Bernie Sanders
Something I’ve been tracking for a while is who supports Sanders vs. Warren. This is anecdotal, though there’s some data to back it up. What I’ve noticed is that the people I know who prefer Warren are those who are doing OK or well in the current system, but understand it isn’t a fair system, and want to help those for whom the system hasn’t worked.
They don’t want radical change, they want the system fixed: They want it to be fair, and somewhat kinder to the poor. But they aren’t actually behind real Medicare 4 All, or full student debt cancellation.
These are people who are comfortable with Warren because she is like them–a member of the system who has done well by the system, knows how it works, and how it should work (like in the 80s, but a bit kinder), and want it put that way. She’s an insider, and they’ll go on about how she worked the system behind the scenes.
Sanders supporters tend to be either people the system has failed, who want radical change, or people who, despite doing OK, still want radical change: They see the system as rotten and evil, even if they are one of those able to make it work for them. To them, Sanders is an outsider, despite all his time in DC, and if it’s true he isn’t as adept at working within the current system to get shit done as Warren is, that’s OK, because they want the current system broken. Being an outsider is the point; insiders can’t be trusted.
Biden followers are people who think that things were great under Obama, who want a restoration to 2016 (as opposed to Warren’ 1982.) Buttigieg followers want the same, but to feel woke because Pete’s Gay.
Sanders basically wants to go back to the New Deal, add in help for minorities and the environment, then advance it somewhat further.
Voting preferences thus come down to a combination of identity (they’re like me), position (how am I doing), and belief (is the system good or bad and when was it last good?).
Biden and Buttigieg are about a restoration to 2016, ie., the problem is just Trump. Warren’s about a restoration to 1982 (just as Republicans are starting to chop up the New Deal). Sanders is about 1944, fix the racism and sexism, and advance the New Deal further.
Or, so it seems to me. If you see otherwise, let us know in the comments. (Yes, yes, this is Sanders week at the blog.)
Money would be rather useful, as I don’t get paid by the piece. If you want to support my writing, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.
Mark Warywoda
can\’t disagree with you, Ian.
I am one of those who has done quite well under the current system (albeit in Canada, and we have some rights here that might currently be considered luxuries in the good ole USA) but who has, since 9/11, wakened up to how corrupt and evil it is.
And, yes, even here too in Canada (Freeland is monstrous; lets keep buying pipelines and selling military hardware to the Saudis, JT)
in any case, I think the only reason I decided to comment is b/c you didnt mention Tulsi… and though Bernie is by far the strongest candidate on all the issues I care about vs the others you mentioned, his comparative advantage is weakest on foreign policy; he could use a bit more Tulsi in his FP platform, particularly regarding regime change and other interventionist imperial B.S.
Joan
Four of my friends prefer Warren over Sanders: two work on Wall Street, one works for a pipeline company, and one just wants a woman president.
I voted for Sanders.
Mallam
I favor Warren even though my politics gels more with Sanders. I’m doing pretty well. The reason for that is because I think her reforms are actually in some ways more radical than Sanders. I like to use “housing” policy as an example. They both favor similar measures to fix the problem: more money for the poor, more building of public housing, revamping rules for private housing markets. But where do their hearts go to fixing it changes. Warren would completely reshape and change the market itself, and fixing root causes. Whereas Sanders would say “give public housing to the poor”. Both are good, both prescribe overlapping measures…but Warren goes to the root problem of corruption in markets, Sanders wants to tax the rich and give to the poor. Now again, to repeat, their housing platforms are very similar, but Warren’s instincts on the issue are better.
I think this shapes their entire approach, and I think Warren would be more effective. The problem is I think Sanders is more “electable”, and therefore I’ll probably vote for him when my primary comes. I hope Warren is given a lot of say in a Sanders admin and I hope he takes her counsel. She’d be the better president, but can’t be president if you can’t get elected. He polls better in both the primary and general.
I don’t think your descriptions are correct considering Biden has built most of his support on the core of the Dem party, which are black voters.
Willy
In his Frontline interview, Steve Bannon said that if the left took control of the current populist movement they wouldn’t be negotiating much with the elites. Instead they’d be ‘coming for their asses’. I think he meant people like Sanders and AOC.
Warren, and Biden, Buttigieg, etc… seem like negotiators. If the continuous evidence is any kind of proof, the conservative donor class will take anything that can be considered weakness, including a willingness to negotiate or even adherence to rule of law, as surrender.
The Democratic negotiator class has had as one of its primary voter strategies, the conversion of Republican voters to instead vote Democratic. That they ignore the tens of millions of potential voters who’ve completely given up because they think the system is rigged, R or D, is pretty damning.
Jerry Brown
I support Bernie Sanders. One argument I have heard from lefties on the fence between Warren and Sanders is that Sanders cannot work with others within the system and therefore would not be able to get things done. And that Warren has shown she can work that system. And that the most important thing is that we actually can get things (changes) done. Therefore they are leaning towards Warren. This assumes they are both equally able to beat Trump of course, which I dispute. But I haven’t been all that good at predicting elections.
alyosha
I think you’re mostly right but I would add: Sanders is 79, recently had a heart attack, and despite many years in Congress has gotten little done to show for it. I hate to quote Hillary Clinton, but “Nobody likes him”, meaning the people he has to work with in Congress. He’s a firebrand, OK, but impractical on several levels, not the least of which is his advanced age and health.
EW is younger, has sheafs of plans and is for me, a more practical choice.
We’re flirting with late USSR style gerontocratic choices in Sanders and Biden.
different clue
The New Deal was a good deal for most of us. I want my New Deal back. I am a New Deal Reactionary.
I am proceeding on the ” green cheese Moon” theory. Ask for the Moon and get some green cheese, maybe. Vote for the Socialism and get some New Deal back, maybe.
Some tattered shreds of New Deal legislation still exist here and there. We still have the Wages and Hours laws. Those could be enforced with zealous rigor. We still have Public Utility Commissions in the states. Perhaps those could be re-conquered by the Public and de-captured from the Utilities. I believe we still have a Rural Electrification Agency and its REA co-ops. Those are considered so irrelevant and laughable that many people forget they still exist. But they do, and can perhaps be built out from and replicated in some places.
A Sanders Administration could assist in some or maybe all of that.
Since Warren knows markets and laws and money, and might still harbor some bitterness in her heart over how the Big Bankers’ Obama cheated her out of the opportunity to be the first leader of the Agency he was not able to prevent her from forming, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; perhaps she would be a good Secretary of the Treasury. She would understand how to use the various regulatory powers at Treasury as tire irons to beat some honesty and fairness into unwilling financial markets and financial products markets.
I believe that Sanders understands the role of the International Free Trade Conspiracy in destroying and exterminating large chunks of American society and economy. He might try creating an opening for spreading such understanding wider throughout American society than it already exists, and in a more systematic thought-out way than Trump’s shallow primitive concept of “good deals”.
About “electability” . . . . “electability” can’t be predicted in advance. The Clintonite-Media Conspiracy selected Trump as their preferred Republican opponent because they assumed he was the LEAST electable Republican. That just goes to show the worthlessness of “electability” theory. I want Sanders because of POlicy. I don’t care about other peoples’ fantasy-based theories of “electability”.
nihil obstet
The people I talk politics to in the over 40 crowd tend to pride themselves on their political knowledge, despite the fact that they know relatively little about the actual policies and records of the candidates. They would be insulted (and feel unjustly abused) if I called them “low information voters”, but they are. As nearly as I can figure out, their knowledge comes from CNN and MSNBC along with the NYTimes and Washington Post. (I don’t watch any of those and rarely read the Times and Post, so I’m interpreting some hints about their sources.) None of them were for Sanders in 2016, because he wasn’t electable and if elected, wouldn’t be able to get anything done. They regard me as pretty much a political idiot.
Some of the ones who aren’t active in Democratic Party politics have come round to Sanders. They have not done well under the current system.
Warren supporters believe that universal programs give scarce money to those who don’t need it. They’re as bad as Republicans about wanting serious gate-keeping for everything, to stop abuse. They’ve bought into the notion that with serious fraud prevention, it’s adequate to give individuals the information to allow them to make their own choices. Not that any of them read the pages and pages of privacy policies that they agree to every year! They also believe in wonkery as the way to govern, and appropriately regulated markets as the basis of the society. They see Warren as realistic in opposition to Sanders.
Buttigieg appeals to people who love platitudes. What do you want? He’ll say it in vague, uplifting, latinate terms. He’s the bright young man who sends all the right class signals, which they just see as evidence of intelligence and goodness. He also gets some draw from the worry some have over the age of the major candidates.
Biden is the continuation of the Democratic Party, not just for blacks but for people who have spent their political lives working for the Democrats on the firm belief that they govern better and more fairly than the Republicans. These are the people who haven’t accepted the change of the party from a political party to a brand management organization. They see criticisms of Biden’s past as criticisms of the party and dismiss them.
So the people I know seem to think that the candidates are contestants on The Dating Game rather than politicians who may seriously affect how they live.
nihil obstet
It is a mystery to me how anyone can think that a politician from a small state who calls himself a “Democratic Socialist” in the neoliberal age and accomplishes these things is unable to work with others. This is especially true since Sanders excelled at getting <a href="https://www.alternet.org/2015/10/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you/substantive amendments onto bills."
Watt4Bob
It appears to me that Warren is in denial, and that Sanders is not.
The issue is as much what has already been done to our country as it is about what is about to happen.
The people who have gone about chopping up the New Deal over the last 40 years are the nastiest vermin that exist on this planet, and I see any impulse to continue compromising with them and as spinelessness.
It is time to admit to ourselves that our country has been looted already, and they’re just about to steal our Social Security, and light the house on fire as they run out the front door.
Bernie has been consistently resisting their efforts for a very long time, and appears to have decided it’s time to put an end to the neocon nightmare New World Order before it puts an end to us.
I think he is right.
I fear Warren hasn’t quite come to grips with the existence of evil, since it appears she believes she can negotiate with it.
Watt4Bob
I have to addd, Warren and Sanders are the only dems even thinking of resisting.
The rest of the dems are the ones stuffing the last of the loot in the trunks of their cars, and driving off with police escort as you house burns.
Ted
I support Sanders.In my seventy years I have witnessed how much people accept corruption as a way of life and go along with electing leaders that have no respect for the laws of our country or international laws. And if you try to explain this to younger people they are deer in the headlights because they have grown up seeing this as the normal way of doing business. We have a person in the White House that bragged about how he treats woman because to him the only thing that matters is money and power and the Christian community supports this.My question has been what has the GOP ever done for the average person ? Just like Cheney and Mitch said they don’t care what the American people think and now for the past thirty or more years the Democratic party has done the same thing falling in front of corporate money and ditching the American people. I support Sanders and AOC for their fight against the corruption and unjustified military actions done in the name of the American people all across the world.
Andre
There’s one thing about Bernie that I do not ever see mentioned. I call it his returning ‘truth’ as ‘coin of the realm’, as it were. His belief, freely stated, that even people in prison should not lose the right to vote, is a case in point. In a democracy the right to vote is the supreme ‘inalienable right’, but the Republicans over tome have hacked away at it (because they can’t win on the issues, so they try to take away the votes of those on the side of the issues). First and foremost it should not be taken way from anybody. The ‘truth’ is that it’s an inalienable right. Sanders has always caused me to think about things correctly – I’ve followed him for a couple of decades. Another one is treating the Palestinians with dignity and respect, which he recently stated. How did we forget that truth? Republicans (and Dems who want to be Republicans), that’s how. Speaking of Republicans, after W, the Republican party was in sure decline. Obama saved it with his incessant call for ‘bipartisanship’, and at the same time did nothing to build the Dem party. He’s a Dem who wanted to be a Republican, but had the wrong skin color for the Republicans. I hope at the end of Trump, the republicans are again in deep decline, and Sanders becomes president and does nothing to help them.
bruce wilder
I started out the campaign year regarding in my personal subjective assessment Sanders & Warren as a tossup. I was surprised when their supporters cleaved so sharply.
As Warren went from agreeing with Sanders on every thing to making the pitch for herself as the safer and more pragmatic choice, I have grown skeptical. In my mind, the idea that she can work the system runs up against the suspicion the system can work her.
I wanted to like Buttigieg, I really did. He’s smart and articulate — a great political talent. I did notice early on that he was more than a bit of a teacher’s pet. He said things that would only appeal to really old people, and especially those only minimally aware of how much the country has deteriorated.
I am kind of amazed that Biden has kept his poll numbers so consistently. I will hold to my prediction that support for Biden will disappear rapidly as 3-week voters pay attention. My understanding is that — with less than a week to the Iowa caucuses, Biden’s support in the Hawkeye State has evaporated. People who cleave to Biden as “electable” or an “obviously superior” choice to Trump are political idiots — may be too stupid to breathe properly.
Complacency and anxiety about the shape of “our revolution” have the potential to subvert all that I regard as hopeful in Sanders’ candidacy. His rhetoric of “movement” and his anger at the consequences of the greed of billionaires belongs to the New Deal era; I am not sure there really are enough people convinced the economic system is at fault in a fundamental way. The prof managerial class that I am told is the base of the Democratic Party has an ambiguous relationship with the billionaires and is invested in feeling entitled and superior to the philistine working classes. The age skew there is huge of course. College grads hustling the gig economy have an experience very different from people in their fifties clinging to salaries and paid-for houses.
Sanders is gambling that class anger can gain more from motivating the discouraged than it will lose among those made anxious by surfacing conflict. It is as much a long shot as the DNC thinking they can lose the factory workers and deer hunters and make it up with suburban formerly Republican matrons, thus keeping Pennsylvania.
The DNC strategy of electing Representatives from Buttigieg backgrounds means even a Democratic Congress will be hostile to a Sanders campaign let alone a Sanders Administration. Where Warren fits in after she loses as she seems destined to do in the primaries is a key question. Will she oppose Sanders later in the process?
edmondo
(Yes, yes, this is Sanders week at the blog.)
Isn’t every week?
tatere
I think Warren has a very clear understanding that the Reagan era broke things fundamentally – antitrust, inions, banking, regulation, anywhere you look. That’s why normies think she’s a radical leftist, it’s outside of their mentality. I think her target era is more like the 60s than the 80s. She’s not really left wing, she just takes the centrist ideas seriously as if we meant them. Which is, you know, crazy talk. Sanders is closer to a radical left, certainly for mainstream politics in the USA. I think they’re both far ahead of anyone else in terms of climate change, and that’s what matters. That’s our duty to the future (along with No nuclear war, not unrelated).
Mark Pontin
And here they go again —
‘DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention
The talks reveal rising anxiety over the Vermont senator’s momentum on the eve of voting.’
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/dnc-superdelegates-110083
‘…on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested ….’
Mark Pontin
And as regards the relative value of Sanders vs. Warren, I think it’s a clear tell that the Dem establishment can mostly get their minds around the latter as compatible with the party, but not Sanders.
If we judge merely by the quality of his enemies and the degree of their hostility to him, therefore, it’s pretty clear that Sanders is the greater threat to business as usual DNC-style, and therefore has the superior potential as a candidate
Hugh
It looks like Warren’s campaign is on its way out. She is a liberal, not a progressive. She says she is capitalist to the bone. She is for markets, markets, markets. Medicare for All is a red line for me, and whatever Warren is for it isn’t that. Our society is large enough and complicated enough that things like healthcare, the internet, and banking among others are essentially part of the commons and should be run by government or as public utilities. So universal single payer for healthcare, the internet as a public utility, a governmental postal bank for plain vanilla banking, etc.
I do like her stand on breaking up Big Tech, but that’s about it. I don’t agree with Sanders on immigration or giving serving felons the vote, but I do agree with him on Medicare for All, climate change, and education debt.
Mark Pontin
More comedy gold from the Dems. Here’s Tom Perez on Twitter: “You can trust us.”
https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/1223386600555646979
different clue
( My lonely comment sits and weeps in moderation).
Spring Texan
I used to admire Warren quite a lot, and gave her campaign money, even though I preferred Sanders. But first she backed away from Medicare for All, and then she staged the attack on Bernie – et tu, Liz?
No honorable person or person of character would have pulled that shit about he told me a woman can’t get elected. I no longer trust her ONE IOTA. I even prefer an honorable centrist.
I now think I ignored all the stuff that should have tipped me off about her earlier. I feel dumb. Character matters. https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/opinion/the-white-supremacy-of-elizabeth-warren-q6pZPvG4_0WIwiv__VU_bQ
It’s also just nuts to ignore how bad she is likely to be on foreign policy: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/26/elizabeth-warren-foreign-policy-team-pro-war-regime-change/amp/
Z
Warren is a practitioner of performance art of progressivism, the process soluble brand of progressivism practiced by Obama that’s ultimately all about the practitioner and little about the cause. It’s small ball as far as impact, most of their grand “ambitions” get whittled away in the political process, but gets the practitioner plaudits from the media about being tough … see what good progressives can do if they play by the rules … but does nothing to upset the corrupt hierarchy.
Z
Steve
I think that is a fair summary. I\’m doing OK, but totally hate the way that business is conducted here in the USA. I work in the vast health care sector, and it is absolutely rotten to the core. I think I am not exaggerating when it is the most wasteful, ineffective system ever devised in human history. People from outside the USA do not understand how truly insane the health care system is. \”It\’s too expensive and is not universal\” only scratches the surface of the horror. I consider anyone who defends it or promotes mere modest reforms as delusional (Delaney) or irredeemably corrupt (Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar).
My hope is that Bernie will actually take a page from the playbook of AMLO, and campaign against vast, useless bureaucracies whose workers typically support status quo candidates. It would be a new strategy for the American left, and would totally wrong-foot the right here, including Trump. It would be no loss anyway, since those people will vote for Howard Schultz, or Bloomberg, or whichever billionaire technocrat tries to play spoiler.
Z
Think about what she tried doing to Bernie and the progressive cause. He was 74 years old in 2015 and had never ran for president and didn’t want to, he wanted HER to, but because she wouldn’t and he felt it was necessary to pressure Clinton from the left, he ran. It certainly couldn’t have been due to personal ambition. No one wakes up one day when they are 74 and decides they want THAT job. And if they had that ambition they sure as hell would not call themselves a Democratic Socialist.
His campaign built a lot more support in 2016 than I imagine he ever dreamed. Him and his campaign busted their ass and built a grassroots campaign financing infrastructure, support for progressive causes, and a lot of young idealistic and hopeful energy about what CAN BE. If it wasn’t for that campaign there wouldn’t be any talk of medicare-for-all, student loan forgiveness, and whatnot. AOC would probably still be waiting tables and there would be no Squad.
Warren then turned around and tried sneak kicking him and his movement in the groin which would have undermined all that work, all that momentum towards progressive causes.
I posted on this site three months ago or so about how highly I thought of Warren. I didn’t think she had the vision or the fight that Bernie did, but I would have went out and voted for her if she won the nomination. I was stupid and naive about her. I’ll never vote for her now. Lyin’ Liz is closer to Biden, whose candidacy her unethical stunt would have probably benefited the most, than Bernie as far as values and character.
Z
Z
To give you an idea of what a hypocritical, shallow politician Lyin’ Liz is, she rolled out a new campaign slogan this week: “Courage over cynicism”.
Z
Ian Welsh
Current polling shows Sanders and Biden in a statistical tie with black voters, with Sanders nominally ahead.
Heitzso
I’ve read most of Warren’s “The Two Income Trap” and am very impressed with her understanding of the economic face of our country’s injustice. I’ve read that she has a much better understanding of how the big finance/money machine works than any other presidential candidate in our history. I do believe that Sanders and Warren are the two candidates who should/hope-to win. While Sanders perhaps understands the big “they do us wrong” picture better, I believe Warren is the surgeon with a very sharp scalpel aimed at the finance industry.
I won’t donate to the democratic party as a generic party donation. I have donated to Warren. If Sanders is nominated I’ll donate to him. I’d consider donating to AOC’s PAC that she’s forming to bypass the DNC’s resistance to real change.
I believe both are in this on principle and not for power. I could be wrong. I remember McGoven turning his back on the grass roots who got him nominated and pivoting to big money and big machine and then losing. Was he unprincipled and just playing a game earlier w/ grass roots or did he believe he had to make a deal with the devil to take his campaign to the level it needed to win? I don’t know. I just know how absolutely disgusted the grass roots community was with him. (similar to Obama?)
I do ask that we don’t burn either one of them, as I’m seeing in some of these comments. Warren did not publicize Sanders’ comment re women, someone else did. Etc. Please don’t burn either!
I’d argue that Sanders had his moment to shine in 2016 and it’s time for him to get behind Warren. But when I hear him speak his passion reaches me. And we need that.
One question I throw around is which could hold their own against Trump in a debate? Trump takes on a debate as a no holds barred truth be damned performance to be dominant. My sense is both Warren and Sanders are capable of holding their own, but I believe that’s an important aspect of being electable.
Z
Warren was dragged into backing a version of medicare-for-all and if she would have sank Bernie, that whole movement would have likely been thwarted politically. She certainly was unlikely to drive it with no political pressure applied. Biden wouldn’t.
That’s how much Lyin’ Liz values progressive causes and people that aren’t in her economic class.
Z
Mallam
You’d have to cherry pick polls to show he’s tied/ahead with black voters, Ian. For example, NBC/WSJ has it Biden 52%, Sanders 28% (and it oversampled 18-34 vote imo, inflating Sanders’). What’s been consistent is that Sanders performs well with Hispanic voters (likely because they’re younger than the population as a whole, though this isn’t entirely the reason). Similarly, younger black voters prefer Sanders to Biden, allowing him to have a substantial chunk of the overall vote.
We’ll know for sure when the South votes. However, SC isn’t as important in this primary as in 2016, and Biden winning 50-60% black vote probably isn’t enough (Clinton won 75-85%). It really will depend on if Bernie is able to be viable in a wide range of precincts. Otherwise Biden will rack up delegates and he won’t be caught.
Z
The more I think about Warren and Bloomberg and Biden, the more I wonder if the establishment dem emergency plan is to run Biden until he starts walking in circles, have Bloomberg continue to reach in his wallet to hit heavy on his TV ads, and have Liz run her progressive female brand to accumulate enough of the votes to prevent Bernie from getting the 51% of the delegates and then go to the convention and pull the super delegates out and toss together a Bloomberg-Warren ticket. It’s not as crazy as it sounds. In fact, it’s not crazy at all.
Warren is an amoral snake IMO. She is currently mildly bashing Bloomberg and him buying his way into the race, but in the course of that her “progressive allies” have approached the DNC to lobby for Bloomberg’s inclusion in the debates (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/28/bloomberg-progressives-leftists-2020-dnc-106712), even though he didn’t qualify, supposedly because they are upset that he is not getting proper scrutiny. The compliant DNC changed the rules and he is going to be part of the debates now, which could be a potential marketing boon for his candidacy.
Bloomberg is supposedly in the race to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination, and many, like myself at first, looked at this in the first order sense and laughed at his stupidity because there aren’t many people out there that I’d imagine are undecided between Bernie and a billionaire. But if Bloomberg is running to accumulate votes and be there when they pull the plug on Biden it makes sense. I was astonished at his hubris, but that’s naive; Bloomberg is far, far from dumb.
Biden makes no sense as the democratic nominee, he is falling apart by the day. He’s becoming too embarrassing to run. He is useful though for accumulating votes, especially down south where neither Warren or Bloomberg will do well. Run him for his delegates in those states. Then late in the race, or at least after Super Tuesday, start running rumors in the media about Biden not “feeling well”, everyone will know what that means. He drops out and the media starts their undercurrent of “what would Joe want?”.
Once transgender champion Joe leaves, showcase Bloomberg, get Warren to buy in as his running mate (if she hasn’t already), combine Warren’s, Biden’s, and Bloomberg’s delegates together, even though Bernie has the most delegates they have more combined, and call it a ticket through the super delegates. Maybe toss in rumors of Castro being the INS guy and Young Republican Pete as SOS. It would be an identitarian delight. The media would be ecstatic, what social progress: Bloomberg running to be the first Jewish president, Warren as the first woman vice president (she’s also a progressive, the media would say), a gay SOS, and a Latino INS head. You’d have to be an anti-semitic, anti-progressive misogynist, homophobic, Latinx hater not to vote for them over Trump.
I’m not kidding, it’s a way of boxing Bernie out and keep everything pretty much the way it is at worst from our rulers’ standpoint. If they get in, throw Liz out there and have her make a half-assed effort to get some sort of healthcare improvement to protect her progressive credentials and have the republicans and blue dogs beat back her “valiant” efforts.
What’s not to like from Warren’s standpoint? At this point, she’s running for vice president anyway.
If you think about it, it makes more sense than having the democrats have Biden run as their nominee as president when his brain is going, a billionaire aiming to pry votes from Bernie, and Warren thinking that making the political ploy of kicking Bernie and his campaign in the groin would somehow lead to her winning the nomination after pissing off Bernie’s base.
Z
Z
Bloomberg has been a candidate that’s much more likely to take votes from Biden than Bernie, that’s why it never made any sense that he is in the race to prevent Bernie from getting the delegates required to win the nomination outright unless my theory is correct of a Bloomberg-Biden-Warren-DNC-super delegate collusion.
Z
Eric Anderson
As evidenced here:
https://twitter.com/TheRealWebstir/status/1223100040421314562
I’ve been on both sides. And nothing, absolutely nothing pisses me off more than the snobbery that comes from the technocrat class.
We need 2 years minimum of mandatory blue collar service from every new adult in this country between the ages of 18-20 — no matter how much mommy and daddy make. Bring back the CCC.
The snobs will learn to respect the working class.
Hugh
I agree with Z that it is informative to start at the endpoint and work backwards to understand how things are going to fall out. I found it worked during the Trump impeachment trial. And as Z outlines, it looks pretty good for an “anyone but Bernie” game plan.
I agree with Eric Anderson. The rich and elites need to have skin (their children) in the game.
Heitzso, we have been talking about how to reform and control financial markets for years. Here are a few suggestions off the top of my head.
1. Outlaw most derivatives.
2. Limit “paper” futures.
3. Eliminate high frequency trading.
4. Institute a Tobin tax on trades.
5. Eliminate dark pools.
6. Treat all investment income as regular income.
7. Re-institute Glass-Steagall.
8. Deny investment banks access to the Fed.
9. Institute the Swedish model for bank rescues.
10. Put the Fed under the Treasury.
11. Eliminate the bank dominated boards of the regional Feds.
12. Create a “postal” bank for plain vanilla banking
13. 100% tax on estates over $4 million.
14. 95% tax rate on income (from whatever source) over $400,000.
15. Treat change in nationality the same as estates.
16. Implement currency controls as needed.
Dave Dell
My Warren experience… Mid March of 2019. Went to her website to find an address to mail my pitiful contribution. No mailing address to be found. Email to ask where to mail the check. Automatic reply that they got the email and would follow up later. OK, maybe she’s not staffed up yet but a google search shows she’s got lots of staffing. Wait a couple of weeks without any email from the campaign, not even a please support us go to ActBlue sort of message. Re-visit the web site. A mailing address is there. Maybe it was before, I dunno. Mail a check about April 6, 2019. Doesn’t get cashed for 3 – 4 weeks until early May.
The Warren campaign has my email address and my mailing address. I have not received any further communication from her campaign.
When I send a small check to the Sanders campaign, which I do whenever I get a mailing with a reply envelope (about once a quarter) I receive a thank you postcard in about 10 days. Not a request for more money, just a thanks for the donation and keep thinking progressively.
Makes me wonder about Warren’s staffing. Is her campaign really small donor oriented?
450.org
Bloomberg is in the race because the DNC is feckless in the face of Trump and he knows it. Trump will annihilate Warren. Trump will annihilate Biden. Bernie has a chance against Trump and Bloomberg has more than a chance against Trump. Bloomberg is a sure win against Trump, in fact.
Bill Maher has it right. The Dems, or Bloomberg and/or Bernie if you will, need to go low against Trump and his cabal of walking dead zombies. I can help either of them do this and I am more than willing to offer my services. Do you hear that Bernie and/or Bloomberg. If you’re interested, I will be your man on attacking Trump everywhere and anywhere with poignancy that will drive him even more insane than he already is. Just let Ian know and Ian can let me know so we can hook up and strike a deal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5jkYN_wG7c
450.org
17. Eliminate the Virginia Plan of a bicameral legislature and adopt the New Jersey Plan of a unicameral legislature. Keep the House and dispose of the Senate. The House represents the people, or at least that was its original intent, and the Senate represents the oligarchy and is intended to be a bulwark against popular rule and anything the House may submit that would alter the status quo hierarchical arrangement.
gnokgnoh
I’m surprised no one has linked to Bernie’s latest campaign ad. It’s a doozy. I love it, except for the very strong use of the word, “revolution,” at the end.
Here’s the contradiction for me. How is an ad for a man running for President of the United States a revolution against the United States? Something about the country, its history, good and bad, makes him want to be President of it. I doubt he wants to change the basic construct of its Constitution or tripartite division of government, or common law legal system (case law is precedent, it changes slowly). Is this a soft revolution, from within? This certainly is not Lenin or Mao or July 14, 1789. I don’t think he’s planning on storming the Bastille – the equivalent would be Guantanamo, or perhaps the federal prison in D.C.? Is there such a thing called a soft revolution? Everyone loves the 1945 version of the New Deal, but not the 1982 version of it. Except Roosevelt was quite conservative, and we had Unions, and a Communist Party of which he was deeply afraid. Someone mentioned African Americans. I doubt the New Deal meant much to them until the voting rights act and war on poverty of 1964.
Maybe 1982 might be a better model? Frankly, the safety net we had in place in 1982 was much stronger, especially for minorities (Medicare 1965, Brown v. Board of Education 1954 (yes, education is a safety net), Gideon right to counsel 1963); and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts passed under Nixon’s administration that are currently in the process of being gutted.
Other than the Green New Deal, which is radical enough to actually have a positive impact in mitigating the long emergency we face, describing the revolution as backward-facing, not forward looking, is not a strong vision to say the least. I love the New Deal, don’t get me wrong. I just don’t understand a soft revolution in reverse. This is where the Green New Deal understands the progress we have made since 1945, both good and bad, and intentionally frames it using the terminology, but is a very different vision; especially as it relates to social justice. Warren’s strategy to tackle it makes sense to me, but I’m a little bit of a policy wonk. I understand that Sanders’ fire is a better strategy to beat Trump. Policies and plans are not a good campaign strategy, not in this moment.
Lyin’ Liz and Crazy Bernie, Z and Trump perfect together.
450.org
First stop, Trump’s State of the Union speech. Every Democrat who attends should commit to what Bill Maher suggests. They should shout, in perfect unison, every time Trump lies which is every time he opens his putrefied mouth, “YOU LIE!!!!!” Trump and the Republicans have disgraced the Constitution and America so there is no “dignity,” even the mere appearance of it, left to defend and uphold. There is nothing to lose at this point. Every time the bloated, flabby, orange Dildo in Chief opens his mouth during the State of the Union address, the Dems need to shout him down with “YOU LIE!!!!”
gnokgnoh
Why does everyone here refer to him as Sanders and not Bernie? He likes Bernie.
450.org
I refer to him as Bernie. So it’s not everyone but of course, I’m sure you perceive me as no one and you do so at your own peril.
gnokgnoh
My apologies. I don’t perceive you as no one. What do you mean by peril?
450.org
It’s metaphor. There are voices out here that are largely ignored and smothered by the insiders who have controlled the dialogue for far too long and that’s a large part of the reason why we’re in this predicament.
gnokgnoh
Thank you.
450.org
Stick it to them, Bernie. Sorry, Marta (no I’m not really), but it makes all the sense in the world.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2020/02/01/a-billionaires-spouse-donated-470-to-bernie-sanders-he-gave-it-back/#37cbfbda7dda
Ché Pasa
Biden’s not going to be the nominee. This is all but certain. If it looks like he’ll have enough delegates to be nominated, I’ll bet he’ll withdraw. He didn’t join the fray to get nominated. He did it to reassure the old folks and other minorities that things wouldn’t be too radical/socialist/leftist, nor too rightist Republican with Dems in charge. Stopping Bernie, yes, but not really. Bernie won’t be the nominee either, but that’s another issue. Biden isn’t necessary to stop him. Biden is a place holder.
If Bloomberg has been sent out as the deus ex machina, which he may think himself, damn we’re fucked. But then we are anyway. He may see himself as the Good Emperor in waiting, but why should we want an Emperor at all?
Especially why should we want a billionaire Emperor from New York? This is lunacy. But the echoes of aristo-FDR from Hyde Park, NY, and the New Deal, making positive change from above can’t be denied.
Too many people want it back or think they do. Bernie offers it but he doesn’t have the heft. Warren speaks of something resembling it but she’s alienated too many and doesn’t have the heft. Pete? No. Others on the field? Not even close.
Biden is just “whatever.” If he’s going to work with the Rs, kiss it goodbye, it won’t happen, nor will anything not vetted and approved by the billionaires and bankers — and Rs.
I think Z’s analysis of how the various political forces might sort out is good as far as it goes, but the situation is seriously chaotic, and what in fact will happen is not subject to prediction. Highest level Dems are trying their best to create an illusion of reassurance and normalcy, but it won’t work.
We’re on an uncharted path. Anything could happen.
(I was recently reminded that quite a number of my ancestors and their friends and relations died between 1918 and 1920. Are we facing something similar with the New Virus outbreak? Too soon to tell.)
450.org
This sums up Warren perfectly and it explains why she doesn’t stand a chance against Trump. You don’t send a golden retriever as your surrogate, you send The Terminator.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/29/days-before-iowa-warren-campaign-brings-out-key-surrogate-her-dog/
Ché Pasa
The Senate should have been abolished long ago, and if the elected government survives this period of instability, the House should be expanded — perhaps tripled in size. Judges should not serve lifetime appointments, either.
450.org
I have to ask, is Bailey part Indigenous American too? I bet Bailey has more Native American DNA than Liz has. I’m surprised she named it Bailey versus Geronimo.
450.org
Heitzso, debates are worse than worthless. They’re antiquated and irrelevant. They’re a holdover from a time that has long passed and is no longer applicable. Tradition is more of hinderance than a help in this time of crisis. Same holds for the State of the Union address. It’s become a propaganda platform and nothing more. Screw the aegis of tradition. We need to get this done, like Mike says, with or without Mike.
450.org
This is how stupid Michael Moore is, or he’s a malevolent, misdirecting turd blossom or both.. Mike Bloomberg doesn’t want to join the debates. He deplores the debates and considers them irrelevant and a hinderance like I do. The Dems are doing this because they want to use the debates to attack Bloomberg directly, not because they want to give center stage to Bloomberg and his platform.
https://deadline.com/2020/02/michael-moore-michael-bloomberg-debate-bernie-sanders-1202848666/
He is not buying his way into the debates you disingenuous liar. He thinks the debates are a waste of time and was prepared to skip them altogether. Bloomberg is NOT an establishment Dem even though he’s running as a Dem. He is not part of the political class. He is not a political whore, he’s the pimp as is Trump.
Moore is purposely misrepresenting this because he knows his audience is/are a bunch of rubes just as surely as Trump knows his audience is/are a bunch of rubes.
Ten Bears
I have to ask, is Bailey part Indigenous American too? I bet Bailey has more Native American DNA than Liz has. I’m surprised she named it Bailey versus Geronimo
Thanks 450, for showing us what you’re made of, who you are: reich-wing troll.
bruce wilder
@Hugh re: banking
1. place a usury ceiling on all lending and credit, encompassing auxiliary fees
2. Re: “Glass-Steagall” — go beyond the original, to do everything to break up the financial sector: atomize it into much smaller units with distinct missions, supported as necessary with public institutions a la Fannie Mae to enable portfolio insurance among independent units. Credit unions, thrifts, mutual insurance have to be made viable against commercial and investment banks, and all more or less local or regional.
3. Regulate mortgage lending with an eye on constraining house price and re prices generally to conform to local household income.
4. Create an international reserve currency independent of the U.S. dollar and U.S. fiscal capacity; institute routine capital controls limiting foreign direct investment.
5. End incorporation on demand; institute fixed and registered corporate charters; institute real property registration on a local level, but following a Federal standard taken from Australian model
6. Reform intellectual property law to limit terms to < 21 years, clarify that information cannot be copyrighted and liberalize fair use standards. Institute public patents and copyrights for the production of public goods including publicly funded university research that prevent opportunistic privatization.
Lists like this, of plainly sensible reforms that are practically inconceivable help to clarify how badly we need political organizing from the bottom-up to empower "us". Compare and contrast with proposals for a unicameral legislature as "reform".
bruce wilder
gg: Someone mentioned African Americans. I doubt the New Deal meant much to them until the voting rights act and war on poverty of 1964.
When I think of “identity politics” I often think of this kind of misconception, deliberately created as narrative interpretations of the past by advocates of supposedly left critiques of historic struggles to overcome oppression built on race and gender, among other categories.
Adolph Reed Jr wrote an elegant reflection for the New Republic that is worthy of consideration.
https://newrepublic.com/article/155704/new-deal-wasnt-intrinsically-racist
Dave Dell
Warren campaign took almost a month to cash my mailed in check last April/May of 2019. They have my email address and my mailing address. No contact.
Sanders campaign sends me a thank you card after every check I send them. Not a request for more money, just a thanks for the donation and “stay progressive”. Sanders campaign sends a mailing with a pre-addressed envelope once a quarter – give or take.
Just a bit of compare and contrast.
450.org
I have not claimed to be an Indigenous American, TB, but Liz Warren has. Why? Because she believed it was beneficial to present herself as such. Why? What is the logic and strategy behind that?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-native-american-heritage_n_1558838
Liz has been many things. She was once a a Republican before she was a Democrat. Sound familiar? Hillary was also once a Republican before she was a Democrat. At least Hillary never claimed to be an Indigenous American when she clearly is not.
Liz simply has no credibility. Not many politicians do if any do at all. But considering yourself a minority by blood when you are not is going too far in my opinion.It’s beyond the pale and ripe for evisceration by Donald Trump. If she and her supporters are as sensitive to my satirical jabs as you are, TB, she’s already toast for Donald Trump. Toughen up.
She then went further and pulled the stunt of having her DNA tested to prove to Donald Trump she was Indigenous American and as it turns out, she is less Indigenous American than the average American. It doesn’t get any more ridiculous than this. If Dems hang their hat on this, they deserve to lose again but we don’t deserve to suffer for their feckless, impotent imbecility. Thankfully, Liz won’t be the Dem nominee. I guarantee it.
Willy
There’s a tiny slice of Prussian in me but I don’t go around wearing a spiked helmet. Seems there’s something about the stress of going full public that brings out the full retard in some public servants. Or maybe they’ve just always been full of shit I dunno.
It’s easy to see how one can become jaded about debates. You’d think Trumps namecalling and BSing his way ‘past’ his opponents would’ve had the Founders spinning in their graves, if some of them hadn’t themselves been ‘conflicted’. There’s probably been millions of folks more qualified than any POTUS since the 40’s but thinking on ones feet and managing on ones ass seem to be critical parts of the job.
Public tests like the NFL combine don’t guarantee that vetted athletes will always pan out, but they do help keep the Hunter Bidens out of the NFL. You’d think that candidates who’ve been consistent and consistently good, should be the best candidates.
Has Warren ever stated why she had her Republican-to-progressive epiphany? Hell, I’ll tell anybody even if they don’t ask.
Dave Dell
My earlier comment about not hearing from the Warren campaign is now in error with today’s mail. I’ve got a feeling that it was received not because I donated last spring but, rather, because I’m a registered Dem in an upscale zip code (buy the cheapest house in an otherwise expensive neighborhood theory – it works. My mid 70’s ranch is extremely well built.) located in a purple oasis city in a deep red state. I’m going to send my small check and see if her campaign follows with more than a request for more money.
MojaveWolf
Here’s what I think of the candidates, starting w/the candidate I’ll probably vote for (Bernie), then the candidate I might vote for instead if my single vote would control the outcome (Tulsi) (I honestly don’t know; this would be a hard call; I still hope to see them as a Prez/VP team since their strengths/weaknesses almost perfectly compliment each other), then everyone else:
I will probably vote for Bernie. I had basically completely given up on politics and the future of the world heading into 2015, and was inclined to heed the words of the song, “swim out past the breakers, and watch the world die.” The shocking success of Bernie’s campaign, which would have won but for cheating, brought hope back (and would have already started instituting that hope, but for the DNC and MSM doing everything possible to coronate HRC from the get-go, and way too many people desperately ignoring and excusing the variou means of putting thumbs on the scale).
The 2016 Bernie would be getting a TON more pushback from the DNC, the woke pandering crowd, and from the MSM, and that person/campaign would also be an absolute lock to win the general.
Alas, we now have the Bernie who buys into (or pretends to go along with) the impeachment fiasco, the same Russiagate idiot hysteria that is also being used in a more lowkey way against him (and has been since it started), and who apologizes for a completely accurate, 100% on target article against Biden written by his surrogate, Zephyr Teachout, and promoted by one of his other surrogates, David Sirota, because she called Biden “corrupt.” A terrible word to use about Mr. I-Can-Lie-More-Than-Trump-But-Maybe-I-Just-Don’t-Remember-Yesterday, rewrite the bankruptcy bill, championed the Hyde Amendment, helped trash Anita Hill, Republicans don’t champion the war on drugs enough, look-where-my-hands-are Uncle Joe, even tho it’s obviously true by every single possible definition of the word, and the man lies about Bernie all the time. WTF, bernie?
Worse, and most likely to defeat him in the general if he loses, he’s switched from correctly saying open borders is being pushed as a Koch brothers plot to provide an unending source of cheap labor to keep wages and working conditions permanently in the toilet, to advocating them. Even if it doesn’t defeat him, this could undercut and overwhelm every single good thing he does.
That said, he’s still far and away better than the rest on every other domestic issue, one of the only ones who gets that climate change is an existential threat, and the only leading candidate who gives me any hope for the future at all; hopefully he will walk back the de facto open borders stuff, and the seemingly being too nice is a ploy to get past the primary and get people to work with him (and that he picks someone much more willing to tear enemies into shreds when need be, whether Tulsi or Nina or someone similar–Klobuchar could be an asset in this regard if she could be trusted, which she probably can’t, and even if she could I worry about him surviving two years if his VP is acceptable to the neolib/war profiteer/”oligarchy profits & power above all” crowd).
Foreign policy always has been and still is his weakest point, and again, he is too willing to at least verbally go along w/MSM-warmongery narratives, but still, he’s by far and away the second best candidate and by far and away the best of the poll leaders.
Tulsi–if only she had Bernie’s domestic bona fides, or if only he had Tulsi’s willingness to recognize that the Dem establishment–who he is campaigning against–are his enemy every bit as much as Trump and the Republicans. She is the ONLY one willing to call it like she sees it on foreign policy, and the ONLY one willing to call obvious scumbags on their scummishness, regardless of party, and the ONLY one I’m SURE has the spine to stand up to the various powers that be who wish to keep things running more or less as they have been for the past 40 years or so.
She is also sometimes too nice, but she can go from being extremely nice and patient to destroying Kamala, calling Buttigieg out on his willingness to continue the war profiteering, and saying things like this: “Hillary Clinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long”
Please God if you exist and aren’t evil convince Bernie pick her for his VP! Thank you. Amen.
Now for the others:
Warren: Openly stabbed her supposed friend in the back w/a blatant lie that probably finished off her campaign and was probably part of deal to get in good w/the Biden/Bloomberg set for VP, which shouldn’t have surprised me as much as it did since she had previously made up a story about her parents having to elope because her grandparents were bigots, due to one of her parents non-existent Native American ancestry, which story was made up to preserve the original lie she used to get a job at Harvard. So no.
If you took that out, I would say: “very good in her financial specialty, seems to know little and care less and be willing to go whichever way the wind blows in everything else, and has no objections to invading people to help enrich the already rich.” So no.
Bloomberg: I will quote two tweets I saw this morning:
“Mike Bloomberg was a keynote speaker at the 2004 Republican National Convention. He endorsed Bush and thanked him for starting the war in Iraq. ”
That SHOULD be an automatic disqualifier, but if you want more:
from Michael Tracey: November 19, 2019: Bloomberg gives $319,500 to the DNC (maximum allowable), $800,000 to the Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund (a DNC PAC), and $350,000+ to individual state parties
November 21, 2019: Bloomberg launches presidential campaign
Steyer: he seems sincere about climate change, but if he really wanted to fight it why not help Bernie & Tulsi, who have been actively working on this forever? Actually, he says a lot of good stuff, but I don’t trust him. Bernie & Tulsi have proven who they are, this guy made his money in fossil fuels and could be running a fairly smart “dilute the vote” campaign; basically only interested in him as an emergency, untrustworthy, posssible fallback.
Klobucher: Well, she’s consistent, not a pushover, and as with Bernie & Tulsi, we know who she is and what she stands for, I just don’t LIKE who she is and what she stands for. Too bad.
Buttigieg: Attended a “how to stop Sanders” meeting before he jumped in as a candidate. That he was invited to attend this meeting says pretty much all you probably need to know, but for all his initial efforts at phony woke dilute the vote pandering to younger voters, he also has now made clear he’s in the Biden Klobucher lane. She just more upfront about it.
Biden: I think I made my feelings clear already? Let me add, “helped cheerlead us into the Iraq war; was one of the strongest advocates for invading; criticized both version of Bush for not fighting the drug war more aggressively”
Yang–seems like nice guy. Very good at identifying problems. I dislike his solutions to those problems, so no, not at this point.
Mojave Wolf
I appear to have joined DC in moderation. At least I hope it’s there, since I can’t recover it otherwise.
(Ultra Short version of ultra long comment: I like Bernie & Tulsi; notsomuch the others)
(also, to repeat, since most aren’t apparently aware: Bloomberg was a speaker at the 2004 GOP convention, endorsed Bush, and thanked him for invading Iraq; also gave a ton of money to the DNC right before declaring as a candidate)
different clue
@Mojave Wolf,
Sometimes one of my comments goes into moderation for what I assume to be technical reasons.
In other words . . . the program does it.
So I just say ” My lonely comment sits and weeps in moderation” and at some point in time, Ian Welsh has seen that ( I assume) and then circled back to find my lonely comment sitting and weeping in moderation. And he has then let it out every time up to now so far.
Mojave Wolf
@Willy — I think Warren has said she switched because she thought the Democrats had become better at maintaining free markets than Republicans.
Basically, iirc, she is totally a pro-markets/yay invisible hand person, but thought Republicans were allowing corruption and consolidation to mess up the markets/invisible hand, and the Democrats were the ones to allow things to play out as Adam Smith intended.
That probably is a little snide in its phrasing due to my intense dislike of Warren (see: comment in moderation), but I think it’s basically correct and fair.
Nicer version: she believes in the classical free market ideal, but felt the Republicans were corrupting it and the Democrats would allow the laws of economics to play out fairly, which in her view means the best of all possible worlds, where everyone has a fair shot to succeed.
(okay, I just can’t say that without it sounding sarcastic, probably because I very much do not share that worldview)
I’m going entirely off memory so someone correct this if it’s wrong.
Mojave Wolf
@DC — oh yeah, I figure it’s an auto-mod thing; in this case probably cause of length. (I gave my thoughts on everyone still running, at least that I could remember, and my thoughts on Bernie alone were long enough for a full comment;the rest were shorter, tho not all so brief as they might have been)
different clue
@Mojave Wolf,
Normally my comment just goes right through without any machine diversion at all. The chances are so good for that happening that I will write another comment ( this here comment right here) and it will probably go right through.
You know how I have sometimes remarked on how an image of Mustapha Kemal shows up in the ” Ian Welsh collected images” search almost every time? For instance , now right now, Mustapha Kemal’s portrait is in the third line of images.
So I decided to see if the image of Ian Welsh is anywhere in ” Mustapha Kemal images”. There are 58 lines of images, almost ALL of them actually OF Mustapha Kemal. And ZERO images of Ian Welsh ANYwhere in those 58 lines of images. It is as if the image of Mustapha Kemal can punch through time and space.
different clue
@Mojave Wolf,
And there, you see? That comment just sailed right through.
neolibliz
Warren is unelectable and is a neoliberal. On the surface, she says she supports reforming capitalism, which fundamentally is impossible because it is in its late stage and dying. Anyways, that\’s all a show. She believes in free markets. She favors tweaking things at the fringes. Her policies are essentially half of what Bernie proposes, and since she refuses to embrace movement politics, Warren will be forced to whittle down any legislation she supports until there are merely ceremonial crumbs. Harry Reid feels confident of that.
As far as her character, she\’s a disgusting racist. She is a racist for lying about her Native American heritage and taking advantage of opportunities designated to actual Native Americans. Not only did she lie about this all throughout her life without a sense of shame, she doubled down made herself into a meme for that DNA test. She is a goddamn walking Laurel and Hardy short. Today she pronounced that she would let a 9 year old transgender girl choose her Secretary of State nominee, she\’s like nails on the chalkboard.
You morons who support her think she\’ll actually turn around this dumpster fire of a country? Get real. I don\’t think Bernie has more than a tiny fraction of a chance to turn things around, but he has far better odds than anyone else, including Warren.
America is doomed. Anyone who isn\’t trying to find another country to move to will wish you did in 10-20 years. Have fun with the upcoming 3 or 4 major crises coming up. And thanks for voting lesser of two evils, worked really well.
originalcripes
Well, after reading the obscure tea leaves and permutations of possible outcomes of the corrupt primary process and institutional party hatchet-wielding motherfuckers and Bloomberg, buttegieg, warren and Biden, we are left with a single, salient fact: there is a world-historical moment of opportunity presented by the Sanders campaign.
The very real possibility of Sanders sweeping most states in the primary races and becoming the nominee and ousting Trump, and the equally great or greater possibility that despite holding the biggest plurality of votes, the shit candidates and their shit-bag party operatives defy the will of the voters and engineer a coup installing some feckless POS to run and lose against Trump is what we\’re looking at.
Either way, if Sanders wins, his movement will have a fight on its hands to wrest control of state apparatus from obstructionists in both parties and to enact even half the legislation HE WILL PROPOSE TO CONGRESS (remember obama\’s many betrayals, esp on minimum wage which he announced his first State of the Union? and never even proposed?)
If his campaign is derailed, again, the movement will be faced with the choice of folding into democrat party powerlessness or mounting a challenge via third party building, or takeover Tea Party style of the dollar-drenched corporate stooges who have been running it for 40+ years. Millions of people denied political expression in 2016 and again in 2020 will not take it lying down. A defeat, esp by corruption, may rouse that movement more than an election of Sanders.
Never before in our political history has a (quasi) socialist–Eugene Debs, Bob Lafollette, Henry Wallace, Norman Thomas–come anywhere close to power that is now within reach of Sanders and the movement he leads.
Each of us must decide in our small spheres of life where we stand at this moment. Quibbling about minutiae and policy papers and IDPol posturing isn\’t it. Warren isn\’t it. Yang isn\’t it.
The movement is behind Sanders, the movement can go further than Sanders, outlive Sanders and take on a life of its own. I think that would actually please him.
different clue
One hopes that just enough Bernie people in each of the 50 states do some very serious research on how to force the Bernie name onto each of the 50 states’s separate state ballots. One hopes that they have such a plan carefully detailed and gamed out and standing by in hidden-shadow stealth-reserve . . . ready to set into motion the day after Sanders is gamed/cheated out of the DemParty nomination. Ready to set into 50 separate motions in each of the 50 separate states.
Now, if Bernie actually LOSes the DemNom fair and square, then the BernieBackers will have to go through a grieving process and each of them decide individually and/or collectively what to do next and what to support . . . or not.
450.org
Yes they will. Want to bet?