Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v4

[Trotsky]

Nooooooo

Leave it to Ben Shapiro to use an ill-fitting big word when a smaller word would have made a lot more sense.

Why do you guys think Booker never got popular ? I think he could of been better than everyone, just hard to know what his positions were he was on the fence too much I think.

It's a lot of things. I don't think he had clear message or platform. That would be the biggest reason.

 

[PEB]

 

[Fawlty]

Damn, that is a really good ad.

 

[bobgeese]

We have officially devolved as a species. We have reached the point where Danny Devito’s political opinion, is considered news.

 

[Fawlty]

We have officially devolved as a species. We have reached the point where Danny Devito’s political opinion, is considered news.

Turns out that it was a campaign ad, rather than a news broadcast.

 

[bobgeese]

Turns out that it was a campaign ad, rather than a news broadcast.

That’s even worse.

We’re appealing to voters by name dropping Italian movie sidekicks?


Donald Trump is President, so, I guess I should not be surprised at all, but it’s just a little hard to take sometimes.

 

[Fawlty]

That’s even worse.

We’re appealing to voters by name dropping Italian movie sidekicks?


Donald Trump is President, so, I guess I should not be surprised at all, but it’s just a little hard to take sometimes.

It's not worse that a celebrity endorses a candidate and films an ad than it is for the news to make a lot of hay out of celebrity political endorsements.

 

[ShadowRun]

@VivaRevolution seems like they setting up your boy

 

[Deleted member 539235]

We have officially devolved as a species. We have reached the point where Danny Devito’s political opinion, is considered news.

they can't all be on kid rock's level i guess

 

[PEB]

Warren just exposed herself to gain on Sanders with a CNN smear that Warren just happened to meet him where he told her to enter the race.

 

[Trotsky]

That CNN story is unbelievable. How anyone can defend this kind of journalism, or deny that it reflects a continuous trend in bias, is beyond me.

Amid fresh warnings that progressives in the U.S. should be on guard against efforts by the corporate media to sow division between the Warren and Sanders campaigns, CNN came under fire Monday afternoon after publishing an unsubstantiated hit piece that cited anonymous sources—not even in the room at the time—claiming Bernie Sanders privately told Elizabeth Warren in 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency.

Sanders told CNN in "an aggressive, on the record pushback" that the claims where absolutely false. Kristen Orthman, the Warren campaign's communication director, on the other hand, declined to comment for the story by CNN political correspondent MJ Lee.

"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders told CNN. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016."

Lee reports that the claims of what was said at the meeting—which took place at Warren's apartment in Washington, D.C. in December of 2018, before either had announced their candidacy—are based on the accounts of four people, none of whom were actually in the room when Sanders and Warren spoke. Two of them were "people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter," Lee reported, and the other two were "people familiar with the meeting."

Critics of the reporting, which immediately sparked prominent headlines elsewhere and gained traction on social media, said the story is the kind of irresponsible journalism designed to sow division and little more.

"Direct denial from the accused source and a 'no comment' from the camp it comes from... four anonymous sources, none of whom were in the room," commented journalist Jack Crosbie, formerly of Splinter News. "Haven't been an editor in a while but that's gonna be a 'Yikes, let's hold this' from me."

Others highlighted the fact that Ortham, though given an opportunity, declined to comment on behalf of the Warren campaign. "So Sanders denies and Warren's team won't comment," political commentator Jordan Uhl said of CNN's decision to publish the piece. "Fuck it, let's run it anyway."

Numerous people also took the opportunity to show just how consistent Sanders has been on the question of a woman, including Warren, running for president—and winning—going back decades:

With some critics focused their ire on Warren for not immediately pushing back against the reporting—which as of this writing her campaign has not done—other voices warned that there could be other forces at play.

"Lightly sourced and denied by Sanders. The liberal media desperately wants these candidates and their campaigns to fight over bullshit," warned progressive journalist Sam Adler-Bell. "Before you dig in your heels, ask yourself why that might be."

That kind of warning was also the topic on Monday, prior to CNN's controversial reporting, of a new column by Common Dreams contributor Norman Solomon urging readers to be aware that corporate news outlets, establishment figures in the Democratic Party, and Republicans alarmed by a unified progressive front are all salivating at the prospect that the "nonaggression pact" between Warren and Sanders might be fraying.

Citing a weekend report from Politico—also built on thin evidence—claiming Sanders campaigners were being instructed to "trash" Warren as the candidate of the elite with potential voters, Solomon argued it appeared to be the kind of faux conflict many opponents of the Democrat's progressive wing have "long been yearning for."

While "the media establishment would love to see Sanders and Warren clashing instead of cooperating," warned Solomon, letting that happen would be a strategic mistake.

"It would be a serious error for progressives to buy into corporate media portrayals of the Sanders and Warren campaigns as destined to play a traditional zero-sum political game," wrote Solomon. "The chances are high that by the time the primaries end this spring, Sanders and Warren—as well as their supporters—will need to join forces so one of them can become the nominee at the Democratic National Convention in mid-July."

According to Solomon, "Keeping eyes on the prize this year will require a united front that can strengthen progressive forces, prevent any corporate Democrat from winning the party's presidential nomination, and then go on to defeat Donald Trump."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...SFd66ydBrtBIuD8cfZhxOgvWxg4KonY8-c9rI9aYAiV0Y


And this is a day after Politico absolutely ridiculously characterized a Bernie call script citing the need to expand to working class voters as a slam against Warren for being elitist.

 

[Trotsky]

That CNN story is unbelievable. How anyone can defend this kind of journalism, or deny that it reflects a continuous trend in bias, is beyond me.

Amid fresh warnings that progressives in the U.S. should be on guard against efforts by the corporate media to sow division between the Warren and Sanders campaigns, CNN came under fire Monday afternoon after publishing an unsubstantiated hit piece that cited anonymous sources—not even in the room at the time—claiming Bernie Sanders privately told Elizabeth Warren in 2018 that a woman could not win the presidency.

Sanders told CNN in "an aggressive, on the record pushback" that the claims where absolutely false. Kristen Orthman, the Warren campaign's communication director, on the other hand, declined to comment for the story by CNN political correspondent MJ Lee.

"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders told CNN. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016."

Lee reports that the claims of what was said at the meeting—which took place at Warren's apartment in Washington, D.C. in December of 2018, before either had announced their candidacy—are based on the accounts of four people, none of whom were actually in the room when Sanders and Warren spoke. Two of them were "people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter," Lee reported, and the other two were "people familiar with the meeting."

Critics of the reporting, which immediately sparked prominent headlines elsewhere and gained traction on social media, said the story is the kind of irresponsible journalism designed to sow division and little more.

"Direct denial from the accused source and a 'no comment' from the camp it comes from... four anonymous sources, none of whom were in the room," commented journalist Jack Crosbie, formerly of Splinter News. "Haven't been an editor in a while but that's gonna be a 'Yikes, let's hold this' from me."

Others highlighted the fact that Ortham, though given an opportunity, declined to comment on behalf of the Warren campaign. "So Sanders denies and Warren's team won't comment," political commentator Jordan Uhl said of CNN's decision to publish the piece. "Fuck it, let's run it anyway."

Numerous people also took the opportunity to show just how consistent Sanders has been on the question of a woman, including Warren, running for president—and winning—going back decades:

With some critics focused their ire on Warren for not immediately pushing back against the reporting—which as of this writing her campaign has not done—other voices warned that there could be other forces at play.

"Lightly sourced and denied by Sanders. The liberal media desperately wants these candidates and their campaigns to fight over bullshit," warned progressive journalist Sam Adler-Bell. "Before you dig in your heels, ask yourself why that might be."

That kind of warning was also the topic on Monday, prior to CNN's controversial reporting, of a new column by Common Dreams contributor Norman Solomon urging readers to be aware that corporate news outlets, establishment figures in the Democratic Party, and Republicans alarmed by a unified progressive front are all salivating at the prospect that the "nonaggression pact" between Warren and Sanders might be fraying.

Citing a weekend report from Politico—also built on thin evidence—claiming Sanders campaigners were being instructed to "trash" Warren as the candidate of the elite with potential voters, Solomon argued it appeared to be the kind of faux conflict many opponents of the Democrat's progressive wing have "long been yearning for."

While "the media establishment would love to see Sanders and Warren clashing instead of cooperating," warned Solomon, letting that happen would be a strategic mistake.

"It would be a serious error for progressives to buy into corporate media portrayals of the Sanders and Warren campaigns as destined to play a traditional zero-sum political game," wrote Solomon. "The chances are high that by the time the primaries end this spring, Sanders and Warren—as well as their supporters—will need to join forces so one of them can become the nominee at the Democratic National Convention in mid-July."

According to Solomon, "Keeping eyes on the prize this year will require a united front that can strengthen progressive forces, prevent any corporate Democrat from winning the party's presidential nomination, and then go on to defeat Donald Trump."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...SFd66ydBrtBIuD8cfZhxOgvWxg4KonY8-c9rI9aYAiV0Y


And this is a day after Politico absolutely ridiculously characterized a Bernie call script citing the need to expand to working class voters as a slam against Warren for being elitist.

Sanders' response:

“It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders told CNN. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016."​

 

[xcvbn]

There’s also the hysterical non-story of a Bernie canvasser explaining to voters that Warren attracts mostly educated whites(entirely true) while Bernie mostly attracts working class(true again). It’s being spun into “BERNIE SANDERS HIMSELF ORDERS CANVASSERS TO TRASH WARREN” maybe that canvasser wasn’t entirely nice explaining that difference to a Warren voter but jfc get real

Im actually just disappointed that Warren gives that garbage any traction at all

Gtfo with the nonsense and let’s focus on the facts that millions of Americans are struggling with their health, childcare, college debt, wages, etc

 

[Aldo4Ever]

@Trotsky @franklinstower @xcvbn @Sano @BarryDillon @Senzo Tanaka @Possum Jenkins @ultramanhyata @sickc0d3r @VivaRevolution @Anung Un Rama @tatanos

The knives have come out. They will do almost anything to stop this man.

Stay strong, gentlemen.

 

[Fawlty]

@Trotsky @franklinstower @xcvbn @Sano @BarryDillon @Senzo Tanaka @Possum Jenkins @ultramanhyata @sickc0d3r @VivaRevolution @Anung Un Rama @tatanos

The knives have come out. They will do almost anything to stop this man.

Stay strong, gentlemen.

I bet they won't seek out a trade for the lifting of sanctions in exchange for dirt on each other.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Sanders' response:

“It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," Sanders told CNN. "It's sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren't in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016."​

pretty disgusting smear attempt against Sanders.

Bernie is many things, a sexist is not one of them.

 

[luckyshot]

I was really impressed with Booker just about every time he spoke during the campaign.

I would think he goes on the short list for VP picks if Biden wins the nomination.

Why do you guys think Booker never got popular ? I think he could of been better than everyone, just hard to know what his positions were he was on the fence too much I think.

He didn't come into the contest with as much name recognition as Biden or Bernie, and in such a crowded field, that was always going to be a tough row to hoe. If you notice, the top two guys right now are the two guys that most "casual" voters knew of before the campaign even began. That's not a coincidence.

Beyond that, I think the road to the left (and, therefore the youth vote) was closed to Booker based on some of his questionable past votes and the fact that Sanders and Warren had him outflanked there.

Most importantly, both Booker and Kamala Harris had less of a "built in" base than many pundits believed. A lot of people assumed they'd be fighting it out for the African American vote, but both of them got iced in that demo by Joe Biden.

So far the biggest story of this primary has been African American voters being extremely loyal to Joe Biden.

 

[Trotsky]

@Trotsky @franklinstower @xcvbn @Sano @BarryDillon @Senzo Tanaka @Possum Jenkins @ultramanhyata @sickc0d3r @VivaRevolution @Anung Un Rama @tatanos

The knives have come out. They will do almost anything to stop this man.

Stay strong, gentlemen.

By "they," I don't think it's necessary to pull in the other Democratic candidates. I don't think any of the candidates have egregiously attacked Sanders or his base. I took great issue with the honesty of Buttigieg's M4A ads and arguments, but that's just general centrism nonsense.

"They" as in CNN? Yeah, I think it was already known. If this started anywhere else, I'd assume it was Republican/right-wing subterfuge to divide the left. Since it's coming from CNN, I'll suppose it's just shoddy journalism influenced by corporate ownership and a desire to drive up ratings for tomorrow's debate. I've opined several times on here about the evil that I perceive corporate fiduciary law to be.

I was really impressed with Booker just about every time he spoke during the campaign.

I would think he goes on the short list for VP picks if Biden win the nomination.

I think he's shortlist regardless of the candidate, but, yeah, Biden especially. It may well be his only shot to the White House too, since this race did, I think, show an inability to mobilize his own support without an exceptional platform. He just doesn't have a message; to be sure, I think moving left would help him in a lot of ways.

He would absolutely carve up any Republican VP (lol, Pence) in a debate. VP debates mean absolutely nothing, of course, but it's still funny.

 

[bobgeese]

It's not worse that a celebrity endorses a candidate and films an ad than it is for the news to make a lot of hay out of celebrity political endorsements.

Agreed, everyone can and should support who they want.


But, whatever, I’m not mad. We still have the Hercules guy, and TV movie Batman.

So, yeah...

 

[bobgeese]

they can't all be on kid rock's level i guess