Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "The Left Has No Leverage Right Now" video.

@alr9926 I don't think that they don't care at all, but they would rather lose with Biden than win with Bernie. The evidence for this is right there for everyone to see.
2
@redvenomweb Well, I am not with those people, and given the Corbyn memos, there is plenty of evidence that the establishment will sabotage a left candidate. Also, how many lefties are actually in positions to sabotage the establishment? How many in the establishment are in a position to sabotage the lefties? Not at all the same.
2
@alr9926 I agree wholeheartedly. If I lived in a safe state, I probably wouldn't vote for Biden, because he either wouldn't need my vote or couldn't use it. Because I live in a swing state, I will vote for Biden. He won't get my weekends (and some weeknights) the way Bernie did, though. Let the establishment do the work. I am well aware that the establishment is like a vending machine, and you probably can't knock it over on the first or second try. That is why I have been telling people to run for committee seats and small, local races so they can start to control the levers in due time.
2
@redvenomweb If you delve into a lot of those people, they aren't left so much as they are anti-center. They mean nothing. There were twice as many PUMAs in 2008 as there were BOBs in 2016, and if you see what they had to say about the man who the claimed to be "or bust" for, he was clearly nothing more than a placeholder for them.
1
@redvenomweb And I am not saying that the anti-center people are good. I have been very critical of this argument, and I have been very clear that I am voting for the nominee. However, if you can't see the difference between the actual effects of a small rump with no power vs. a group that has a lot of power, you are being dishonest with yourself.
1
@redvenomweb 1) We can look at everything that they did to stop him from getting the nomination, and how they said they couldn't win, to the point that several Dixiecrats said that they wouldn't endorse him if he won the nomination. 2) Don't confuse volume with size. Again, half the Bernie voters in 2016 voted for Trump of Hillary voters in 2008 who voted for McCain. Even if you include every category of "didn't vote for Hillary," it is still lower than the percentage of Hillary voters who outright voted for the Republican.
1
@redvenomweb 1) No, but saying "I won't vote for the nominee and just might vote for the Republican" is. Totally different than saying "I would prefer another candidate." You are complaining about a small fraction of Bernie voters saying they might vote third party, but an actual US Senator threatened to vote for Trump if Bernie won the nomination. Not the same at all. 2) That argument doesn't work the way you think it does. That means that 4.4MM Hillary voters went for McCain, as opposed to 1.57MM Bernie voters going for Trump. You want to maybe concede that the point about which side was more willing to stick with the party is not in your favor? Or, is your pride in the way now? If you were making a mistake, we all do, but I guess time will tell if you were just being dishonest.
1
@redvenomweb The only reason there was any impact is because it was close. It wasn't Bernie's fault that it was close against the most unpopular nominee in the history of polling. Maybe if Hillary had bothered to listen to the people begging her to go to the Great Lakes instead of pumping $5MM into Chicago and New Orleans to boost the popular vote total, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Bernie did all he could for Hillary. Sue sabotaged herself.
1
@redvenomweb Oh, and as to your other question, you are assuming that party insiders, many of whom endorsed Theresa May over Jeremy Corbyn and what Labour insiders did to Corbyn tells me that a lot of the establishment would have gladly done it to Bernie. And Bernie explicitly disavowed any such actions.
1
@redvenomweb And when the supporters of Hillary in 2016 point to the much smaller percentage of actual defectors than she encouraged with her hiring, then I will point to the far larger number who she hired in 2008, especially as fundraisers, who did the exact same thing. You objected to my term sabotage, but the exact same thing happened in 2016 with supposedly neutral people putting their thumb on the scales as they did this time. Biden and Perez have blood on their hands for their efforts for the ultimate knockout blow to the Bernie campaign by insisting on holding a campaign primaries in four states knowing how severe the health risk had become.
1
@redvenomweb Look up Christi Adkins and Mike Donovan. I remember a lot of the people on the Hillary campaign as fundraisers in Philadelphia (one whose son was briefly involved with the Montgomery County Young Democrats before leaving to support McCain) who went the PUMA route. And considering just how high the percentage was who voted for McCain, it is obvious that Bernie supporters were more willing to suck it up in 2016. Add to that the fact that a recent poll still shows more Bernie supporters going for Biden this time around, and it is obvious that the so-called BOBs are a tiny fragment, especially compared to the PUMAs in 2008.
1
@redvenomweb And you're ignoring the fact that a higher percentage of Hillary voters voted for McCain in 2008 than Bernie voters in 2016 who voted for Trump, voted third party, and didn't vote combined.
1
@redvenomweb We are talking about percentages, not raw numbers. If you think that raw numbers automatically assume greater percentages, then you are clearly wedded to your narrative rather than looking at evidence.
1
@redvenomweb I am talking about the voters, because that's who keeps getting maligned. Was there a Bernie or Bust PAC running ads in 2016?
1
@redvenomweb Those are different questions. Sabotage is about doing everything possible to defeat someone when you are supposed to be either neutral or an active supporter.
1
@redvenomweb Bernie didn't hire from the establishment. And, look at how obvious they made it in 2016. DWS scheduled very few debates (before being forced to do more), instituted the policy of black balling candidates who did debates on an alternative platform (the DNC sponsored very few debates in 2004 and 2008, but candidates went to dozens), scheduled them during times that she knew would get a low audience and didn't announce times very far in advance, and filled the DNC with people determined to make it a coronation. And, she didn't have to use PUMAs, because she had her pick of the litter. People attracted to the anti-establishment candidate (as evidenced by the number who were warned that they'd never get a job in Washington again if they worked for Bernie) are a very different pool indeed.
1