't supporting him this time around) why they caucused for him four years ago. The optimism, the fight for a better country that supports everyone. It'll lead him to victory.

I voted for him, canvassed for him, and donated to his campaign during the 2016 primary season solely because he wasn't Hillary and I'm far from the only one.  That vote was entirely about sending a message that I was pissed off at the party leadership ramming a crappy candidate who would make a lousy President down the Democratic Party's throat.  Bernie himself was completely incidental to that, he simply happened to be the most viable non-Hillary.  If Martin O'Malley was the most viable non-Hillary, then I'd have supported him just as enthusiastically for the same reason.  It had nothing to do with Sanders or his platform and at the time, I thought he'd be a lousy President if he won (but then, so would Hillary, albeit for different reasons).  In 2016, I wanted Biden to run and I still think that was his year, he'd have won...but I also think that it's only the "right year" for a Presidential candidate once.  

I'm not really sure how reminding people of 2016 would help Bernie this time around with folks who are on the fence and it could even hurt him tbh given how that primary made everyone involved look pretty bad by the end.  I go back and forth between Warren and him as my second choice after Pete.  Tbh, I could even maybe be convinced to back Biden (*yuck*) if somehow I thought he had the best chance to beat Trump, but I don't even want to think about that scenario.  However, I don't really like any of the non-Pete options that much at this point.  

Also, I completely disagree about AOC being an asset for him (much less his biggest one) and she hurts Sanders more than she helps.  The Squad are simply not popular at all outside of the far-left and they're also demagogic self-promoters who look out for no one but themselves.  They're gonna try to get attention by saying OTT nonsense that hurts the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, even Bernie.  Bernie's association with them plays into many voters' perception that he's a crazy extremist who pals around with crackpots, communists, and con-artists.  I'm not saying that is fair to Bernie or that it's true, but many - including some who would otherwise be inclined to vote for him - believe this to be the case and it's an image he needs to shed in order to win the GE.

TL;DR: It would be a serious mistake to assume that Sanders' base in 2016 was the same as his base in 2020 (although there is obviously some overlap).  Even now, I think a lot of red avatars don't really understand just how viscerally many Americans dislike Hillary on a fundamental level.*  Some folks were just misogynists, but many more weren't.  She just inspires this intense feeling of animosity in many people on an intrinsic level.  Hillary herself once asked about after coming in third in Iowa "What if they just don't like me?"  The answer is that most voters simply don't like her, they never will, and there is nothing she will ever be able to do about it.  The 2016 Democratic primaries were a referendum on Hillary, not Bernie.  

*Incidentally, while I'm not in the "Bernie definitely can't win a GE" camp (the jury's still out), a lot of his supporters on Atlas really underestimate the electability challenges he is going to face.  Like, it's one thing to say "a lot of voters are going to be skeptical and initially quite hostile to him, but here's why I think he can win them over [or make up for it elsewhere]..."  It's another thing to stick your head in the sand by ignoring all concerns about Bernie's electability or dismissing fears that nominating him could cause a repeat of the Corbyn disaster with "okay, neo-liberal/boomer."  

I'd really like to hear from Bernie supporters here how they think he'd go about uniting the party/reaching out to Democrats who are deeply skeptical/suspicious of him like the suburbanites who constituted a critical part of the 2018 Democratic coalition.  I'd also like to know how they'd address both concerns about him hurting Democrats down the ticket (and in the cycle right before redistricting, no less).  Speaking for myself, if I got good answers to these question, it would certainly make it easier for me to support him if Buttigieg loses in Iowa.  I mean, maybe there's something I haven't thought of, but I digress...

Generally I'd say a TLDR summary should be shorter than what its summarizing, not the same length.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bernie can pull out Iowa. AOC is his greatest asset; the two of them campaigning are electric. I think he should up his usage of the vibes that his old ad "America" embodied. Remind his 2016 voters in Iowa (those who aren't supporting him this time around) why they caucused for him four years ago. The optimism, the fight for a better country that supports everyone. It'll lead him to victory.

I voted for him, canvassed for him, and donated to his campaign during the 2016 primary season solely because he wasn't Hillary and I'm far from the only one.  That vote was entirely about sending a message that I was pissed off at the party leadership ramming a crappy candidate who would make a lousy President down the Democratic Party's throat.  Bernie himself was completely incidental to that, he simply happened to be the most viable non-Hillary.  If Martin O'Malley was the most viable non-Hillary, then I'd have supported him just as enthusiastically for the same reason.  It had nothing to do with Sanders or his platform and at the time, I thought he'd be a lousy President if he won (but then, so would Hillary, albeit for different reasons).  In 2016, I wanted Biden to run and I still think that was his year, he'd have won...but I also think that it's only the "right year" for a Presidential candidate once.  

I'm not really sure how reminding people of 2016 would help Bernie this time around with folks who are on the fence and it could even hurt him tbh given how that primary made everyone involved look pretty bad by the end.  I go back and forth between Warren and him as my second choice after Pete.  Tbh, I could even maybe be convinced to back Biden (*yuck*) if somehow I thought he had the best chance to beat Trump, but I don't even want to think about that scenario.  However, I don't really like any of the non-Pete options that much at this point.  

Also, I completely disagree about AOC being an asset for him (much less his biggest one) and she hurts Sanders more than she helps.  The Squad are simply not popular at all outside of the far-left and they're also demagogic self-promoters who look out for no one but themselves.  They're gonna try to get attention by saying OTT nonsense that hurts the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, even Bernie.  Bernie's association with them plays into many voters' perception that he's a crazy extremist who pals around with crackpots, communists, and con-artists.  I'm not saying that is fair to Bernie or that it's true, but many - including some who would otherwise be inclined to vote for him - believe this to be the case and it's an image he needs to shed in order to win the GE.

TL;DR: It would be a serious mistake to assume that Sanders' base in 2016 was the same as his base in 2020 (although there is obviously some overlap).  Even now, I think a lot of red avatars don't really understand just how viscerally many Americans dislike Hillary on a fundamental level.*  Some folks were just misogynists, but many more weren't.  She just inspires this intense feeling of animosity in many people on an intrinsic level.  Hillary herself once asked about after coming in third in Iowa "What if they just don't like me?"  The answer is that most voters simply don't like her, they never will, and there is nothing she will ever be able to do about it.  The 2016 Democratic primaries were a referendum on Hillary, not Bernie.  

*Incidentally, while I'm not in the "Bernie definitely can't win a GE" camp (the jury's still out), a lot of his supporters on Atlas really underestimate the electability challenges he is going to face.  Like, it's one thing to say "a lot of voters are going to be skeptical and initially quite hostile to him, but here's why I think he can win them over [or make up for it elsewhere]..."  It's another thing to stick your head in the sand by ignoring all concerns about Bernie's electability or dismissing fears that nominating him could cause a repeat of the Corbyn disaster with "okay, neo-liberal/boomer."  

I'd really like to hear from Bernie supporters here how they think he'd go about uniting the party/reaching out to Democrats who are deeply skeptical/suspicious of him like the suburbanites who constituted a critical part of the 2018 Democratic coalition.  I'd also like to know how they'd address both concerns about him hurting Democrats down the ticket (and in the cycle right before redistricting, no less).  Speaking for myself, if I got good answers to these question, it would certainly make it easier for me to support him if Buttigieg loses in Iowa.  I mean, maybe there's something I haven't thought of, but I digress...

Generally I'd say a TLDR summary should be shorter than what its summarizing, not the same length.

The TLDR is one paragraph.  The last two paragraphs are an * addendum note.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Is it just me or does Briahna Joy Gray sound exactly like KellyAnne Conway here?

Not only does she not answer Katy's question, she doesn't even seem to acknowledge Katy's existence.  Just a waterfall of attacks on Joe Biden for "cutting social security", totally unrelated to the question.

Also, typical of the campaign, she won't take responsibility for the "Biden is corrupt" charge, but nor will she disown it.  But I'm sure in another week the talking point out of the campaign will be that they are a clean campaign and that attack was from a surrogate so we don't have to take responsibility for it.

https://twitter.com/valeriestone/status/1219365480026107904

[GeneralMacArthur]

Here's the transcript.  You can decide for yourself.  In my opinion, it's obvious that

A) The Sanders campaign wants to accuse Joe Biden of corruption but refuses to own the attack.

B) The Sanders campaign is really sticking to this attack that Joe Biden wants to cut social security, which is a lie (he wants to expand social security).

C) The first half of the exchange is Briahna trying to pivot to social security, which isn't the subject of the question at all, and refusing to address the corruption allegation coming from her own campaign.

D) The entire second half of this exchange is a memorized monologue from Briahna that she just rattles off without paying a word of attention to what Katy Tur is asking.


Katy Tur:  Mr. Sanders' speechwriter promoted an op-ed today in The Guardian, written by a surrogate, that said Joe Biden had a "corruption problem."  Do you believe that's fair, and do you believe that mirrors the president's attacks on Joe Biden, especially in this moment as the impeachment trial gets started?

Briahna Joy Gray (Sanders campaign national press secretary): I think that one of the most important contrasts to draw with Joe Biden, and again one of the things we hear the most about when we're talking to to actual Iowa voters and voters across this country, is social security.  And I think it's fair to really scrutinize at this point, what Joe Biden has been.

Katy: Are you saying he's corrupt on social security?

Briahna: No, what I'm saying is that repeatedly, over the past 40 years of his career, he's had no hestitation to make efforts to cut social security, to raise social security...

Katy: What about saying he has a corruption problem?

Briahna: I think that how you characterize that is up to the voter, and that's fine for them to decide.  But what's important is for us to have a conversation on TV...

Katy: I'm sorry, what does that mean to let the voter decide about a corruption problem?  Your speechwriter is promoting this op-ed, written by a surrogate, saying that Joe Biden has a corruption problem.  Is that a campaign-sanctioned thing?  Does the campaign believe that Joe Biden has a corruption problem?

Briahna: What the article is describing is the fact that Joe Biden has made deals with Republicans repeatedly over the course of his career...

Katy: Is that corrupt?

...in order to cut social security and to raise the retirement age...

Katy: But is that corrupt?

...and if someone wants to describe that as corrupt, that is up to them.  But what I am saying right now is that instead of trying to instigate disputes between candidates...

Katy: I'm not instigating it, it was written in The Guardian and promoted by your speechwriter!  I'm just asking you about it!

...but I think the core issue right now, especially on MLK day, is that 50% of black americans rely on social security for 90% of their income in retirement.  We need to talk about what cutting social security income means for Americans, and who in this race is putting that in jeopardy?

[Rookie Yinzer]

Why did Bernie lie about the first vote he cast?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1219377168284897281?s=20

This is funny after a week of calling Warren a pathological liar.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Why did Bernie lie about the first vote he cast?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1219377168284897281?s=20

This is funny after a week of calling Warren a pathological liar.

He's bragged repeatedly in the past that his first vote was in 1972 for himself.

[Donerail]

Why did Bernie lie about the first vote he cast?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1219377168284897281?s=20

This is funny after a week of calling Warren a pathological liar.

John F. Kennedy, the only Kennedy to ever run for President.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Why did Bernie lie about the first vote he cast?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1219377168284897281?s=20

This is funny after a week of calling Warren a pathological liar.

John F. Kennedy, the only Kennedy to ever run for President.

Well he already said he never voted until he was on the ballot so either way he’s lying. I’ve never heard Kennedy used to describe anyone but JFK when talking about the others people always say Bobby or Ted Kennedy or RFK but that’s neither here nor there as Sanders (this alleged staunch activist who has been in the trenches of activism for a half century) has stated in the past he never cared about voting until it benefited him personally.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Why did Bernie lie about the first vote he cast?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1219377168284897281?s=20

This is funny after a week of calling Warren a pathological liar.

John F. Kennedy, the only Kennedy to ever run for President.

Well he already said he never voted until he was on the ballot so either way he’s lying. I’ve never heard Kennedy used to describe anyone but JFK when talking about the others people always say Bobby or Ted Kennedy or RFK but that’s neither here nor there as Sanders (this alleged staunch activist who has been in the trenches of activism for a half century) has stated in the past he never cared about voting until it benefited him personally.

Also, Sanders moved from NY to VT in 1968, and neither NY nor VT had primaries that year.