Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

[tcr]

The point is - all candidates (and all people) not working to dismantle the system of racism are racists. One doesn’t have to overtly dislike black and brown folks to be racists. That’s why this conversation of who is “less racist” among a group of old white (mostly male) candidates is a circle jerk.

Bernie Sanders’ anti-poverty initiatives are insufficient in dismantling or even addressing m racism. They are just thinly veiled band aids. It’s one of the reasons why he performs poorly among black voters relative to his standing among other demographics in the Democratic Party. Black voters want specific policies to address their concerns.

The argument I see here is laid out thusly:

1) Systemic racism exists and people operate inside of such a system; i.e. it is impossible to operate outside of said system because people benefit or lose out intrinsically
2) Since everyone is inside the system there is a dichotomy between allies and enemies; if you are not my friend then explicitly you are an "enemy"
3) Being an ally inside the system involves some hereto unknown policies that explicitly address this systemic racism
4) Addressing poverty does not address racism in and of itself
5) As addressing poverty does not address racism in and of itself and Sanders has no other policies, since he is not adequately fighting within the system at a sufficient level, he is racist and so are his policies

I think there is a lot to unpack here. For starters, the dichotomous layout you set up between "racists" and "nonracists." Are minority voters who vote conservative (Latino communities, for example), racist? Black voters who prefer conservatism? What makes a sufficiently proactive legislature? Is it simply being on board with reparations? Premise 2 I take great issue with as the world is not so black and white (pun intended), there is a great deal of nuance in this. You said it yourself that the vast majority of people "is not equipped to make sound character judgements" so what exactly makes you qualified, and is ignorance an immediate dismissal? Premise 4 I also take issue with, as I fail to see how specifically addressing poverty does not also address systemic issues in and of itself.

Ignoring the main point of addressing poverty not equating to addressing racism, let me remind and link of some supplemental information. Currently, minority communities are heavily lacking in equal infrastructure indicating a wide racial disparity in quality of drinking water and other environmental factors. I'm sure this is no surprise to you, Flint Michigan is a common meme at this point. Climate change in particular hits low income (and in America low income means primarily minority communities) areas the hardest. In addition, housing, schools, and transportation are all severely underfunded and underdeveloped. These are the results of systemic racism; inaccess to quality housing and areas of living lead to lower property taxes which lead to underfunded school districts, additionally the poor areas are the areas that hold the dumps and environmental waste as well as are the areas with much more lax environmental restrictions which reflect in lower quality of food and water.

Sanders plans to address this are to create a right to work, a guaranteed federal job for any who seek it. Specifically areas he wishes to address and uplift are "to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure—roads, bridges, drinking water systems, wastewater plants, rail, schools, affordable housing" and to "provide quality care to the young children of our country" (re: education).

In addition to this Sanders' plan includes targeting racial injustice. He identifies five points of racial injustice: physical, political, legal, economic and environmental. He plans to target racial disparities in crime sentencing within the justice system as well as the discrepancies within financial services, housing services, environmental disparities, and quality of education. In even more detail his plans are to: restore the Voting Rights Act, restore the disenfranchisement of felons, a disproportionate amount of which are black, end gerrymandering, voter ID laws, institute Election Day as a national holiday, and to automatically sign 18 year olds to be registered to vote. All of those things are tactics that have been identified as leading to an unequal voting playground, designed to silence or at least marginalize the minority vote. His other policies which are meant to target racial disparities in the justice system are to: end the war on drugs which targets blacks over white people by 19% more, eliminate private prisons, eliminate cash bail (a tactic used to disenfranchise the poor), bring about police reform, among other policies. Financially Sanders wants to eliminate redlining for housing applications, predatory loaning which disproportionally impacts African Americans, guarantee banking for individuals (48% of African Americans are without a bank), and to create a path to wealth through homeownership.

All of these, and more of his platform which you can find through two of the links I put above, are policies that attack structural issues of the United States. You talk a lot about how a policy needs to be "realistic" to be an adequate political move, yet support an unfavorable idea like reparations? Only 20% of Americans polled supported the idea of reparations; In "Trump's America" do you really think that a supremely radical idea with unpopularity such as that would ever get passed as legislature? Or do you think it is more likely that it is lip service catering towards a specific crowd (most likely an attempt to chunk into Biden's support). Either way, according to your own logic laced throughout your posts in the past 10 or so pages it is a dream scenario, and Democrats should be more focused on moderate policies that can cater towards the non-targeted voters. Based on this and the issues I laid out above, I fail to see how tackling poverty and infrastructure is in any way "racist" per your definitions, as I believe they not only reach a sufficient level of "targeting," they systemically attack the issue from every possible angle; I do not see how they are in any way a "thinly veiled bandaid." If anything the bandaid is just giving 12 million distributed towards every person negatively impacted by slavery; it is not any different from Yang's "Freedom Dividend" which faces similar issues in not addressing systemically.

lol at the "oligarchs should just vote for everyone else"

edit: Sanders also polls second to Biden for black support. I'm not sure what your "why he polls so poorly compared to others in the Democratic party" is because he's well above, for example, Pete

 

[Myzozoa]

I think there is a lot to unpack here. For starters, the dichotomous layout you set up between "racists" and "nonracists." Are minority voters who vote conservative (Latino communities, for example), racist? Black voters who prefer conservatism?

yes, not to interfere w this post directed at another user, but the whole idea that latinos and black ppl are incapable of being racists is mildly insulting at best. and no i don't mean 'reverse racism' is real.

 

[billymills]

That was the debate Warren needed. Converted some easy points on Bloomberg, and seemed like someone reasonable above the fray.

I have to wonder what Pete's strategy was last debate. Striking out at both Sanders and Klobuchar like that is the fastest way to make you the most polarizing figure within the democratic party.

 

[Bughouse]

It was a generally ugly debate in which depending on who you ask:

Warren won for being the most effective attacker of Bloomberg, who in many ways is pretty representative of how one would attack Trump. She also really needed a moment, and she had a few.
Klobuchar won just for not engaging in the attacks as much as anyone else, and some people just value that in and of itself.
Bernie won because he's currently polling in the lead, and nothing occurred that should substantially change that, for the time being.

Impossible to make a case for Bloomberg (lol, he got shellacked, though you should not expect him to immediately fold), and pretty hard to make a case for Biden even though it was a better performance than some past debates. Even so, it likely didn't do anything more than stop the bleeding, but he's kinda already bled out at this point and would have needed a true win to get back on track.

I am sure some people will look at some of Buttigieg's performance as effective, but I think that attacking Klobuchar was a pretty big misstep for him, and that she generally got the upper hand by not punching back. A substantial portion of both of their support comes from people who say they want civility, unity, bipartisanship, etc. and I wouldn't be shocked to see her directly win supporters off of him. It's just a bad attack to go after someone for forgetting a name, as if literally everyone hasn't done that. Admittedly, she did also forget the name of Governor Kelly at a previous debate, but I just don't think anyone really cares.

 

[HeaLnDeaL]

This debate was crazy, and while some people might think that a huge food fight like what happened hurts unity or whatnot... I just gotta appreciate that this actually seemed like an actual contest for once. I've watched all of the debates since they've started and this is easily the one to watch.

In full disclosure I'm a Warren fanboy, so seeing her coming in STRONG on Bloomberg within the first 3 minutes was electric to watch. I thought a bit later within the first third of the debate she seemed to be putting too many attacks on everyone else, seemingly offending both the Bernie and the Klobuchar fans in the debate room with their groans. But clearly her points were most pointed at Bloomberg, and I think Warren definitely gets the most credit for Bloomberg's thrashing (not sure if she gains the most votes for it though, but I don't think it hurts her and she needed to show her fighter persona).

But so much of the ?joy? of the debate was that the dramatic fervor that Warren started also was carried through by the other candidates. Buttigieg and Klobuchar attacking each other the way they did sorta felt like it wiped much of the blood Warren would have otherwise had on her hands for her own attacks. Warren slightly jabbed at Bernie a few times, but she also did a really interesting sidestep of giving Bernie and Klobuchar some assists along the way too, so that she wasn't totally ostracizing them while still drawing contrasts.

But I can't explain the thrill I have at how bad Bloomberg did. I'm really really hoping this starts lowering his poll numbers very soon.

I felt like Biden had his best performance yet, simply because he had relatively few attacks against him compared to past debates. But then when his closing statement came along, he was interrupted by protesters and I felt like that shook him up a bit from finishing super strong.

Overall I feel like Warren set the entire tone and flow of the debate. I don't think Sanders supporters will ever go anywhere, and I think Bloomberg's fall will result in a small uptick for Bernie, but if Bloomberg is truly destroyed I'm sure his votes will scatter across the board and I'm curious to where they fall.

Sorry if this seems more like a commentary on reality TV than on politics, but I watched this right after Survivor and this was a joy of a debate to watch. And seeing Bloomberg utterly destroyed makes me so so happy.

 

[Chou Toshio]

This debate was crazy, and while some people might think that a huge food fight like what happened hurts unity or whatnot... I just gotta appreciate that this actually seemed like an actual contest for once. I've watched all of the debates since they've started and this is easily the one to watch.

In full disclosure I'm a Warren fanboy, so seeing her coming in STRONG on Bloomberg within the first 3 minutes was electric to watch. I thought a bit later within the first third of the debate she seemed to be putting too many attacks on everyone else, seemingly offending both the Bernie and the Klobuchar fans in the debate room with their groans. But clearly her points were most pointed at Bloomberg, and I think Warren definitely gets the most credit for Bloomberg's thrashing (not sure if she gains the most votes for it though, but I don't think it hurts her and she needed to show her fighter persona).

But so much of the ?joy? of the debate was that the dramatic fervor that Warren started also was carried through by the other candidates. Buttigieg and Klobuchar attacking each other the way they did sorta felt like it wiped much of the blood Warren would have otherwise had on her hands for her own attacks. Warren slightly jabbed at Bernie a few times, but she also did a really interesting sidestep of giving Bernie and Klobuchar some assists along the way too, so that she wasn't totally ostracizing them while still drawing contrasts.

But I can't explain the thrill I have at how bad Bloomberg did. I'm really really hoping this starts lowering his poll numbers very soon.

I felt like Biden had his best performance yet, simply because he had relatively few attacks against him compared to past debates. But then when his closing statement came along, he was interrupted by protesters and I felt like that shook him up a bit from finishing super strong.

Overall I feel like Warren set the entire tone and flow of the debate. I don't think Sanders supporters will ever go anywhere, and I think Bloomberg's fall will result in a small uptick for Bernie, but if Bloomberg is truly destroyed I'm sure his votes will scatter across the board and I'm curious to where they fall.

Sorry if this seems more like a commentary on reality TV than on politics, but I watched this right after Survivor and this was a joy of a debate to watch. And seeing Bloomberg utterly destroyed makes me so so happy.

Spot on. Warren has a bomb ass night. She dropped a Draco on Bloomberg. Nah screw that analogy— she Dynamax’d fighting type attack 3 turns in a row before giving the remaining meat chunks to Bernie who put the remains in a blender, and then Biden/Amy/Pete took the liquid from the blender and lit it on fire.

I wish in 2014 she had let progressives draft her, fired/not hired any of the shitty Washington staff, and then prosecuted Clinton and then Trump like this. She’d be President right now, and we’d be in a way better place.

I’m also curious as to how this changes the game.

I do hope Bloomberg is toast— the establishment, the party leaders, the media, all of them might have wanted a knight to save them from Bernie but I knew that if I was Warren, Biden, Klob, or Pete, I’d be furious with that narrative, they really ARE trying to win, and they would likely wipe the floor with him in a debate. Was right.

From a gut standpoint it feels like there should be a reward for Warren here— but the issue come to “from who?”

She’s completely alienated the Bernie movement, and her answer to the final question pretty much seals the deal that Bernie’s already rock-solid support will become even stronger. The progressive line is just blotted out.

Many khive/hillbots on the fence between Amy and Warren probably go to Warren. Maybe some mixing with Buttegieg, but his Iowa “win” and 2nd place in NH are going to make it hard. Some of the undecided vote will go her way for sure.

I see this debate sealing 2nd place in Nevada for Warren. It was a dead heat, but I can’t see anyone else taking it after tonight. That said, with 70k early votes already cast (and the state had only like 130k last time I believe) the effect will likely be less than it otherwise was.

As a Bernie supporter this debate made me feel extremely good. Bloomberg got clobbered. Bernie didn’t shine the brightest but his message was even sharper than ever— he debated like a frontrunner and walked through it unscathed and without having to throw any big offensive blows. The Denmark exchange with Buttegieg was great and you could almost hear in Buttegieg’s head (shit, maybe Dad and uncle Cornell West are right, maybe uncle Bernie should be President and I should go back to being a Socialist).

and then every candidate gave Bernie the chance to tell the American People that he’s the only Democrat that believes in democracy. Ouch.

Bernie first, Warren 2nd, but if Biden takes 3rd here he is going to get clobbered by Bernie in South Carolina where they’re basically in a statistical tie right now.

If Bloomberg is dead on arrival and Bernie wins all 4 early states I think this thing is going to steam roll— but we’ll see.

 

[Celticpride]

Fuck Bloomberg lol

 

[EV]

$233 million for a public spanking.

That is some kinky shit.

 

[RaikouLover]

The argument I see here is laid out thusly:

1) Systemic racism exists and people operate inside of such a system; i.e. it is impossible to operate outside of said system because people benefit or lose out intrinsically
2) Since everyone is inside the system there is a dichotomy between allies and enemies; if you are not my friend then explicitly you are an "enemy"
3) Being an ally inside the system involves some hereto unknown policies that explicitly address this systemic racism
4) Addressing poverty does not address racism in and of itself
5) As addressing poverty does not address racism in and of itself and Sanders has no other policies, since he is not adequately fighting within the system at a sufficient level, he is racist and so are his policies

I think there is a lot to unpack here. For starters, the dichotomous layout you set up between "racists" and "nonracists." Are minority voters who vote conservative (Latino communities, for example), racist? Black voters who prefer conservatism? What makes a sufficiently proactive legislature? Is it simply being on board with reparations? Premise 2 I take great issue with as the world is not so black and white (pun intended), there is a great deal of nuance in this. You said it yourself that the vast majority of people "is not equipped to make sound character judgements" so what exactly makes you qualified, and is ignorance an immediate dismissal? Premise 4 I also take issue with, as I fail to see how specifically addressing poverty does not also address systemic issues in and of itself.

Ignoring the main point of addressing poverty not equating to addressing racism, let me remind and link of some supplemental information. Currently, minority communities are heavily lacking in equal infrastructure indicating a wide racial disparity in quality of drinking water and other environmental factors. I'm sure this is no surprise to you, Flint Michigan is a common meme at this point. Climate change in particular hits low income (and in America low income means primarily minority communities) areas the hardest. In addition, housing, schools, and transportation are all severely underfunded and underdeveloped. These are the results of systemic racism; inaccess to quality housing and areas of living lead to lower property taxes which lead to underfunded school districts, additionally the poor areas are the areas that hold the dumps and environmental waste as well as are the areas with much more lax environmental restrictions which reflect in lower quality of food and water.

Sanders plans to address this are to create a right to work, a guaranteed federal job for any who seek it. Specifically areas he wishes to address and uplift are "to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure—roads, bridges, drinking water systems, wastewater plants, rail, schools, affordable housing" and to "provide quality care to the young children of our country" (re: education).

In addition to this Sanders' plan includes targeting racial injustice. He identifies five points of racial injustice: physical, political, legal, economic and environmental. He plans to target racial disparities in crime sentencing within the justice system as well as the discrepancies within financial services, housing services, environmental disparities, and quality of education. In even more detail his plans are to: restore the Voting Rights Act, restore the disenfranchisement of felons, a disproportionate amount of which are black, end gerrymandering, voter ID laws, institute Election Day as a national holiday, and to automatically sign 18 year olds to be registered to vote. All of those things are tactics that have been identified as leading to an unequal voting playground, designed to silence or at least marginalize the minority vote. His other policies which are meant to target racial disparities in the justice system are to: end the war on drugs which targets blacks over white people by 19% more, eliminate private prisons, eliminate cash bail (a tactic used to disenfranchise the poor), bring about police reform, among other policies. Financially Sanders wants to eliminate redlining for housing applications, predatory loaning which disproportionally impacts African Americans, guarantee banking for individuals (48% of African Americans are without a bank), and to create a path to wealth through homeownership.

All of these, and more of his platform which you can find through two of the links I put above, are policies that attack structural issues of the United States. You talk a lot about how a policy needs to be "realistic" to be an adequate political move, yet support an unfavorable idea like reparations? Only 20% of Americans polled supported the idea of reparations; In "Trump's America" do you really think that a supremely radical idea with unpopularity such as that would ever get passed as legislature? Or do you think it is more likely that it is lip service catering towards a specific crowd (most likely an attempt to chunk into Biden's support). Either way, according to your own logic laced throughout your posts in the past 10 or so pages it is a dream scenario, and Democrats should be more focused on moderate policies that can cater towards the non-targeted voters. Based on this and the issues I laid out above, I fail to see how tackling poverty and infrastructure is in any way "racist" per your definitions, as I believe they not only reach a sufficient level of "targeting," they systemically attack the issue from every possible angle; I do not see how they are in any way a "thinly veiled bandaid." If anything the bandaid is just giving 12 million distributed towards every person negatively impacted by slavery; it is not any different from Yang's "Freedom Dividend" which faces similar issues in not addressing systemically.

lol at the "oligarchs should just vote for everyone else"

edit: Sanders also polls second to Biden for black support. I'm not sure what your "why he polls so poorly compared to others in the Democratic party" is because he's well above, for example, Pete

There's a lot in here that needs to be clarified and addressed but I'll save everyone some time by saying three things:

1) Bernie Sanders is my ally. Every candidate on that stage is my ally. However, they have room to be even better allies. Just like how I can be a better ally to my LGBTQ brothers and sisters and a better ally to women.

2) Let's please stop giving only candidates we prefer the sole credit for their plans on major issues. Bernie Sanders voting rights platform is great, but its the same as what the House already passed in H.R.1. Give the House Democrats some credit.

3) Elizabeth Warren effectively ended Mike Bloomberg's presidential run last night.

 

[tazz]

In the earlier voter suppression post I included a section that detailed the voter suppression situation in Florida where republicans had been using a Jim-Crow era law to prevent people who have served their felony convictions from ever voting again (and thus effectively preventing 1/3 of African American men from voting) until the law got overruled by constitutional amendment by referendum. An update important enough to include here just happened:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...elons-too-poor-to-pay-back-court-fees-to-vote
another appeals court ruled against their efforts to prevent the law from going into effect fully by creating an effective poll tax (a poll tax that was not included in the original text of the referendum and was added later in order to lessen its effects) unconstitutional. Unsurprisingly the republicans will appeal it further in their continued dedication to voter suppression.

A couple thoughts on the debate last night:
- Wow, Bloomberg looked awful. No charisma, the attacks against him were very effective, unified and not effectively countered in the slightest. It will be interesting how this actually effects his campaign though, I honestly think that the type of person to vote for Bloomberg would not be the type of person to actually watch the debates, otherwise this performance would sink his campaign. Still, I think as people start to pay attention to politics more as their primaries come closer this kind of performance will seriously hurt him. Unless he has a significantly better performance in the future (which I would be really surprised to see from the likes of him) I can't really see him benefitting from these debates.
- This really was Warren's night, her campaign has been really hurting as of late and has been generally overshadowed in the progressive wing by Sanders, so she really needed to go on the attack tonight and she absolutely delivered. Her criticism of Bloomberg was probably the best of all the candidates and she effectively attacked everyone else as well, I think that if people actually watch this debate she could really benefit.
- Biden looked much better in this debate than in any of the previous ones, though I think that my standards for a 'good performance' from him are much lower than any of the other candidates since he has generally seemed questionable in all of these debates. Still, I don't see this performance as the turnaround point that will stop the gradual loss of supporters that has delivered him crushing losses in both Iowa and New Hampshire and has relieved him of his frontrunner title.
- Buttigieg looked about as good as he normally does, articulate as expected. I honestly question my own perception of how well he did given my personal contempt for him. In my view his attacks on M4A and the progressives were shitty and dishonest, but this is based on my own knowledge of both plans and it is difficult for me to say how the average person would view it. The public option is bad guys, don't vote for this guy.
- Bernie looked about as good as he does usually, I don't think the types of attacks you saw against him tonight were somehow better than the ones that normally come against him, I think most of what's going to be said in terms of attacks has already been said by the insurance lobby and idiots like Delaney. I don't think this performance was fantastic and will put him ahead (it wasn't as good as warren's) but it certainly won't lessen his momentum unless Warren manages to sap some of his supporters with her great performance.
- Klobuchar didn't do well, I think she was attacked effectively by most people and didn't look particularly great in her responses. I think other than the obvious exception of Bloomberg she was the loser last night.
TL;DR: Warren was amazing, Biden exceeded low expectations, Sanders and Buttigieg were consistent, Klobuchar did bad and Bloomberg had one of the worst debate performances in recent memory

 

[stexx]

Me to the elderly blue no matter who democratic voters

 

[Chou Toshio]

Let's get real guys-- the biggest story out of the debate is that only Bernie is a Democrat.

We got 5 up there who believe more in the will of elite insider delegates than the people. This is a threat to the legitimacy of our American values-- that we believe in governance by, of, and for the people. We should be outraged.

But let's get more real:
-There's an 80-90% chance Bernie is going to the convention with the most delegates
-There's a 40% chance that he doesn't have enough to outright win the nomination, half of that 80.
-IF party elites decide to flip the nomination to someone else-- there is a 100% chance that shit is going to get FUCKING REAL
-There will be millions, and millions storming on Milwaukee and all across the nation and it will BURN PARTY UNITY to the ground (100% Trump wins a scorched-earth uncontested victory in this scenario)

Conclusion: For everyone who in good faith genuinely wants to beat Trump, your best decision is to support getting Bernie the majority so we can avoid that situation.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

A brokered convention still looks frighteningly likely, but I don’t think it’s doing anyone any favors to scare people into voting for Bernie Sanders for that reason. For starters, even if Bernie goes into the convention without a delegate majority, it might be hard for party leaders to nominate someone else if he has a strong plurality; plus, one of the other candidates (probably Warren) could ask their delegates to vote for Bernie on the first ballot if they’re out of contention even with superdelegates.

I understand fearing the worst out of a brokered convention - one hasn’t happened since 1952 - but there’s a strong possibility that we’re all blowing it out of proportion.

 

[discoplaygames]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-russia.html

Looks like sanders campaign is going to get kneecapped, I question the timing of the release, But Americans, especially the democratic electorate, are so primed when it comes to Russia,I don't see Sanders winning many highly contested states. Since Bloomberg got slammed in the debate, I see this working out for Buttigieg and Especially Warren, who is in the best position to get any voters sanders losers because of this.

 

[EB0LA]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-russia.html

Looks like sanders campaign is going to get kneecapped, I question the timing of the release, But Americans, especially the democratic electorate, are so primed when it comes to Russia,I don't see Sanders winning many highly contested states. Since Bloomberg got slammed in the debate, I see this working out for Buttigieg and Especially Warren, who is in the best position to get any voters sanders losers because of this.

Oh boy here we go again... "Russia"

Once again this is going to lead right back to the DNC just like it did with Hillary.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/russia-collusion-real-story-hillary-clinton-dnc-fbi-media/
https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Hoax-Illicit-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0062872745

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-russia.html

Looks like sanders campaign is going to get kneecapped, I question the timing of the release, But Americans, especially the democratic electorate, are so primed when it comes to Russia,I don't see Sanders winning many highly contested states. Since Bloomberg got slammed in the debate, I see this working out for Buttigieg and Especially Warren, who is in the best position to get any voters sanders losers because of this.

This is a clear attempt to hurt Bernie given the timing of WaPo’s report (the day before Nevada caucuses, which showed Bernie as the strong favorite?) This might have more impact if there was evidence the Bernie campaign actively solicited it, but based on Bernie’s response, I’m not seeing it.

 

[billymills]

It irks me when people argue Russia doesn't want Trump, Russia wants chaos.

It's difficult to determine exactly what Russia wants. They have an extensive intelligence department, but you can look at how the campaigns have reacted to Russian interference.

Bernie (both now and in 2020) seems to be mostly downplaying it, which, while not a good look, isn't damning.

Trump has encouraged Russian intervention. Has significant financial ties to Russia. One of his first moves upon clinching the nomination was altering Republican policy towards Russia. Many associates have had contact with Russians (Manafort in particular). After congress was briefed on Russian interference in 2020, he fired the DNI and suddenly the Bernie story leaks (Bernie was briefed a month ago).

Russia does appear to want chaos, but it seems to be chaos that results in the reelection of Donald Trump.

 

[billymills]

Honestly this has all the makings of a pretty successful deflection by the Trump team. WaPo lets them get away with it again.

 

[Machoke]

I guess when they cant go on Bernie for anything else they gotta go back to the good ol Russian interference narratice. This shit is getting so old lmao.
Also all these claims about Russian interference but like... what about DNC interference like what just happened in the Iowa caucus? People don't have trust in the system and I don't think are inclined to fall for these smears over an outside influence when on the inside it doesn't even function properly. The Russia scare shit is pretty intangible but everybody watches with their own eyes as the Iowa caucus failed and as the establishment very blatantly tries to take down Bernie. They got nothin else. They're pathetically desperate.

Also Sydney Ember as an author is an immediate disqualification for any semblance of unbiased objective reporting, she's just terrible lo. But I guess that's precisely why WaPo likes her

 

[fanyfan]

Ok I’m gonna make a long post discussing who’s likely to win in Nevada, South Carolina, and every Super Tuesday state. Because why not. Let’s dive right in.

Nevada: I’d be very surprised if Bernie doesn't win here. He’s ahead by a very large margin in every recent poll and it’s a caucus, which tend to be good for him. As for who’s coming in second, I think probably Warren. Past that it’s anyone’s guess.

South Carolina: Biden is still like two points ahead in South Carolina but there are a couple factors here to consider. If Biden does poorly in Nevada, then he might slip enough for Bernie to pick up a win, especially because Bernie is quite likely to come into this state with a lot of momentum. I’d say tossup for now, but honestly I’m leaning towards Bernie potentially winning.

Ok Super Tuesday time

Alabama: There’s no recent polls from Alabama (the last one was in March lol) but Bernie got crushed there in 2016. Clinton got 77.8% one of her best states so I wouldn’t expect much from Bernie here. Probably a Bloomberg win.

Arkansas: There’s one recent poll from the 11th and Bloomberg has the lead, Biden second, and Bernie third. I’d say it’s a solid showing if he can get second here considering he didn’t do very well here in 2016. Not as bad as Alabama but definitely not winning. I wouldn’t expect a Bernie victory here, probably a Bloomberg win.

California: This one is looking good for Bernie. He’s up 11% about on average according to rcp and fivethirtyeight, which is good. You really want to do well in California. Depending on how many candidates hit the threshold needed to get delegates, he could win hundreds or even every delegate from California. That’s a best case scenario of course, but I would definitely expect Bernie to win California if Super Tuesday was today.

Colorado: There’s no recent Colorado polls, but I am optimistic about Bernie’s chances here. He won here in 2016 by a pretty decent 10 points and he generally does well in these western states. I would say he probably wins here even though I don’t have any polling to back that up yet.

Maine: There’s one recent poll from here and it has Bernie leading by 9. That, plus the fact he did quite well here in 2016 leads me to believe he’ll probably win here.

Massachusetts: This one’s really close. The two most recent polls have Bernie 1 point over Warren meaning that it could go either way. I think it probably depends on how much momentum both of them have going into Super Tuesday. I’ll put this one as a tossup for now.

Minnesota: The one recent Minnesota poll has Klobuchar up by 6 over Bernie. Bern did really well here in 2016 but A: he wasn’t running against someone from the state and B: it was a caucus in 2016 and those tend to favor Bernie. I’d say it’s a win for Klobuchar for now, but things could change if she does poorly in Nevada and South Carolina.

North Carolina: Another close one. In the most recent poll, Bernie is leading by 4 but in the poll before that, which is also recent, he’s tied with Bloomberg. This is definitely better for Bernie then other southern states. Based on the polling rn I lean towards Bernie winning it, but it’s close enough that I’d say it’s a tossup.

Oklahoma: One recent poll and Bloomberg was winning it by 6. Probably Bloomberg picks up this one.

Tennessee: No recent polls but Bernie didn’t do well here in 2016 so based on that I’d say probably Bloomberg picks up this one.

Texas: There’s really one recent poll and Bernie’s leading it by 3. Close, but with this if it was held today I’d probably say Bernie victory. I’ll put it as a tossup since it is quite close.

Utah: The one poll from here has Bernie leading by 13. He did very well here in 2016, he usually does well in this area of the country, I would be very surprised if Bernie didn’t win this one.

Vermont: The one recent poll here has Bernie at 51 lol. I’d say it’s likely he gets all the delegates here. Easy win for Bernard.

Virginia: The one recent poll here has Bernie and Bloomberg tied. Who will actually win? I’m leaning towards Bloomberg on this one since Bernie didn’t do well here in 2016, but definitely a tossup.

So, uh, if you’ve read this far, what do you guys think about this?

 

[billymills]

I guess when they cant go on Bernie for anything else they gotta go back to the good ol Russian interference narratice. This shit is getting so old lmao.
Also all these claims about Russian interference but like... what about DNC interference like what just happened in the Iowa caucus? People don't have trust in the system and I don't think are inclined to fall for these smears over an outside influence when on the inside it doesn't even function properly. The Russia scare shit is pretty intangible but everybody watches with their own eyes as the Iowa caucus failed and as the establishment very blatantly tries to take down Bernie. They got nothin else. They're pathetically desperate.

Also Sydney Ember as an author is an immediate disqualification for any semblance of unbiased objective reporting, she's just terrible lo. But I guess that's precisely why WaPo likes her

This is not the mainstream media going after Bernie.

This is how I think it went down:

1. Trump/Russia ties get announced to congress
2. Trump fires DNI head in revenge. Installs stooge.
3. Trump/Russia is in the news again. Wants it to go away.
4. Someone in the Trump team leaks to WaPo that Intelligence talked to Bernie a month ago.
4a. Who else would have knowledge of a classified briefing to a democratic candidate?
5. Story looks like both parties are the same. Makes Bernie and Trump look similar.
6. WaPo is more than happy to publish it.

Bernie's just a convenient target right now. I don't think Nevada even plays into it. WaPo is just a convenient pawn, letting Trump walk all over them.

 

[Celticpride]

I guess when they cant go on Bernie for anything else they gotta go back to the good ol Russian interference narratice. This shit is getting so old lmao.
Also all these claims about Russian interference but like... what about DNC interference like what just happened in the Iowa caucus? People don't have trust in the system and I don't think are inclined to fall for these smears over an outside influence when on the inside it doesn't even function properly. The Russia scare shit is pretty intangible but everybody watches with their own eyes as the Iowa caucus failed and as the establishment very blatantly tries to take down Bernie. They got nothin else. They're pathetically desperate.

The fuck even is this. Russia interfered and continues to interfere in our elections. That fact is entirely separate from whatever “contentious“ relationship the DNC has with Bernie.

 

[Machoke]

What I'm trying to say is that the Russian interference topic isn't really on the minds of working class people or a large majority of Americans outside of Washington bubbles imo especially when the DNC is doing nefarious stuff that would count as "meddling" in elections that people can see with their very own eyes. Russia doing whatever they're doing is very intangible to people especially when it's thrown around so freely all the time (thanks Hillary lulz). I mean, remember when she called Tulsi a Russian asset with absolutely no evidence to back her claim and wouldn't back down?

And based on point's 5 & 6 in billymill's latest post, it does play into MSM wanting to attack Bernie because they'd love to make Bernie seem similar to Trump or find some way to bring him down because they're really running out of options as he gains momentum. Also I'll reiterate, Sydney Ember is pretty much famous for being a relentless negative Bernie press generator lol.

 

[Chou Toshio]

The snake is such a faaaaakkke

After all this bullshit posturing you get a Super PAC? GTFO this is why progressives have been wary of her from the start of this race and it’s why we’re abandoning her.

 

[Celticpride]

What I'm trying to say is that the Russian interference topic isn't really on the minds of working class people or a large majority of Americans outside of Washington bubbles imo especially when the DNC is doing nefarious stuff that would count as "meddling" in elections that people can see with their very own eyes.

The degree to which Russia is tangible relative to the DNC is entirely based on who you see as a reliable reporter; the DNCs “meddling” is no more tangible or open than Russia’s in any real sense, it’s all just twitter reports, MSM articles and “he said she said” anyways. Contrary to popular internet opinion, most people see the MSM as reliable to some extent. Think: people who watch the nightly news or have NYT/WaPo/CNN apps as their primary news apps. Additionally, in the event Russia’s interference isn’t on the minds of working class people the DNC’s alleged interference almost certainly isn’t either, outside of working class people already supporting Sanders (and not even all Sanders supporters agree with your DNC is worse than Russia stance).

You mentioned “Washington bubbles” but really the internet progressives tend to be in bubbles just as much if not more. If you’re only talking to College age liberals and internet progressives, you’re not getting a picture of working class Americans any more than the “Washington elite” are. The Democratic base is maybe 65% moderate and 35% progressive. The majority of the Democratic base sees people like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the establishment as generally competent. Note that is not the same as voting in primaries for Clinton or Biden, but just seeing them as decent, viable politicians. It’s a hard sell to most of them that the DNC is this giant manipulative entity, and that Russia is not a malicious player. Like, the Muller Report was a huge story and most Democrats I think agree with the conclusion and evidence that turned up in it.

I say this as a likely Sanders voter (if Warren and Steyer are unviable or out). The biggest problem with Sanders has nothing to do with Sanders, it’s that his base and volunteers have deluded themselves into thinking their echo chamber opinions on the internet somehow vibe with the majority of the entire democratic base. I think that’s not really the case in a lot of ways, as we saw from the Yang campaign a lot of social media hype is in no way an indicator of how voters will vote in the primaries or how much their ideas resonate.