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

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I kind of feel like its gonna be Bernie. Just a hunch in my moderate gut. Ive been wrong multiple times before(Supported Edwards in 2004, Clinton in 2008), but it kind of feels like the stars are aligning for him. Still wont vote for him in the primary, but not as hostile to the idea of a Sanders presidency as I was even a few months ago.

You don't have to vote for him in the primary, i understand. But a Sanders presidency will bring a lot of change. And the balance will be in the cabinet, and especially the R senate and the D house. It won't be easy to implement reforms. Sanders will have a hard time doing it. So a Sanders presidency is even according to the moderate left not a disaster. You could try it out. The Republicans tried Trump as well. He didn't do as much damage, but he turned out not to be a great president. It's time for revenge and our answer and it's Bernie! His ideas aren't radical, they are implemented in Europe and it works just fine. And there will be lots of checks and balances as how it works in a proper democracy.

[Brittain33]

I haven’t read through this thread, has anyone floated the theory that Sanders’ strength among Latinos is basically Sanders’ strength with young people, since the Latino electorate will skew young for both demographic and citizenship rate reasons?

[GeneralMacArthur]

I haven’t read through this thread, has anyone floated the theory that Sanders’ strength among Latinos is basically Sanders’ strength with young people, since the Latino electorate will skew young for both demographic and citizenship rate reasons?

Yes https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=348058.msg7069455#msg7069455

[Brittain33]

I haven’t read through this thread, has anyone floated the theory that Sanders’ strength among Latinos is basically Sanders’ strength with young people, since the Latino electorate will skew young for both demographic and citizenship rate reasons?

Yes https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=348058.msg7069455#msg7069455

Thanks! I thought of it after a recent episode of The Daily where young Latino Sanders supporters in California tried to get their parents’ generation to come to Bernie, but they were either unconvinced or not eligible to vote.

[Bidenworth2020]

Bernie and Biden both need to call a ceasefire. Bernie, find another way to win the primary that doesnt involve attacking a likely nominee

[Lord Halifax]

Bernie and Biden both need to call a ceasefire. Bernie, find another way to win the primary that doesnt involve attacking a likely nominee

He lost in 2016 because he didn't go negative and he'll lose again if he doesn't go for the kill.

[Bidenworth2020]

Bernie and Biden both need to call a ceasefire. Bernie, find another way to win the primary that doesnt involve attacking a likely nominee

He lost in 2016 because he didn't go negative and he'll lose again if he doesn't go for the kill.

He better make sure he can win over moderate Biden supporters in the ge though or we are ed

[Florida Man for Crime]

Bernie and Biden both need to call a ceasefire. Bernie, find another way to win the primary that doesnt involve attacking a likely nominee

I don't really agree with this. Candidates will suffer worse attacks in the GE than anything that gets thrown at them in the primary, and it is important to see how well they handle them. In 2008, Obama was made stronger and improved as a candidate because Hilllary did not go easy on him.

One could try to argue that this should apply to new candidates who are untested, but not to people like Biden who have been around (or to Bernie, who ran previously). However, Biden lost his primaries the previous times he ran, and he ran many times. The question there is why did he lose those, if he is such a great candidate? If he is not able to ward off attacks, then he is probably not a great nominee.

The same exact thing goes for Bernie, btw.

Some people say that attacks between Bernie and Hillary in 2016 weakened the Dems (and Hillary), but IMO this is revisionism and there isn't really substantive hard evidence of that, only anecdotes. I think if in 2016 there had been more of a contested primary with additional candidates, we likely would have ended up in a better place - or certainly at least not in a worse place - than if there were no primary and Hillary just won the nomination uncontested.

[Bidenworth2020]

Bernie and Biden both need to call a ceasefire. Bernie, find another way to win the primary that doesnt involve attacking a likely nominee

I don't really agree with this. Candidates will suffer worse attacks in the GE than anything that gets thrown at them in the primary, and it is important to see how well they handle them. In 2008, Obama was made stronger and improved as a candidate because Hilllary did not go easy on him.

One could try to argue that this should apply to new candidates who are untested, but not to people like Biden who have been around (or to Bernie, who ran previously). However, Biden lost his primaries the previous times he ran, and he ran many times. The question there is why did he lose those, if he is such a great candidate? If he is not able to ward off attacks, then he is probably not a great nominee.

The same exact thing goes for Bernie, btw.

Some people say that attacks between Bernie and Hillary in 2016 weakened the Dems (and Hillary), but IMO this is revisionism and there isn't really substantive hard evidence of that, only anecdotes. I think if in 2016 there had been more of a contested primary with additional candidates, we likely would have ended up in a better place - or certainly at least not in a worse place - than if there were no primary and Hillary just won the nomination uncontested.

To an extent sure. but obviously we do not want a 2008-redux (I know Obama won, but he was not leading until after the recession iirc).

[Florida Man for Crime]

He better make sure he can win over moderate Biden supporters in the ge though or we are ed

This is always something that people get concerned about in the midst of primaries, but it is never really actually a significant issue. The US is a 2 party system, and that simple fact unifies each party against the other. It will be even easier to unify than in previous years, both because polarization has increased over time and because the Dems have a horribly bad person as a foil against which they can easily unify in opposition - Trump.

It is true that there may be some moderate voters who wouldn't vote for Bernie in a General Election, but if that is so, the reason will definitely not be that Bernie attacked Biden over Social Security in the primary 10 months before the election. Likewise if Biden is the nominee, there may be some leftists who don't vote for Biden, but if so, the reason will not be that Biden attacked Bernie 10 months ago about whatever.

[James Monroe]

https://twitter.com/KHiveQueenB/status/1219740182410223616

[Florida Man for Crime]

To an extent sure. but obviously we do not want a 2008-redux (I know Obama won, but he was not leading until after the recession iirc).

IMO (based on my memory and also looking back at some easily available data) the idea that Obama was not going to win until the recession/financial crisis happened is also revisionism, or at minimum to a substantial extent revisionism.

RCP is not the best polling average, but it is what is easily available:



There was a close race during the primaries, yes, but that was because the Hillary vs Obama primary was still going on and Dems had not yet unified. After that, the only time when McCain got any sort of lead in the polling average was during the initial Palin hype and his convention bounce from that. The 2008 RNC was Sep 1, 2008 – Sep 4, 2008.

Shortly thereafter, the financial crisis really got going in mid-late September (although keep in mind, it didn't all happen at once, and big events like Bear Stearns had happened well before).

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

https://twitter.com/KHiveQueenB/status/1219740182410223616

Again: Trump supporters don't get to determine the best candidate in the primary.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Also, regarding contested primaries... Remember the 2016 GOP primary? That was pretty darn contested. Trump viciously attacked his opponents, and his various opponents did likewise to him. Did that stop Trump from losing the popular vote by a small enough margin to win the electoral college in the GE? No.

Probably the least contested recent-ish presidential primary was the 2004 Dem primary, because basically everyone gave up and rallied around Kerry as soon as Kerry won IA and then won NH with momentum from that. But Kerry lost in the General.

One thing that is important to not forget about primaries is that they get voters engaged, and they help campaigns to build up volunteer bases and supporter bases and because everyone who votes in the D primary can later be targeted by the campaigns in the General. In addition, by getting more people involved in Democratic politics, that helps the Democratic party over the longer term - some people who participate in a Dem primary as volunteers later become candidates etc or do other things a couple of years or a decade or two down the line.

[James Monroe]

Bernie Sanders was a proponent of neoliberal policies in 1996. Here's a video of him calling for privatizing social security. If the frontrunner for the nomination, Joe Biden, is fair game then so is the socialist senator from Vermont.

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1220107221272535041

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Bernie Sanders was a proponent of neoliberal policies in 1996. Here's a video of him calling for privatizing social security. If the frontrunner for the nomination, Joe Biden, is fair game then so is the socialist senator from Vermont.

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1220107221272535041

You could also check the "adjustments" he proposed to figure out that they weren't cuts, but go off.

[Ebsy]

Jennifer Epstein has been operating as a media surrogate for the Biden campaign to put out whatever message they want in a given week and has 0 credibility at this point. Does it matter to her that at the time of these quotes that Sanders was sponsoring legislation to increase Social Security benefits? No, of course not!

[Roblox]

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

Cutting is the same thing as expanding because you could use the term "adjustments" for both.

[James Monroe]

Bernie Sanders was a proponent of neoliberal policies in 1996. Here's a video of him calling for privatizing social security. If the frontrunner for the nomination, Joe Biden, is fair game then so is the socialist senator from Vermont.

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1220107221272535041

You could also check the "adjustments" he proposed to figure out that they weren't cuts, but go off.

It's very clear from the article that Bernie wanted to make adjustments to social security which would involve cutting the program for millions of senior Americans. Bernie surrogates have been attacking Biden for dishonest attacks when he has been defending the program against conservative rhetoric since being elected to congress. What does AOC have to say about this recent discovery?

[Farmlands]

Please stop filling up the thread with vapid quotes from random Twitter people, I enjoy coming here exactly to get away from that. It's also quite telling that some posters use posts like it as stand ins for their opinions. Don't you have any intelligent thoughts of your own to contribute?

[GeneralMacArthur]

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

Cutting is the same thing as expanding because you could use the term "adjustments" for both.

Is there any actual evidence that Biden wanted to slash social security when he was talking about "adjustments" or was it just moving numbers around?  What was the context of whatever quote this is (is the adjustments quote a new one or the 1995 quote again?)

[Roblox]

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

Cutting is the same thing as expanding because you could use the term "adjustments" for both.

Is there any actual evidence that Biden wanted to slash social security when he was talking about "adjustments" or was it just moving numbers around?  What was the context of whatever quote this is (is the adjustments quote a new one or the 1995 quote again?)

When people talk about Biden's "adjustments" quote, I believe they are mainly referring the his remarks from 2018 at the Brookings institution. He may have criticized the Paul Ryan plans specifically, but he did go on to speak in Beltwayese about needing to "do something" and make "adjustments", because "That's the only way you'll find room to pay for it". Basically, it comes off as "Maybe Paul Ryan went too far, but he has a point!". And considering Biden's long history of, at bare minimum, openness to entitlement cuts, his desire to cut benefits is the most obvious interpretation.

[James Monroe]

Please stop filling up the thread with vapid quotes from random Twitter people, I enjoy coming here exactly to get away from that. It's also quite telling that some posters use posts like it as stand ins for their opinions. Don't you have any intelligent thoughts of your own to contribute?

The tweets are contributions to forum discussion. What's been uttered by the largest social media platform on earth is vital to what anyone of else have to say about the election. Don't get me wrong, I love a good detail post that goes in-depth without the crassness that sometimes plagues Twitter posts, as they can distort the truth and turn the fact into a myth.

[GeneralMacArthur]

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

Cutting is the same thing as expanding because you could use the term "adjustments" for both.

Is there any actual evidence that Biden wanted to slash social security when he was talking about "adjustments" or was it just moving numbers around?  What was the context of whatever quote this is (is the adjustments quote a new one or the 1995 quote again?)

When people talk about Biden's "adjustments" quote, I believe they are mainly referring the his remarks from 2018 at the Brookings institution. He may have criticized the Paul Ryan plans specifically, but he did go on to speak in Beltwayese about needing to "do something" and make "adjustments", because "That's the only way you'll find room to pay for it". Basically, it comes off as "Maybe Paul Ryan went too far, but he has a point!". And considering Biden's long history of, at bare minimum, openness to entitlement cuts, his desire to cut benefits is the most obvious interpretation.

Biden doesn't have a long history of wanting entitlements cuts though.  You guys keep throwing these quotes out there to try to prove it and they all have turned out to be out-of-context lies.

In this case that's 100% conjecture.  Nobody in their right mind thinks social security is perfect as is and can't be improved upon.  For all you know, adjustments could mean raising the tax cap.  He said "adjustments" and you heard what you wanted to hear.

And that totally backs up what Jennifer Epstein is saying, which is that if "adjustments" means "cuts" then you should also apply that to Sanders. Or does it only mean "cuts" when Biden, who has never wanted to cut social security, says it?

[Roblox]

^Are we going to ignore the 1984 social security Freeze he proposed with Grassley?