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

[GeneralMacArthur]

Sanders is crucial because he has the potential to provide much needed reform to this systemic failure. I don't think he's going to single handedly 'fix' the Party, but the shock is necessary. You would think 2016 would be that shock, but apparently the leadership still doesn't get it. It's an absolute joke and things need to change, fast.

He's shocking it in the wrong direction.  The only reason we were able to accomplish so much in 2009 (yes, still not enough) was because we had a supermajority composed of moderate democrats and conservadems.  Even one more moderate democrat and we'd have a public option.  A handful more and we'd have comprehensive immigration reform and cap-and-trade.

Are you out of your goddamn mind?! Getting to 60 votes was a herculean task by itself and that only lasted for a couple of days. There is no conceivable way we could've gotten to 63 or 64 Senators.

Fact is, they had more than 50 votes for the vast majority of bills that were passed by the House. Getting to the filibuster proof 60 votes was the problem. The Obama Administration could have used reconciliation to pass some legislation, but opted not to do that. The Administration could have ended the legislative filibuster as well, but again, it chose not to do that. This was a mistake and cost the Party dearly in the years that followed.

I say, let's take the dozen or so policies from the Democratic Platform that the vast majority of America supports, such as:
Universal background checks and an assault weapons ban
Reduced drug prices and a public option
Increased border security paired with a pathway to citizenship
Raising the minimum wage
Making college affordable and community college free
Cap-and-trade national dividend program
Criminal justice reform
Campaign finance reform

This was the platform in 2016. I don't think I need to tell you how that worked out.

Policy isn't the problem. The Republican Party regularly wins elections despite many of their policy proposals polling very poorly. The problem is perception. On issue after issue, the Party plays defense and allows the Republicans to control the conversation. By letting the Republican Party control the narrative of a story or a policy proposal, the Democratic Party puts itself at perpetual disadvantage.

When a person votes, they are asking themselves, "Who cares about me," and, "Who wants what I want?" Many people see the Democratic Party as a moribund institution that stands for nothing (or worse, stands against them), and that the Party only cares about niche interests. As a consequence, voters outside of major metros have a strong aversion to voting Democratic.

The people of rural America are not rubes who voted for Trump out of deep seated racism nor are they 'concerned citizens' who wonder how America can pay for social programs. They just see the Democratic Party as an adversary that could never represent their interests.

This is what happens when you let the other side control the narrative. This is what happens when you perpetually neglect Party infrastructure. Sanders' campaign is a reaction to this organizational rot.

You can't win only on policy.  But you can lose only on policy.  Look at 2010, when the country flipped entirely against us in just two short years on only two issues -- socialized medicine and exploding the national debt.

You're acting like policy doesn't matter at all so let's just take the most politically toxic and extreme positions imaginable.  This is just a recipe for disaster.

Yes, the Democratic Party is falling apart.  Sanders isn't trying to fix that.  He's trying to take advantage of it.  If he cared, he would actually try to help the party, for instance by sharing his fundraising infrastructure like every other candidate, or perhaps joining the damn party.  He doesn't actually care about the party other than as a vehicle for his hostile takeover.

Let's fix the party instead of burning it to the ground.  Is that such a radical notion?  The party won a big victory in 2018 and had complete, filibuster-proof control of all three branches of government not even a decade ago.

I believe that part of the reason Sanders gets so much love from the 18-29 crowd is because they don't remember this.  They only see the party as it has existed for the last few years.  In 2014 I was begging everyone on my campus to go vote, and none of them listened to me; those same people are posting on Facebook now that the party is weak and corrupt and must be destroyed.  In 2016 the party lost due in part to its own weaknesses but also due to a lot of factors completely outside our control; meanwhile a full 15% of 18-29 voters cast their votes for a third party (compare to only 3% of voters over 50).  In 2018, we won.  The older you are, the more elections back you remember, and the more you understand the tremendous progress the Democratic Party has been responsible for in this country and just how, time and time again, it's stood up for what's right.

[GoTfan]

Sanders is crucial because he has the potential to provide much needed reform to this systemic failure. I don't think he's going to single handedly 'fix' the Party, but the shock is necessary. You would think 2016 would be that shock, but apparently the leadership still doesn't get it. It's an absolute joke and things need to change, fast.

He's shocking it in the wrong direction.  The only reason we were able to accomplish so much in 2009 (yes, still not enough) was because we had a supermajority composed of moderate democrats and conservadems.  Even one more moderate democrat and we'd have a public option.  A handful more and we'd have comprehensive immigration reform and cap-and-trade.

Are you out of your goddamn mind?! Getting to 60 votes was a herculean task by itself and that only lasted for a couple of days. There is no conceivable way we could've gotten to 63 or 64 Senators.

Fact is, they had more than 50 votes for the vast majority of bills that were passed by the House. Getting to the filibuster proof 60 votes was the problem. The Obama Administration could have used reconciliation to pass some legislation, but opted not to do that. The Administration could have ended the legislative filibuster as well, but again, it chose not to do that. This was a mistake and cost the Party dearly in the years that followed.

I say, let's take the dozen or so policies from the Democratic Platform that the vast majority of America supports, such as:
Universal background checks and an assault weapons ban
Reduced drug prices and a public option
Increased border security paired with a pathway to citizenship
Raising the minimum wage
Making college affordable and community college free
Cap-and-trade national dividend program
Criminal justice reform
Campaign finance reform

This was the platform in 2016. I don't think I need to tell you how that worked out.

Policy isn't the problem. The Republican Party regularly wins elections despite many of their policy proposals polling very poorly. The problem is perception. On issue after issue, the Party plays defense and allows the Republicans to control the conversation. By letting the Republican Party control the narrative of a story or a policy proposal, the Democratic Party puts itself at perpetual disadvantage.

When a person votes, they are asking themselves, "Who cares about me," and, "Who wants what I want?" Many people see the Democratic Party as a moribund institution that stands for nothing (or worse, stands against them), and that the Party only cares about niche interests. As a consequence, voters outside of major metros have a strong aversion to voting Democratic.

The people of rural America are not rubes who voted for Trump out of deep seated racism nor are they 'concerned citizens' who wonder how America can pay for social programs. They just see the Democratic Party as an adversary that could never represent their interests.

This is what happens when you let the other side control the narrative. This is what happens when you perpetually neglect Party infrastructure. Sanders' campaign is a reaction to this organizational rot.

You can't win only on policy.  But you can lose only on policy.  Look at 2010, when the country flipped entirely against us in just two short years on only two issues -- socialized medicine and exploding the national debt.

You're acting like policy doesn't matter at all so let's just take the most politically toxic and extreme positions imaginable.  This is just a recipe for disaster.

Yes, the Democratic Party is falling apart.  Sanders isn't trying to fix that.  He's trying to take advantage of it.  If he cared, he would actually try to help the party, for instance by sharing his fundraising infrastructure like every other candidate, or perhaps joining the damn party.  He doesn't actually care about the party other than as a vehicle for his hostile takeover.

Let's fix the party instead of burning it to the ground.  Is that such a radical notion?  The party won a big victory in 2018 and had complete, filibuster-proof control of all three branches of government not even a decade ago.

I believe that part of the reason Sanders gets so much love from the 18-29 crowd is because they don't remember this.  They only see the party as it has existed for the last few years.  In 2014 I was begging everyone on my campus to go vote, and none of them listened to me; those same people are posting on Facebook now that the party is weak and corrupt and must be destroyed.  In 2016 the party lost due in part to its own weaknesses but also due to a lot of factors completely outside our control; meanwhile a full 15% of 18-29 voters cast their votes for a third party (compare to only 3% of voters over 50).  In 2018, we won.  The older you are, the more elections back you remember, and the more you understand the tremendous progress the Democratic Party has been responsible for in this country and just how, time and time again, it's stood up for what's right.

Ah yes, my favourite attack "Bernie supporters are too young and stupid to know what the world is like."

Because that is going to make them vote for the Democrats.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Boo hoo. It's either us or Trump. I don't care if you live in California. I don't care what you think his chances are. You vote for Bernie, or you cast your lot in with the enemy. As far as I'm concerned, you're no different from NYCMM.

Oh wait. At least NYCMM is a bit.

Whole-heartedly agree, and hope Bernie supporters would say the same about Biden.

You certainly won't hear me trumpet #NeverBiden.

[GeneralMacArthur]

And the Bernie Sanders closing argument is to get a man who proudly voted for Jill Stein and called Obama "the first nized president" to say "don't vote for Elizabeth Warren, she'll be corrupt just like Obama was!"

Very cool, Bernie!

https://twitter.com/harvard4bernie/status/1223685643248627712?s=21

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Political Twitter, avoid it for a day, yadda yadda yadda

[Donerail]

And the Bernie Sanders closing argument is to get a man who proudly voted for Jill Stein and called Obama "the first n-rized president" to say "don't vote for Elizabeth Warren, she'll be corrupt just like Obama was!"

Very cool, Bernie!

Bernie's "closing argument" in the Iowa caucuses, delivered in Cambridge, Massachusetts?

[Adam Griffin]

[bilaps]

Morning Joe bashing Bernie for 17mins straight now. And McCaskille says he never get negative ad to run against him. Why the ads when they are freetime 17min negative now?

[ElectionsGuy]

Morning Joe bashing Bernie for 17mins straight now. And McCaskille says he never get negative ad to run against him. Why the ads when they are freetime 17min negative now?

I was literally about to post that. Wanted to see a little of what they had to say before I leave for the day but at least Joe tries to be somewhat fair, Chris Matthews has a massive hateboner for Bernie.

[bilaps]

Lol, and they now have Jill Biden on. I mean, it's essentialy an hour special vote for Biden.

[Hydera]

Morning Joe bashing Bernie for 17mins straight now. And McCaskille says he never get negative ad to run against him. Why the ads when they are freetime 17min negative now?

I was literally about to post that. Wanted to see a little of what they had to say before I leave for the day but at least Joe tries to be somewhat fair, Chris Matthews has a massive hateboner for Bernie.

Did he mention something about Tip o'neil while ranting?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

And the Bernie Sanders closing argument is to get a man who proudly voted for Jill Stein

Er, why do you say this as if it's a bad thing? The Democrats lose if they don't win over any 2016 third party voters...

[GeneralMacArthur]

And the Bernie Sanders closing argument is to get a man who proudly voted for Jill Stein

Er, why do you say this as if it's a bad thing? The Democrats lose if they don't win over any 2016 third party voters...

If we want to sell out to woo a bunch of assholes to our side then we should nominate Ted Cruz.

[Florida Man for Crime]

If we want to sell out to woo a bunch of assholes to our side then we should nominate Ted Cruz.

If Ted Cruz were the Dem nominee, I and many other Dems wouldn't vote for him, so that would be a losing strategy. Trump would perhaps be better than Cruz, because Cruz would be more effective at doing horrible things than Trump is, since he is more competent.

[Diabolical Materialism]

And the Bernie Sanders closing argument is to get a man who proudly voted for Jill Stein

Er, why do you say this as if it's a bad thing? The Democrats lose if they don't win over any 2016 third party voters...

If we want to sell out to woo a bunch of assholes to our side then we should nominate Ted Cruz.

Because people who voted for the Green Party in 2016 are definitely further from the virtues the Democratic Party claims to stand for than Ted Cruz right? Beautiful insight. Totally and completely equivalent. Pack it up boys, horseshoe theory wins again.

[John Dule]

And the Bernie Sanders closing argument is to get a man who proudly voted for Jill Stein

Er, why do you say this as if it's a bad thing? The Democrats lose if they don't win over any 2016 third party voters...

If we want to sell out to woo a bunch of assholes to our side then we should nominate Ted Cruz.

Wait, are you saying that if Ted Cruz was the Democratic nominee you wouldn't vote for him? What kind of party loyalist are you? I swear, you Biden Bros are always trying to sow division.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1224421786525294592

[Progressive Pessimist]

And the Bernie Sanders closing argument is to get a man who proudly voted for Jill Stein

Er, why do you say this as if it's a bad thing? The Democrats lose if they don't win over any 2016 third party voters...

If we want to sell out to woo a bunch of assholes to our side then we should nominate Ted Cruz.

Wait, are you saying that if Ted Cruz was the Democratic nominee you wouldn't vote for him? What kind of party loyalist are you? I swear, you Biden Bros are always trying to sow division.

Honestly, I would probably vote for Cruz over Trump. He's beyond awful but he wouldn't inspire a cult, destroy the very fabric of the country, and be able to get away with what Trump does.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

The Democratic Party is such a goddam joke. Bernie is likely getting first while Biden is by most accounts struggling to stay in 4th place. And yet the way the party apparatus messed this up everyone will just pretend Biden’s poor showing doesn’t matter and watch him get the nomination after a long protracted battle.

[BigSerg]

https://twitter.com/jaylencavil/status/1224531122354298881?s=19

[Rookie Yinzer]

DEAD at Bernie fighting to keep caucuses and this multi tiered way of counting votes and it backfiring for him.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Just to be clear, if there are 167 votes and 8 delegates, then it's 21 votes per delegate.

Pete had 66, which is more than the 63 he needs for 3.  Sanders had 101, which is less than the 105 he needs for 5.  If they'd divided it up 5-3, that probably would have been more fair, but also Pete would have been able to complain that they RIGGED IT AGAINST HIM by rounding down.

Like, just grow up.  Please.  Just grow up.  These are real people with hard jobs in 1700 different precincts and last night was especially tough for them.  The last thing they need is to be made the target of a conspiracy theory smear campaign by the Sanders people about a secret plot to rig the election in Buttigieg's favor.

[Donerail]

The last thing they need is to be made the target of a conspiracy theory smear campaign by the Sanders people about a secret plot to rig the election in Buttigieg's favor.

If your process is so convoluted and dysfunctional that it becomes this easy to spin a conspiracy theory out of it, you really don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[lfromnj]

Just to be clear, if there are 167 votes and 8 delegates, then it's 21 votes per delegate.

Pete had 66, which is more than the 63 he needs for 3.  Sanders had 101, which is less than the 105 he needs for 5.  If they'd divided it up 5-3, that probably would have been more fair, but also Pete would have been able to complain that they RIGGED IT AGAINST HIM by rounding down.

Like, just grow up.  Please.  Just grow up.  These are real people with hard jobs in 1700 different precincts and last night was especially tough for them.  The last thing they need is to be made the target of a conspiracy theory smear campaign by the Sanders people about a secret plot to rig the election in Buttigieg's favor.

Its a stupid system but its not really biased towards anyone as you said.

[GoTfan]

I honestly don't see him getting the nomination. He needed Iowa.