Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "" video.
-
3
-
3
-
@ZenAndPsychedelicHealingCenter & Occupy got utterly crushed. The debate stopped after a few days because you didn't have proper representation & avid critics in Washington at the time. Bernie Sanders has been arguing for leftist policies for 40+ years & it's fallen on deaf ears, which is why, whether he planned it or not, he started a movement to bring more uncorrupted outsiders & Left-wing activists into Washington & clone himself many times over. Now you have someone like Nina Turner about to make a real run for Congress & then the presidency (with an already giant support base, maybe the largest in the country after Trump's) & you have a 30-year old like AOC, a new Congresswomen, who is the most popular member of Congress on Twitter & otherwise with significant cultural power among Dem & Independent voters. Not to mention, other new members actually arguing in favor of Palestinians, something that never happened in the past, & so on & so on. More important than anything though, Bernie proved that you can raise more money by being a champion of the people far more than you can from whoring yourself to corporations - this is a game changer in American politics & you already saw people like Warren, Yang, & others trying to copy his successful strategy, while neoliberals have to hide their shame & corporate donors as best they can. Things might look dim right now with a Joe Biden presidency, but make no mistake, the future belongs to the Left & populism.
1
-
@soul4saken This is actually a very interesting (& important) topic, because I can't rightfully say what the best strategy is. Would Bernie have won if he went nuclear on Biden? Maybe, or maybe Bloody Monday was too devastating for any Leftist to overcome. If Bernie employed a cutthroat strategy when the primary had 9+ candidates, would he have have been able to cut down the competition easier? I can't say & I think it's naïve to assume anyone knows the answers for sure - the Democratic Party is not the same as the Republican Party. The Republicans value strength above all else, they think might=right, whereas the Democratic base values intelligence & candor rather than brute force. The same strategies would not provide the same results, I'm sure of that much.
However, I am of the same belief that Bernie should've gone farther in the lengths he was willing to challenge & go after the Democratic Party, at least after they played their hand the night before Super Tuesday ("they drew first blood" so to speak); I am just uncertain of the outcome. His hostility could've paid off, or it could've backfired among Democrats & centrists. Bernie was at least partially successful in his more peaceable strategy. No matter how it ultimately turned out, he was winning the primary before the game board was flipped over on Bloody Monday, so before Super Tuesday, it's safe to say his strategy was working & winning. You had even baby boomers explaining how the media was being overly hostile towards Sanders to the point of absurdity when the guy has done nothing but propose & champion policy he thinks will help people.
When MSNBC said that Bernie winning Nevada was like the Nazis invading France, you had overwhelming backlash against the media & anti-Bernie groups. By conducting himself as non-threatening, he made the media & neoliberals look like the antagonistic ones, & that actually made their plans backfire constantly throughout the campaign. You had the Nevada Culinary Union plan backfire, you had media attacks against his campaign backfire nonstop, & you even had Warren's "sexism" attack backfire in a huge way. Would these been as effective if Bernie took a more hostile role? I don't think so, but would the positives of being more hostile outweigh the negatives? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that might've only been the case after it became a 1v1 election with Biden.
I tend to agree with people that have said Bernie had nothing left to lose after Bloody Monday & even if it had backfired, a change in strategy would've been better than continuing a strategy that was known to be losing against the neoliberals coalescing like they did. I am also of the firm belief, that I really don't think it would've been enough to beat Biden - the math & statistics just weren't on the Left's side when Amy & Pete joined with Biden & Warren snubbed Bernie. The lengths Bernie would've had to go to defeat those numbers seemed unattainable, especially when there was extremely little time to make the case & especially when the people he's trying to win are Warren voters, neoliberals, & Democrat-leaning black voters. Being more hostile towards Biden doesn't seem like it's the most effective way of winning those types of liberal voters (probably why Bernie took a soft approach to Biden & his voters from the beginning). However, again, I just don't know for sure. I think a change in strategy would've been better no matter what it was, but I highly doubt anything could've managed to pull out a victory, especially not enough of a victory so they couldn't steal it at the Convention (something that almost definitely would've happened if Bernie eked out a victory). I remember hearing the results of Super Tuesday & knowing right then & there that Bernie lost the primary, & then 2 days later when Bloomberg backed Biden & Warren refused to back Bernie, it made it even more clear.
Nowadays, my main opinion is just that the primary election was constructed for the neoliberal's safety & rigged by design. When Noam Chomsky said there was little chance a Leftist like Bernie could win the primary, I understand why now. We're not going to be able to overcome the DNC & corporate Democrats until their voters join us in our struggle for Universal healthcare & an end to wealth inequality. Things likely need to get worse before they get better, just like in the Great Depression that led to FDR's rise. It's just too bad the primary had to occur before the pandemic hit, it likely would've been enough to change the outcome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1