The Swamp

And FWIW, I do think the Warren campaign handled this poorly, but I don't think this release of Bernie's supposed comments came from the national campaign (i.e. Warren or her direct reports) and they possibly didn't expect this to blow up as much as it did after it came out (though arguably they shouldn't have been surprised).

brian wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:47 am Make Warren look like a (typically) hysterical woman.
Make Bernie look like a sexist or a hypocrite.

You're all falling for the bait. This nominating election isn't about Bernie vs. Warren.

Not that it isn't partially true, but this couldn't exist without Warren's participation. Any backlash she gets here is deserved.

Totally irrespective of gender, to preface this comment:

HRC had a real problem, self-inflicted, with surrogates either being too forceful or getting ahead of the national campaign's messaging in 2008. This bit her on health care reform, but got real ugly when it was floated by a number of surrogates in the same news cycle that America wasn't ready for a black president.

This reeks of that kind of "operation". Whether this came from a surrogate or an insider, or (least likely) just bubbled up coincidentally, the Warren campaign has absolutely botched its handling of it. You come and say it's not true, and you point to the 3M vote gap in 2016. Letting it fester just makes her look petty and cynical.

And, as per LVbri... Don't fucking buy into it as a Bernie v. Warren thing with lasting effect. That's exactly why it's getting so much run. I don't buy that it's the establishment fanning these flames because I've never bought that there's this monolithic entity out there. It's cable news and the media doing what they always do... latch onto anything controversial until it's absolutely bled dry.

I wouldn't say there's any monolithic entity or the DNC fanning the flames, but you better believe Mayor Pete and Biden's campaigns are loving this. That right there should tell anyone buying into this crap to cool it. They would love to see the progressive wing at each other's throats instead of theirs.

Damn I heard about this. Holy crap.

Yeah there are no flames that need fanning. Warren is done.

No. Nope. No. Fuck that. Calling someone out is fine.

Just another media creation, right?

Jerloma wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 12:51 pm Just another media creation, right?

The amplification of it? Yes

This sure seems to undercut any suggestion that Sanders was dismissive or sexist towards Warren. Can’t imagine he’d be interesting in giving her this much power if that were the case.

No one believes Sanders “hates” Warren. Him questioning if a woman can win is another thing. And not a big deal frankly.

We're still missing context of a person to person private conversation that frankly is none of our business.

CNN can go and get fucked.

The NYTimes giving a co-endorsement to Klobuchar, who by its own reporting is an abusive boss, because it’s too chickenshit to give a solo endorsement to Warren is hilarious. It’s also a perfect encapsulation of the problems with center-leftism, a political philosophy that lives in constant fear of actually advocating for its views. I’d guess that Warren is already very popular with NYT readers and employees but we just can’t risk alienating the likes of David Brooks and Bret Stephens, guys!

This is the first point where I'm starting to think that Trump is actually going to win again.

Bedbugs have delicate sensibilities, Joe.

Also, I think Trump has been something like -130 against "Democrat" for a very, very long time now. At least that's what Bill Simmons brings up when he talks odds with JackO or Cousin Sal.

Sanders should turn this into a campaign ad.



But yeah, I’ve been saying for a while now that there’s a much bigger risk that a spoiler campaign that helps Trump win in 2020 comes from the center and not the left. And of course, Clinton played the bogus sexism card in that interview, complaining about “Bernie Bros” attacking Harris (her preferred successor) and Warren. Even though the Sanders team has rightfully been far more aggressive in going after Biden’s policy record.

ETA: It says a lot about Clinton that she’s much angrier at a progressive who did dozens of campaign events for her than she is at the mainstream Republicans she spent months courting who all just backed Trump anyway.

Well, Hillary does owe Trump for all those times he donated to her.

Hilary just needs to go the fuck away. Even pretended she'd not support Bernie over Trump is so pathetic.

Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:31 amETA: It says a lot about Clinton that she’s much angrier at a progressive who did dozens of campaign events for her than she is at the mainstream Republicans she spent months courting who all just backed Trump anyway.

AOC's "there is no left party" seems to be laying the groundwork to fight back against this and all Dem establishment hedging about whether Bernie over the Republicans is a positive or negative.

Maybe you guys are better off that Trump won? Sure Trump is crazy but at least it's got the progressive movement going instead of 8 years of Hillary.

I got typed at very loudly when I suggested the foresight version of that with regards to 2020.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:46 am Maybe you guys are better off that Trump won? Sure Trump is crazy but at least it's got the progressive movement going instead of 8 years of Hillary.

No.

If in the long run progressivism wins and enough people move out of California to places like Texas and the like and we can add DC and PR as states and pack the Supreme Court, then maybe it could be spun as a win. So though, a lot of billionaires need to lose money.

But the media simply will not have it. They need the charade and the fear.

God, Hillary suuuuuuuuuuucks. She and the fucking Democrat lifers who enabled her and can't stand seeing actual progressivism and new ideas in the party. They all fucking suck.

Unless she's deemed to have a positive influence, I absolutely think she'd prefer the Dems lose this one as well to diminish 2016's hit to her legacy.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:59 pm If in the long run progressivism wins and enough people move out of California to places like Texas and the like and we can add DC and PR as states and pack the Supreme Court, then maybe it could be spun as a win. So though, a lot of billionaires need to lose money.

But the media simply will not have it. They need the charade and the fear.

Yes, people are just dying to move out of California to more regressive areas in order to buoy poor voting populations....

BSF21 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:51 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:59 pm If in the long run progressivism wins and enough people move out of California to places like Texas and the like and we can add DC and PR as states and pack the Supreme Court, then maybe it could be spun as a win. So though, a lot of billionaires need to lose money.

But the media simply will not have it. They need the charade and the fear.

Yes, people are just dying to move out of California to more regressive areas in order to buoy poor voting populations....

Californians do disperse to other states in large numbers and are generally left-leaning.

It's changed Nevada to a blue state, possibly Colorado as well. Oregon definitely more liberal than it was 15-20 years ago.

brian wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:11 pm It's changed Nevada to a blue state, possibly Colorado as well. Oregon definitely more liberal than it was 15-20 years ago.

And we can tell these people are coming from CA how?

Every 20something and their brother has left the midwest for CO or the PNW in the last 10 years. What's the data that suggests people who are already left leaning have a desire to leave CA in mass quantities?

I think it's just a matter of sheer numbers. There have been something like 300,000 people to move to NV from CA alone in the last 10 years or so. If you conservatively (no pun intended) figure that breakdown goes something like 60/40 towards the Dems, that's a increase of about 60,000 Dem voters in a state where elections are decided by tens of thousands usually.

California has 40 million people. It only takes a couple hundred thousand of those moving to Arizona to make a big shift in their elections.

I think the big reason why so many people are moving from CA Is affordability. Plunk my house down in a semi-desirable part of suburban LA and it's a million dollar house. It's a third of that here. Same thing for condos, apartments, etc.

BSF21 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:21 pm

brian wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:11 pm It's changed Nevada to a blue state, possibly Colorado as well. Oregon definitely more liberal than it was 15-20 years ago.

And we can tell these people are coming from CA how?

Every 20something and their brother has left the midwest for CO or the PNW in the last 10 years. What's the data that suggests people who are already left leaning have a desire to leave CA in mass quantities?

Well your question is pretty narrow when it comes to political affiliation, but there's plenty of data on state-to-state migration.

https://www.northamerican.com/migration-map

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time ... ation.html

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/11/04/ ... hey-go-to/

degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:46 am Maybe you guys are better off that Trump won? Sure Trump is crazy but at least it's got the progressive movement going instead of 8 years of Hillary.

The level of privilege it takes to even ask that question is astounding.

I mean, I guess in a sense I *am* better off that Trump won. I make enough money that I saved a bunch on my taxes. But I'd rather pay those few extra thousand bucks and have a government whose primary goal isn't keeping America white.

I don't think that's correct in the macro at all. If 4 years of Trump leads to the monumental shift Sanders would bring, a massive number of people will be far better off by 2024 than they would have been after 8 years of Hillary.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:43 pm I don't think that's correct in the macro at all. If 4 years of Trump leads to the monumental shift Sanders would bring, a massive number of people will be far better off by 2024 than they would have been after 8 years of Hillary.

Yeah, but unfortunately the four years that Trump is in office has led to unimaginable misery for lots of people. Refugee admissions way down. Parants having kids taken away from them for the crime of seeking asylum. Additional deaths from rollbacks in environmental and consumer protections.

Not to mention locking in a right-wing judiciary for the next twenty years.

So even if Sanders would actually bring a monumental shift - all those folks in Orange County and other conservative areas suddenly become willing to pay taxes to help other people, Joe Manchin suddenly becomes enamored with single-payer health care, etc. - you still have a lot of dead and immiserated people between here and there. The tough question is how much such misery is acceptable, given that the outcome (massive numbers of people being far better off) is uncertain?

Who else do we need on the "moderate Dems are diet Republicans" bandwagon from here?

Hillary is a mix of Lady Macbeth, Claire Underwood, and Regina George. Her ego needs Bernie to lose because she's as much of a cunt as Trump. She'd clearly rather have 4 more years of Trump. It's disgusting. She needs to fuck off to Chappaqua and never be heard from again. She's beyond pathetic.

yes, it's so incredibly clear that Hillary wants four more years of Donald Trump as president

come on y'all. just because Trump takes everything to the extreme doesn't mean other people have to as well

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:55 am yes, it's so incredibly clear that Hillary wants four more years of Donald Trump as president

come on y'all. just because Trump takes everything to the extreme doesn't mean other people have to as well

We're talking about the Hillary Clinton who wrote It Takes a Village and has been tarred by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh as a Feminazi liberal for nearly thirty years? Who ran the most liberal presidential campaign in US history? The one who stood up for Black Lives Matter, raising the minimum wage, protecting abortion rights, women's rights, workers' rights, and the environment?

Yeah, she's definitely a Republican.

The argument isn't that she's a Republican; it's that she's spiteful enough to sacrifice her principles.

Incidentally, Bernie held 39 rallies endorsing Hillary after he lost in 2016.