Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "BREAKING: New York Kicks Bernie Off Primary Ballot" video.
-
2
-
I think Sanders became afraid of his own courage, and he would rather return to his safe corner as the eternal underdog (who is right on the issues, can name the problems - and regrets that nothing changes). As soon as there was the threat of really getting power.
he self sabotages. Part of him said the right thing and worked really hard - part of him stood in his own way.
There are wrong assessments a campaign makes (know your own voter, they young did not turn out) - and there is SELF SABOTAGE and acting almost like a surrogate for Biden. The voters that value "electability" think that Biden is a decent guy (no), and that he is well or better suited to beat Trump (no).
Sanders reinforced that wrong impression (of People who may have liked Sanders too) by saying: Joe is my friend, he is a nice guy. Of COURSE he can beat Trump (he did that in several interviews after the 2nd Tuesday).
It is not uncommon that people self sabotage when success lurks around the corner. The psychopaths, and narcissists that are so numberous in politics have no second thoughts of course.
He was even more afraid of USING power when losing (after Super Tuesday). It is sad, and it costs the movement dearly because he has taken up so much oxygen, energy, grassroots works.
He SAID the right thing (organizer-in-chief), that is all fun and game as long as it does not become a reality. Fate shoved an opportunity in his face whith the pandemic - and he dropped the ball.
The psychopaths, careerists, sellouts, ... they all WANT power. (and do not squander a thought on RESPONSIBILITY). Even Biden in cognitive decline wants MORE to be the president than Sanders (never mind his wife Jill).
It makes you appreciate the attacks of Elizabeth Warren. At least she could be bothered to fight (underhanded) because she wanted to make good in the polling and thought that was the way to go. Sanders would not even use fair means to destroy Biden.
If Biden would now be forced to drop out because 5 other women dare go public against him, I doubt very much that Sanders would FIGHT to get back in the race. after all HE still has the movement and EARNED the most delegates.
2
-
"Trumpian" media strategy that an aspiring Organizer-in-chief could use
1) It does not look like the Democratic establishment really wants to win against Trump. Else they would adopt M4A which is VERY popular - in a pandemic no less. Would guarntee them a landslide if they have unified massaging. But they would rather take a gamble.
2) The media does not give the full story about the handouts to big biz now, or healthcare, trade deals, war .... - pundits earning millions help to shape public opinion for billionaires.
3) Socialism for the rich and big biz. - What about the TRILLIONS the Fed can create, just with a wave of the hand (well a few entries into a computers). Has nothing to do with the stimulus bill, it was additional and earlier.
The Fed created 1,5 trillion on March 12 (just for a start) to bail out the speculators on Wallstreet, that was BEFORE the stimulus bill was even discussed. No public discussion, media glosses over it,
Congress is not needed (Dodd Frank hands that power to the Fed, the first wave of QE under Obama had at least a little bit of insufficient, misleading).
It shows WHO gets taken care of in America. (1,5 Trn divided by 330 million people = USD 4,500 each or 18,000 for a family of four. Of another ratio if you also give a payment to small biz.
Of course the Fed could create _Debt and Interest Free Money (QE for the people), it could go to a public bank to give out long term loans. W/o interest and drawn out paying back inflation takes care of the loan.
IRS (tax policy) can take care of fairness and meanstesting for those who do not need the favorable loan - they can do that when the dust has settled. But now FAST help with no means testing. Not for citizens and not for smaller biz. Let the businesses sign that the help they get can be published in a public database. If all get the generous loan it is not shameful, or reason for envy.
The public will detect the FAKE small businesses (spin offs of large biz, often founded to limit liability, or being able to send them strategically into bankrupcy w/o negative effects for the mother company).
Sanders could tweet about 1), 2), 3) - and then let the howling begin. It is valuable information for the voters, it could have revived his campaign, it would not matter that the media and DNC hate him even more, they screw him anyway.
He can as well give them something to hate him for ("millionaires shilling for billionaires" would be a tweet that gets him some attention).
It is not necessary for progressives to stoop to Trumpian / Republican levels (the Dems do some superior gaslight, their method is just more polished). But some amount of being a "rogue" (but with his or her heart in the right place and being for the little people and for smaller biz) would be crucial if you want to win against the establishment. and it would be rewarded by voters.
Many voters like that rogue approach (especially in a time of crisis) - and not only in the U.S. Obviously some think it is time for a rogue actor, they have been screwed for decades with the polished, eloquent, well educated figures.
So many do not mind Trump being a thug - as long as they believe he is THEIR thug.
That dynamic is typical in times of prolonged economic stress, it played out in Italy with Berlusconi, in Boris Johnson who can lie and be wrong and unprepared with impunity. He had a reputation to wing it and to be lazy and on "creative" terms with facts long before the pandemic. Or Bolsenaro in Brazil. Or Duterte on the Philippines. Modi in India: They do not shy away from egrigious statements, never mind the worrying ant-democratic sentiment. Or driving a wedge between the population.
Voters that purport to be conservative (norms, manners, tradition) throw the "norms" into the wind and vote for such figures and enthusiastically so.
The left politicians that shaped European politics after WW2 were also often the ones with an ego and a larger than life personality. Seems even well intentioned politicians have to unleash their inner asshole or they are not getting anywhere in politics.
WSJ video: Sit down conversation with Black voters in Georgia: One man that had voted for Trump in 2016 and then (this was before the crisis broke) planned to do the same in 2020:
"I knew Trump was not great on etiquette, I WANTED a bull in the chinashop. I will vote for him again."
1
-
Of course narcissism, greed, high ambition, stupidity, and corrupt selfishness protects Trump (or politicians like him) from having second thoughts about the responsibility that comes with getting power, or if they are even qualified to have that much power.
Progressives CARE about other people (constituents) and they are supposed to be intelligent, knowledgeable and nuanced.
I wonder if that also makes them too WEAK for the bloodsport. They just do not have the necessary asshole energy.
Trump threatened he would run third party in 2016, if the RNC would cheat him out of the nomination *. They KNEW he would do it to retaliate, almust securing the win to the other side. So they did not dare. Being "rogue" gave him leverage.
Trump did not have the majoritiy of plus 50 % but the plurality of the delegates (and the Republicans don't do superdelegates, not that Trump would have accepted that either).
But even Sanders KNEW how to hold on to his leverage. If the Conress race in VT in 1990 had been ANOTHER 3 party race there was a chance the Republican would be lucky again, because the "left" vote was split. Sanders at least signalled he was willing to risk that (of course he might have won this time despite having 2 competitors). The DNC blinked first (and to be fair for them it was not that important).
When Sanders played the mid level game, he could allow himself to USE LEVERAGE to aspire for that much success and power. (being a member of Congress or later Senate).
Maybe then he was also more motivated to secure his future: His career as mayor of Burlington came to an end in 1988, term limits (4 x 2 years). NOW he is financially secure, no matter what.
He was not big donor friendly, or favored the local real estate developers, so no cushy post for this former mayor.
In 1988 a Republican won a Congressional race in Vermont with a little over 40 %, Sanders the Independent got approx. 3 % less, and the Democratic candidate was the spoiler.
While being mayor Sanders already aimed for higher office and run several times (3 races). In 1988 he just missed. So it had to be 1990 (In the menatime he taught at a university, and I guess prepared the 1990 run). Burlington is the largest city in VT, he had nowhere to go in VT politics.
Sanders flew to D.C. in 1989, and found an agreement with the NATIONAL Democratic party. The state party did not like Sanders for stealing their thunder with the left leaning voters (not only in that race). But the DNC saw a tiny unimportant state (read: no big donors or relevant industries) with a Congress seat that was unnecessarily lost to a Republican.
So the DNC leaned on the state party, the agreement was that the local Dems would not finance and support a Democratic candidate running against Sanders
Ever since they solve that as follows: Sanders runs in the primaries of the VT Democratic State party, wins them - but then declines the nomination and runs as Independent in the general election with no other Democrat in the race. So technically speaking a very strong Democrat could have a chance, he or she would need to defeat Sanders in the D primaries (and it would be a 2 candidate race between a D and a R). Does not happen with the name recognition of Sanders.
They DNC assumed he was able to win in 2 candidate races, and with little help from them (money). And his part of the deal was that he would caucus with them (which was a no-brainer anyway).
Eventually he even got the committee positions they had promised him.
So the state party had to suck it up (even though their local big fish intensely disliked Sanders back in the day).
Next time Independent Sanders ran in a 2 candidate race in 1990 - and unseated the Republican. Sanders was sworn in as member of Congress in 1991, and he won the Senate seat in 2006. Then he was for some time the one vote that gave Democrats the majority in the Senate during the end of the Cheney / Bush admin.
THEN Sanders used his leverage. He signalled he would run again, and since he did it with small donations, they could not hinder him. So they gave in. Now, they would not have done that in a large important state like TX of CA. but in small VT they ignored the bad example Sanders set. Getting away with eliminating a D candidate, giving voters a choice and doing grassroots campaigns.
Compare that with 2016: The DNC KNEW Sanders was worried that Trump could win - so they could cheat and abuse him as they liked. Being worried, and caring about people and country robbed him of leverage.
1
-
Sanders being genuinely worried about Trump winning robbed him of power (which the DNC, media and HRC shamelessly exploited. Only NOW we see that they do not even have to ROB him, he capitulates easily). - On top of that he was even more easy on them than was plausible if you assume high levels of diplomatic politeness. Back in the day I thought he was maybe strategic and wanted to stay in their good graces to have more leverage.
The position of outreach played into his strength, he got more interviews (and less hostile) than when he was a candidate, and he used that very well.
In hindsight: he was TOO accomodating.
Too eager or willing to swiftly gloss over the question if he would have won. Helped them put the rigging of the primaries under the rug. did not call them out for ignoring voter roll purges (Operation crosscheck). Or the howling about Russian interfernce in our elections - but not a peep on easily hackable voting machines.
He should have pointed out ALL that HRC had done wrong.
He did not want to kick her when she was already on the ground. Well - she does not mind at all to play dirty games. (And Sanders should have known THAT as well). She knows how to kick him just fine.
He let her off the hook: during the debates in 2016, at the convention when he should have kicked them with the evidence of the Podesta emails - and after her historic achievement to lose against Trump.
No good deed goes unpunished.
And it was to see for the voters that he was a pushover.
Double standard by DNC, Hillary Clinton and the media:
HRC also took it to the convention in 2008, she too stayed in when it was clear, she could not win with pledged delegates and Obama had the superdelegates as well (and even if not - did she think the superdelegates would overturn the primary result of the rising star, a black man to favor the white woman that was very much part of the establishment. How would she have convinced black voters to vote for her in the general if the superdelegates would have handed her the nomination ?)
HER rational when asked in 2016 why she did not drop out in a race she couldn't win:
Anything can happen, as late as June Bobby Kennedy was shot [in the traumatic year 1968, it is not clear he could have secured the nomination, and then not all states had primaries, so for some states the party establishement chose. But if Kennedy had been alive, he would have leveraged his influence over his delegates, so maybe not a pro war candidate would have been nominated, no riots, no Nixon win).
Sanders did not drop out, too. He is villified and blamed for her achievement to lose. Because he was too hard on her - the primaries in 2008 were fiercer than those of 2016. That he stayed in the race: Never mind that the FBI only ended the the private email server investigation in mid June 2016 and let HRC off the hook (while reprimanding her for using the private email server). Obama did not have such skeletons in the closet.
I mean: it was not likely that HrC would have gotten the same treatment as regular citizens for breaking the law, but there was a slim chance - and this was an own goal. it was her own doing, and so was the greedy decision to take 400,000 USD for a Wallstreet speech not long before she announced. Even her team was uncomfortable with that move.
Oher such bribes close to the time she announced her 2nd run, were not even covered. A birthday celebration of a North African monarch- I think Morocco. In the end her visit was too controversial (they do not have a good human rights record) - so Bill went and graced the event with his presence in exchange for money. it was private income (not even fundraising for the campaign). They chased that money while already being rich.
And their daughter had a highly paid job in the Foundation ("charity" financed by big biz, incl. actors from Russian and Saudi Arabia). In other words: the family was very well provided for - but it still was not enough.
1
-
I disagree that Sanders is a sheepdog, and he does not do it for financial gains. He is split, he is subconsiously self sabotaging. Maybe he got cold feet and had second thoughts when he noticed that he could not turn out young and non-voters as he intended to.
Sure, he did well in the first 3 states, but the Latino vote saved the day, youth vote was slightly up or the same as in 2016, while the turnout for older voters was up considerably (so the SHARE of young voters was the same or down even).
So his theory of change, that the young and disaffected non-voters will come out in droves (and high turnout is needed to beat Trump in the general) - that did not show, and it become very obvious in S.C.
(the young voters could have counteracted the support for Biden. If Biden would have won only with a few percent, it would have been a de facto defeat.
Then the DNC and Obama and media intervened and propped up Biden, and he had momentum on his side.
The young and non-voters did not show up in the necessary numbers on Super Tuesday and ever since.
Then he had momentum among primary voters against him.
In TX and CA they do have mail vote, so even if they closed down a lot of polling stations, the young voters did not PREPARE for the most important election (the primary 2020, not the general).
Sure, it is shameful for a first world country to have such long lines, but then - that had happened in 2016 too (Arizona), so what were they thinking, IF they were engaged.
I assume many non-voters and young voters hadn't smelled the coffee, and the Sanders campaign made mistakes.
Now that is marketing, messaging, which formats to use. All of that could be fixed if Sanders as nominee would accept could advice.
I think a part of the population is too stupid or apathetic - or to cynical to dare to hope.
But in the 2016 election 40 % of eligible voters did not vote (it would have been 80 - 85 % turnout in any other democrady because it was a high profile rae)
40 % - that is a huge reservoire with good marketing they could tap into it.
1