Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Bernie Surrogate Rips Jeff Weaver Following SuperPAC News" video.
-
7
-
7
-
The time to BE Organizer-in-chief (not just talking about it) was when the pandemic caused the lockdown. At that time it was pretty clear he would not become the nominee (and the campaign needed a boost, by doing something DIFFERENT). Fate had shoved the chance and duty in his face, to step up and to LEAD (just outside the White House, instead of from within).
Starting with calling out the Democrats in Congress and Senate, early on when the negotiations for the first "stimulus" bill were under way, it was clear early on where that was headed. (Trump / Republicans bad is a given, there is no need to only slam them).
AOC, Sanders, Ilhan Omar STILL avoid calling out Schumer and Pelosi. Not only Republicans fail The People. Again. In the pandemic.
Soon after the lockdown started Sanders had no more reasons to placate the DNC to be "diplomatic", so they kindly would not cheat him out of the nomination again (pretty please).
No more fear, that he would offend Biden fans if he would hold Biden to account and call him out (Sanders would have needed those voters in the general).
No more playing nice with Corporate media (millionaires shilling for billionaires - I would like to hear Sanders once explain to the viewers that they cannot reasonably expect to get unbiased complete information by the media).
Calling media out now for the way they report on the handouts (or what they fail to mention: that they are a handout for big biz, and crumbs and strings attached for everybody else).
No more sucking up to Obama for fear he would not campaign for him as candidate.
Sanders was not going to be the nominee, so he could as well make some enemies with the D establishment.
5
-
5
-
4
-
Other issues where Sanders did not call a spade a spade: He was asked if he thought he would have won (after HRC achieved to lose against Trump). HIS answer should have been a RESOUNDING YES. All other players in the game would have said it, and in his case it was not a stretch:
This was not about revenge and complaining in hindsight, but to call a spade a spade and shaping the conversation. Resp. spoiling the whitewash and the blame game.
HRC would not have dared to hit him if he had kicked her - and hard - the first time she tried to blame HIM for her catastrophically lost race.
HRC lost 3 states by a total of 70,000 votes (and Trump needed to win those states). Many voters voted D downballot, but left the president blank (many more than usual, also in the Rustbelt states). Sanders would have won the Rustbelt states.
Also crickets on voter roll purges - Greg Palast contacted DNC and Sanders campaign.
Why do the Dems keep silent ? Because they find the options convenient in a "progressive emergency". Republicans steal the general, Democrats steal primaries.
Operation Crosscheck 2016. Massive voter roll purges in Republican states. Greg Palast got the database (ethic names, possibly with the Zip code information factored in. Ethnic names only of low(er) income areas = zip codes.
If one Robert Brown for instance had voted in more than one R state in past elections, it was assumed that was the same person, that committed the crime of voting more than once. So that was the pretext to kick them OFF the voter rolls. No going public and no prosecution - of course not for that they cannot play dumb, they need to come up with evidence, that they have verified, compared birth dates, middle names etc.).
Needless to say, neither media, nor DNC reported on it. But he also approached the Sanders campaign. I was irritated that the Sanders campaing did not use the platform to make that an issue.
My (puzzled) rational: The elites and the big donors want to maintain the illusion of reliable elections. Corporate Dems KNOW the big donors do not want them to not make a stink (also not when the Republicans cheat and it costs the Dems the elections.
They money comes flowing in anyway, not all neoliberals lose their seats, and good shills will get a cushy job if they lose the election running on unattractive platform and spineless votes. I assumed that Sanders at this point chose his battles wisely, that he did not want to give them a chance to lump him together with conspiracy theorists and Trump (3 million illegals have voted for Hillary Clinton.
On the other hand: how are Dems (ideally with nominee Sanders) are supposed to win the general. Nothing but a blue wave could compensate for the tolerated R cheating.
Corporate Dems are financed to win primaries against pro worker candidates and to make sure they do not get on the ballot. In the general the ballot will offer the voters the "choice" of a spinless neoliberal or a fierce Republican, and both completely beholden to the big donors (and the party establishement that manages the party machine on behalf of the donors).
For the donors it does not matter if the D or R wins the general. So the D's accept the purges and other Republican shenanigans and also keep a deafening silence on easily hackable voting machines (a problem that is older than 10 years).
Or election results that on principle cannot be audited (no paper trail, you have to believe that what the screen of the voting machines displays, is the same information that is present in the voting machine. Furthermore that it is not altered during transmission, or more realistically that the numbers are manipulated when tabulation is done. You have to believe that (for instance in Ohio) because there is no way to verify.
Not a peep by the legacy media, or Democrats on that ongoing problem. Or the Sanders campaign. Not in 2016, 2020 or inbetween.
Only John Oliver did a segment on voting machines. In 2016 a citizen group (no DNC to be seen anywhere near the effort) tried to sue the state of Ohio, the safety feature of the voting machines has never been activated, they wanted that to happen for the Nov. 2016 election. The judge dismissed the case (come back when you have evidence for fraud. Duh !)
Why the deafening silence ? Why did Al Gore roll over ? (they did not even protect the poll workes when a mob intimidated them, banging on doors and windows when they counted ballots in Florida. Bill Clinton could have sent in the National Guard, it is a felony to mess with election or intimidate poll workers or voters).
The Dems occasionally use the same tactics, and hackable voting machines and being able to change the tabulation could come in handy in a progressive emergency. (If Sanders would have been the nominee, he would have needed to overwhelm them. The rigging becomes more obvious when they change the numbers too much. Ideally it is not more than 1 % or at most 2 %.
The exit polls had Kerry winning Ohio in 2004, the "results" were different and gave the "win" to Bush (meaning the crook had another term).
Kerry should have made a stink. Never mind what was the reason for the unusually high difference between exit polling and announced result
1) Could be rigging
2) the exit poll quality is underwhelming. Because the elections cannot be verified (in Ohio!) high quality reliable exit polls are the very last safeguard voters have, that they can trust the results.
Sanders also did not make it an issue that the exit polls were off for him in the 2020 primaries. Again could be bad polling (after all that was also in Republican run states, and in the beginning I doubt that the R's had an agreement among themselves if they wanted Trump to run against Biden OR Sanders. So which D canddiate would they have illegally propped up ?
The candidates should not meekly put up with bad exit polling. Even if it is only that.
Exit polling is interesting but not that crucial in other nations where they do hand counts of the paper ballots per polling station. The board / witnesses of the election (per polling station) includes members of all parties and civil servants, so it is almost impossible to cheat. And then it would still be only ONE polling station (which does not make a dent), even if they could somehow bribe the whole team and no one blows the whistle.
They all sign off on the count and then report the numbers. It is possible to find out the numbers per pollings station (FOIA request), even though they routinely publish them aggregated per village, town, city, state, nation (it interests the voters how their town has voted). In a village they have only one polling station, but in a town / city they aggregate the numbers.
Aggregation is done with help of modern technology, and I assume they also enter the numbers and do not report them by phone (not anymore) - BUT you can follow the trail and it leads back to the signed off count of paper ballots in a single polling station - all over the country.
No one will even try to rig that.
They do exit polls to have early reporting of numbers. If that is off (it isn't, they know how to do it, and invest enough in good sampling), it would meant that they did not get the sampling right.
No big deal, the voters would notice the change of numbers while the count is under way. But no one doubts the numbers of the count.
The Democrats sit in the glasshouse. The donors (of both parties) want quiet, they do not want the sheeple upset about election integrity.The U.S. is not a democracy but in reality an oligarchy, but the citzens are not supposed to realize that.
3
-
Other red flags of 2016 / 2017 regarding Sanders I should have assessed differently:
He helped the DNC by NOT calling them out on the rigging of the primary confirmed in the Podesta emails. Which confirmed how they tipped the scales. Also how Corporate media submitted their intended articles for approval with the DNC / Clinton campaign.
Sanders went to a degree along with the Russia, Russia hysteria.
Not too much BUT he should ALSO have pointed out that there was another level to the story: Sure, no one (incl. foreign governments) should hack the DNC server (IF that was even a hack).
But there is no need to ignore the information, just because you dislike the messenger OR the ways the TRUE information has come out.
DNC and Clinton campaign or media or Obama NEVER contradicted that the mails were authentic. And it was not only about tipping the scales against Sanders in 2015 and 2016. (Oct. 2008 citibank sent a mail to the Obama campaign, the lists with names to chose appointments from. It is also in the Wikileaks database. The list of names were sorted according to identity criteria. Race, religion, LGBTQ, ... veteran, disabled. Identity politics at its finest: as long as they are neoliberal shills.
Eric Holder, Attorney General, who carefully avoided prosecuting the banksters and was vetted by citibank - was a black man.
Sanders also KNEW about Ed Schultz - but he never mentioned that either
Ed Schultz had to stand down 5 minutes before going live, he planned to cover the announcement of Sanders to run in May 2015. The Sanders campaign then did not expect they would have any chance to win the nomination, they wanted to drag HRC to the left, to have a discussion about The Issues.
So Sanders KNEW that Ed Schultz was forced to abort live coverage, when they had the team in Burlington, had done an interview that afternoon (they wanted to show that after reporting live from the speech) and had prepared and coordinated the whole day for it.
It was a small campaign (they planned to get 30 million in small donations), getting free coverage was a big thing.
Likely an "observer" for team Hillary saw the respectable crowd on a fine day, and the camera teams. Phoned home and team Hillary activated NBC boss Phil Griffin - who ordered Ed to stand down a few minutes before start.
Ed Schultz had to cover two other issues and both were not urgent or highly relevant, so no justification for such a sudden change of plans. Ed Schultz said there were some editorial interventions from above from time to time, but this was the most outrageous.
He had a heated exchange with the boss Phil Griffin, and they ended his contract 40 days later. At that time everyone assumed this was because he was openly against TPP. That may have been a reason but Ed attributed the end of his show also to that suppression of reporting on Sanders.
Truth is: he knew Sanders and like him and his policies, he would have covered him later, MSNBC could not always do emergency operations for the Clinton campaign for the only show that would have given Sanders ongoing, friendly and LONGER coverage- so time to explain the positions, and not only in 30 second soundbites.
Sanders did have some media coverage. Bill Maher, TheView, etc. - but nothing like the fawning and ongoing coverage team Hillary could count on.
They would rather have an anchor that does not need to be told, that toes the line voluntarily and does not embarrass the superiors (free media and stuff).
Even when everyone, incl. Sanders, Weaver, the media, and Clinton assumed he did not have a chance, she already kneecapped the outsider campaign.
Why ? Iowa primary win of Obama in 2008 was a shock for her, and it never went smoothly for her in 2008. They assumed Sanders could do well in IO and NH (white rural state, resp. neighbour state to VT).
This time no one was going to rain on her parade and damage her early momentum.
So they played dirty from the first day. Literally.
In summer 2015 the cheating was perceived differently because the Sanders campaign did not expect to beat HRC. (So they could give it a pass). But it was clear to what lenghts they would go even with a seemingly harmless competitor.
2
-
Cant_Touch_This I disagree that the 2016 campaign run by Jeff Weaver was a debacle - It was an extraordinary and unexpected success. - Remember: 230 million USD raised in small donations, with a mostly hostile media.
And in the end it was Sanders who determined the direction, even though his long time friend was in charge.
They did a LOT of things right. Even if they had gotten everything 100 % right, it is not clear they could have won the nomination. Not on the FIRST attempt.
The older (black) voters are hard to win, and Sanders had only so much time and MONEY. South Carolina was an early state, and then he also did not do as well with Latinos (much better this time).
Consider the name recognition and polling of Sanders in spring 2015 ! 60 points behind Hillary Clinton - no one, incl. Sanders, Weaver, Clinton thought he would be THAT successful.
The orange moron did not come from nowhere in 2015 - he had name recognition from TV, and media did not bother to destroy his reputation as competent business man, so many people form outside New York "knew" him as the highly successful real estate mogul.
Trump - very much unlike Sanders - got a LOT of free airtime. Since Trump struck a chord with many voters, it did not matter that the "liberal" networks covered him negatively. The people that thought Trump had a point, were reminded of him on a daily / hourly basis, reminded of how the establishment despised him. It supported his narrative how he was an outsider.
Trump knows how to work the media. He baited them constantly.
Sanders did not get that free coverage - and is also not as skillful in trolling the media.
(Shouldn't be a necessary talent if you want to become president, but he should have learned from Trump in that regard anyway).
The Sanders 2016 campaign planned with 30 million USD in small donations and for some time they did not dare spend too much for fear that the donations might drie up. so they built the plane while it was rolling on the tarmac for take-off.
Weaver may be more establishment than progressives like - but in the end it is SANDERS who makes the decisions. He trusts Weaver, and when they started out it did not look like they had any chance but raising some issues and fuel a public debate. Weaver was not mainly in it for the money - like many of the Industrial Election Circus.
Sanders ! decided to let HRC off the hook regarding email investigation (she was only cleared by the FBI in June 2016 !). Whatever the opinion of Weaver was on that issue - in the end Sanders set the route.
Nina Turner was uninvited from speaking at the convention (the Podesta emails had just been published, they knew they could not silence HER).
Sanders is responsible for not calling out Operation Crosscheck (Republican voter roll purge, millions of ethnic names). As usual crickets from Corporate Democrats. But Greg Palast had also contacted the Sanders campaign. Sanders had so many progressives in his circles, someone must have told him at some point.
Not calling out media on subverting Ed Schultz when he tried to cover the announcement of Sanders to run for president in May 2015. Especially after Ed was fired 40 days later. O.K. maybe Sanders thought it could undermine the chances of Ed Schultz to find a job with another network.
He didn't get one anyway.
RT picked him up (they can pick up a lot of good people, they just have to wait for the purges of the neoliberal networks, they have a lot of progressives, especially in the U.S. and U.K. they have nowhere to go).
2
-
1
-
1
-
5:50 I would take the Jaimal Green tweets with a grain of salt. - If Weaver had THAT much influence over Sanders, it was because Sanders GAVE him that influence. They have known each other for decades (Weaver run many campaigns for Sanders before). Weaver did not "make" Sanders drop out, or stopped him from talking about Tarra Reade. Or prevent him from going after the black vote - what does that even mean ?
Not advertising ? Not scaring the shit out of old (black) voters (that if they think SS and Medicare is safe, they should think again, especially with Joe Biden at the helm).
Maybe Weaver too was for being soft on Biden, and it looked like Biden had collapsed (so what was the point of alienting his fans. Plus he was associated with Obama, and many policies that you can blame Biden for, border dangerously on implicating Obama. Like offering SS as bargaining chip to Republicans in 2012. Obama promised the public option and let some Republicans with a D to their name kill it).
Biden polled poorly in Iowa. Bloomberg seemed to be the largest problem for Sanders in January 2020.
Well, .... not once in the history of primaries has there been such a ascent as Biden had after South Carolina.
usually when a candidate won 2 out of the 3 early states he became the nominee.
Sanders tied pete in Iowa, was 2nd in NH and won in NV. They were panicking it looked like he was on a roll to secure the nomination, and fast.
But on the other hand Biden did poll well throughout 2019 (usually spot 1 or sometimes 2) even though he ran a LOUSY campaign. In fall it looked bad, no money. No groundgame beyond the early states. Lame small campaign events.
Sanders should have finished him off in fall 2019. Just to make sure.
Maybe Weaver was against that.
a) Faiz had the duty to take a stance. It was unusual that the campaign manager travels with the candidate. Maybe that was the way of Faiz to make sure he had the ear of Sanders. To be close at all times. Which meant a burden on his time and energy.
usually the campaign manager stays in head quarters, I am sure Faiz worked long and hard, but travelling takes up some resources, it is not like returning to the control room, your desk, your office every day.
b) what hindered Sanders to read the polls. Unlike in 2015 / 2016 they KNEW they had the money for ad campaigns.
Kicking Biden (and the other neoliberals) and establishing Sanders as Mr. Healthcare, Mr. SS and Mr. Cares for the little people. Oh, and the most electable.
The polls were not hard to understand. Older black voters like Biden, not questions asked.
Sanders and team should have found a framing to attack Biden on his record w/o implicating Obama (Saint Obama is off limits, sadly many voters still do not see him for the shill he is).
But Sanders always was about "his good friend Joe" and even now he did not bother to extract concession for suspending the campaign and to endorse him. He also did not deliver lines which his team had prepared for him (to go after Biden). That was not Weaver, that was Sanders.
the pandemic endorsed M4A - but Sanders STILL does not kick his "good friend Joe". Which is not a good friend of the working class. In March (after the 2nd Tuesday neck on neck with Sanders regarding delegates he felt confident enough to say in an interview he would veto Medicare for All, then using right wing / industry talking points how it would cost too much.
Kid gloves for Biden has nothing to do with Weaver. He may or may not agree with being super soft on Biden, but this is on Sanders and Sanders alone.
1