Pierce: 2020 Is Already Shaping Up to Be Another Festival of Stupid

[mcar]

2020 Is Already Shaping Up to Be Another Festival of Stupid
No one learned anything from 2016. Not the Democrats, not the elite political media. Nobody.

BY CHARLES P. PIERCE
DEC 6, 2018

It is not a good thing that the 2020 presidential election is already showing signs of encroaching idiocy. It is not a good sign that the elite political press already is demonstrating that it has learned absolutely, 100 percent jack-squat from its demonstrable malpractice in 2016. This should be no surprise. The elite political press learned nothing from its previous exercises in demonstrable malpractice. Of course, this time around, there likely will not be a Clinton to kick around, so there will have to be some adjustments in the old playbook.

It also is not a good thing that the Democratic Party seems to have learned even less from what happened a little over two years ago. For example, over the past few days, or ever since Beto O'Rourke took a meeting with Barack Obama, there appears to be a concerted effort from the Bernie Sanders camp to paint O'Rourke as a tool of the oil and gas industry based on his Texas Senate campaign's acceptance of individual contributions from members of that industry. That this comes on the heels of the Sanders Foundation's hootenanny up in Burlington is no accident. There is an obvious effort by those folks to clear the progressive side of the field as cleanly as Hillary Rodham Clinton attempted to clear the field in 2016—an effort, it should be recalled, that was one of Sanders's primary arguments against her.

I have no idea whether O'Rourke will be a presidential candidate, and even less of an idea whether he'd be a good one. The run he made against Ted Cruz, and the coalition of supporters that his campaign constructed, was damned impressive for a heretofore obscure member of Congress from the deserts of East Jesus, Texas. But that's not a presidential campaign. What I do know is that there is something a bit malodorous about the notion that he somehow has let down the progressive ballclub because of some entries on his FEC form—or, worse, that he is some kind of extraction industry mole.

Similar objections have been raised against...checks notes...Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick, the latter of whom recently announced that he wasn't running, and whose announcement of that fact was greeted by stories painting him as a tool of the subprime mortgage industry. They will get around to almost anyone who isn't an Independent senator from Vermont. (Watch carefully as Amy Klobuchar goes into the barrel for not supporting Medicare For All and/or abolishing ICE. It's coming.) And, of course, it is the young people who will save us all, if we just get behind a septuagenarian independent senator from Vermont.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25424052/2020-democrats-bernie-sanders-beto-orourke-media-elizabeth-warren/

[Raster]

1. Geezums... can't we just run Obama again, with **insert name here** as Vice???

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Unfortunately, no.

[Raster]

4. We could, however, run **insert name here** as POTUS and Obama as VPOTUS.

[Eric J in MN]

8. Only Michelle Obama

Barack Obama is barred from running again for president or VP.

[leftynyc]

13. Nope

VP has to be able to take over at any time. Pres Obama has already served two terms.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. Not necessarily.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-president-becomes-vice-president/

[cwydro]

94. I have to laugh every time I read this particular idea.

Ain’t gonna happen.

[Raster]

124. of course, it's not going to happen...

...tho' not a bad thought anyway.

[xor]

144. I had a teacher from back in my middle school days who implanted the idea that

a president could rerun after sitting out a term. I took that as fact and never really questioned it until recently when I looked it up for myself. Given the fact that I've witnessed many people who had a similar belief. I am going to say it's safe to say we all had a reptilian shapeshifting alien clone of the same teacher that had the wrong information downloaded to its brain memory augmentation unit prior to landing on earth in 1947. It's the only thing that makes any logical sense.

[FSogol]

2. K & R. n/t

[BannonsLiver]

5. This is great

I love that Pierce is calling out the Trump and Clinton are the same crowd who are apparently so dense they learned nothing over the last 2 years, while informing us they intend to try the same thing in 2020 with the part of the field not named Bernie Sanders. The slime who wrote the hit piece on O’Rourke being exhibit A.

[mcar]

16. And NYT with their concern troll piece

about Warren. So akin to what they did to HRC.

[BannonsLiver]

18. Keep an eye on HuffPo too

They attached Patrick AFTER he announced he wasn’t going to run and were dooming and glooming it up all the way through the mid terms. I have no idea why I waste time with that digital rag anymore.

[mcar]

21. I refuse to click on any HuffPo link

Yes, their after the fact attack on Patrick was obscene. His wife struggles with depression. He made the right choice for his family but HuffPo couldn't help with the gratuitous smear.

[Me.]

83. He's Trying To BackTrack Now That He & They

have been called out. This time we're ready for them and it won't be pretty because the oppo that wasn't used before will be in CAPS this time around.

[Eric J in MN]

6. A tweet by David Sirota criticizing

...Beto O’Rourke’s donations is supposedly a conspiracy to clear the field.

But when someone criticizes Bernie Sanders it’s not a conspiracy to clear the field.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

14. Yep.

Maybe Pierce should consider maybe people really ARE sick of candidates taking money from the oil and gas industry or the pharmaceutical industry and then making up some bullshit about how they shouldn’t be regulated further.

[mcar]

19. Except, of course, he didn't take money from the "oil and gas industry"

He accepted donations from individuals, some of whom work in those industries. Being that he's in TX, that's not a surprise.

[George II]

127. Funny how some never address the fallacy that candidate X "took money from Y industry"....

Last edited Fri Dec 7, 2018, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

....when confronted with the facts. Those contributions from "the oil and gas industry" came from everyday average workers - clerical, maintenance, security, etc.

On the other hand, when a candidate encourages his/her supporters to send in contributions below the itemization level (I think it's $200 for Federal candidates), those contributions are never documented as to who made them and who they work for. Who knows how many $199 contributions are made by the same person?

For example, the itemization level is $200, and the maximum aggregate is $2700 for an individual. So if I make 20 $199 contributions that's a total of $3980, well over the legal limit but none of them are itemized. No one knows who I am, who my employer is, or in what industry I work.

[xor]

145. I looked up a few of those people who made donations too (I'm creepy)

A couple of them very obvious liberal democrats who had lots of postings about climate change. One of them was a geologist for some large energy company. I don't understand the point of these people. Are they saying that those people should not give money to politicians they support? Are they suggesting those people cannot be true democrats because they dare work for energy companies? Some sort of purity tests, aye? I find that highly insulting and counter productive. Occasionally we see these energy companies not be as shitty because they have people who actually care inside who can fight from within. Just a poorly thought out and insulting attack on both Beto and the people who contributed to him.

[George II]

146. That's not creepy, that's why the reports are all online. I've pored over them quite a bit...

And I think you have it, the critics here are acting like people who are file clerks at Exxon/Mobil or working in the convenience store of as Shell gas station should not contribute to candidates for office, lest they taint the candidate with the big bad "oil and gas" label.

[Hortensis]

28. Hassin, you're missing the issue. This isn't about who

takes more large donor money, Democrat or insurgent candidate. It's whether 2020 will continue the shift of power away from Republican authoritarian corruption to Democratic liberal progressivism.

The two main parties have been taking offices away from each other by very slim margins for a few years now, and political scientists say that will continue for some while.

That creates a very great danger that any third-party candidacy on the left will throw the nation to Republicans in 2020.

Our choice is not Bernie or whomever versus our Democratic candidate. Our choice in 2016 was the same as it will be in 2020: Liberal progressive government under the Democratic Party OR continued authoritarianism and corruption under the Republican Party.

You may not like that, but neither do I. Third party candidacies are strictly a luxury for more stable times when they introduce a wider range of ideas, rather than a real danger of growing fascism.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

35. Democracy versus despots

You spell it out well. People need to think.

There is no 3rd option. We either come together and elect Democrats or we get the enemies of democracy using their offices to destroy what they haven't already.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

37. Who's talking about running a spoiler candidacy?

Except maybe a few dead ender holdouts saying Bernie should fuck off and run as an independent?

As if that wouldn’t completely sink us. Which tells me they are either not too smart or they would rather lose than have a real progressive.

I’m beginning to think it’s the latter. Take Charles Pierce for example - a Medicare recipient pushing septuagenarian status himself saying we shouldn’t shoot for Medicare for all and listen to a septuagenarian. Well duh, he already has his Medicare so why should some working family with three kids get Medicare? They can go beg at the convenience store with the “leave-a-penny” tip jar if their kid gets cancer.

[Hortensis]

48. We'll have to see, won't we? The question isn't

if someone runs against those Democratic candidates genuinely competing for the nomination in the primary, but with how much hostility, how much media-inflated ammunition is given to Russia to expand further. And even more, it's whether that candidate backs the Democratic nominee wholeheartedly in the general, determined to put our candidate in the oval office. Or not.

Remember, both the Republicans and Russia will be trying to use anyone who runs against the Democratic nominee to defeat Democrats and keep Republicans in power. Progressivism itself is on the line.

[George II]

110. Candidates do NOT "take money from the oil and gas industry or the pharmaceutical industry"....

Surely you know that's illegal, don't you?

[octoberlib]

25. Actually, I saw Sirota's original tweet in real time and the argument he had

with Pierce and Neera Tanden. Sirota falsely claimed that O'Rourke took a bunch of donations from big oil. It was pointed out to him on the chart he tweeted that they were all individual donations. On FEC forms, occupation is listed when an individual donation is made. If he has a point to make ,fine but no need to lie.

[Eric J in MN]

58. OK. It was a lousy reason to

...criticize Beto O’Rourke.

But when I see Bernie criticized for a lousy reason, I don’t take it as an attempt to clear the field.

[George II]

143. The numbers he used, too, were manipulated to look bigger than they were.

I just went through his FEC file (although there's still $10+M that hasn't been reported yet). Only $64M has been reported so far.

70% of all his contributions ($44M) came from small donors, unemployed, and self employed people.

[katmondoo]

7. Sounds more like this has always been the way we run Presidential Campaigns

How about the days when candidates were selected by the bosses in both parties.

[Raven123]

9. Well said

I don't read any of the media's articles on the subject of 2020 presidential candidates. Their record of jostling to identity and then attack perceived weaknesses or defects in people is endless.

There is too much real news in the world that warrants attention. Idle speculation is not on that list IMO.

[Duppers]

71. Amen!

[Hekate]

10. KnR for his piercing insights

[Cha]

11. ".. there appears to be a concerted effort from the Bernie Sanders camp to paint O'Rourke as a tool

of the oil and gas industry based.. on his Texas Senate campaign's acceptance of individual contributions from members of that industry."

Link to tweet

It's not exactly Dems who haven't learned, though. The Blue Wave Dems are doing Grrreat!

I'm so grateful Pierce sees this all for what it really is.. Thank You, mcar!

[BannonsLiver]

12. Pierce sure pissed off a lot of dead Enders with his tweet

Lot of venom coming at Pierce from supporters of a certain prospective candidate if you read the thread.

[Cha]

17. I know I saw that the other day..

that's why I tweeted him and gave my support for his truth.

Nice to be able to say exactly what you think on twitterverse

[BannonsLiver]

23. Yes, I know exactly what you mean about Twitter

[mcar]

20. I'm sickened to see the attacks and smears starting already

The media, and some who claim to be liberal or progressive, will never learn.

[Cha]

22. They're scared of Beto and it shows..

why else attack Beto at "The Gathering"? The Dem who ran a brilliant campaign and almost beat ted freaking cruz in Texas. Oh yeah, they scared They're so freaking obvious.

I have no idea whether O'Rourke will be a presidential candidate, and even less of an idea whether he'd be a good one. The run he made against Ted Cruz, and the coalition of supporters that his campaign constructed, was damned impressive for a heretofore obscure member of Congress from the deserts of East Jesus, Texas. But that's not a presidential campaign. What I do know is that there is something a bit malodorous about the notion that he somehow has let down the progressive ballclub because of some entries on his FEC form—or, worse, that he is some kind of extraction industry mole.

[mcar]

24. They're scared of Beto, Kamala, Corey, Amy

or anyone else who might get in the way of their chosen candidate.

[Cha]

27. Yeah, and Charlie Pierce isn't pulling any

punches.. even though he got attacked on twitter a couple of days ago for his observant tweet. I love it!

[mcar]

29. I'm glad he's keeping it going

[Hassin Bin Sober]

26. Lol. The attacks and smears never ended.

Oh you just call it discussion, vetting and research. Excuse me. Never mind.

[mcar]

30. True. Some were attacking Harris and Booker with the same smears

a year ago.

[Cha]

38. Trying to cut them out early.. their big Smear

Campaign isn't working and Charlie Pierce sees right through it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

43. It probably wasn't a good idea for booker to vote against bi-partisan drug re importation.

[mcar]

49. Oh, shall we start pointing out specific votes by specific potential candidates?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

57. Lol. You mean you haven't?

Oh Lordy I must have dreamed it!

A hundred times!

Sorry for the sarcasm (not really) but it just goes to point out how silly this op is - and so is all the whingeing about starting 2020 early.

[Cha]

88. lol

[Eliot Rosewater]

99. I dont think you can. I do wonder about russian sanctions though, what I want to know is

why dont OTHERS wonder about it, especially given that a certain someone FIRST VOTED to combine the Iranian and Russian sanctions while in committee then voted AGAINST the sanctions using the fact they were combined as why...

Amazing isnt it.

[lapucelle]

105. How many voted for the Crime Bill and against the Brady Bill? N/T

[George II]

111. Did you see WHY Booker voted against drug importation?

[wryter2000]

31. I love Pierce, but

It isn't the Democrats' fault that the Sanders folks are acting that way. We have no control over what they do.

[mcar]

32. I take your point

but many doing this are Democrats, at least on paper.

[wryter2000]

34. True

[mcar]

50. ...

[Cha]

36. Right. I made the same

point up thread.

[wryter2000]

39. Sorry I missed it

I hope we've learned a bit since 2016.

[Cha]

41. I only meant..

GMTA!

Yeah, the Democratic Blue Wave Party has Learned a whole freaking Lot.

[calimary]

96. I sure do, too!

[Autumn]

40. Strangely enough every 2016 Sanders supporter IRL I know is all in on Beto.

Including myself.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. Yep. Pierce is the one stirring the shit pot.

[Autumn]

45. Yeah I think so too, lucky for him he has a lot of eager fans for it.

[BannonsLiver]

46. If you're running Bernie's 2020 campaign what you posted is a big problem for Bernie.

Though I’m not sure what you mean by all in. As a candidate for president or Bernie’s V.P.?

[Autumn]

47. Lucky I'm not running his campaign then isn't it? Bernie will either run or he won't.

I'll still like him either way. My post was pretty self explanatory.

Autumn (32,144 posts)

40. Strangely enough every 2016 Sanders supporter IRL I know is all in on Beto.

Including myself.

[BannonsLiver]

51. Haha yes I know you're not running his campaign

My point was that your experience with your friends would suggest Bernie might have some competition from other candidates for voters that backed him 4 years ago.

[Autumn]

53. I don't see the problem. That's what primaries are for and I think in 2020 we will have a nice

field to choose from.

[BannonsLiver]

54. Absolutely

It’ll be a great field and am looking forward to it. The voters (us) will sort it out, not campaign strategists (not us).

As I said it’s only a problem to those paid to run campaigns. They tend to dislike obstacles (other candidates) to their candidate winning.

[Cha]

61. Yeah, and it's backfiring..

Link to tweet

[BannonsLiver]

63. Yes I was just reading your post

Wait till he announces and raises $30-40 million in a matter of days/weeks. Gonna get ugly.

[Cha]

65. That's right! I forgot about Beto's

awesome fundraising mad skills in Texas 'cause Dems all over are shit tired of Liars & Fascism.

[BannonsLiver]

70. I think he raised $70 million

Much of it from voters outside Texas. I have almost no doubt that number can be replicated and grown exponentially. I think folks like Jeff Weaver know that, too. And they do not like it.

[Cha]

86. WOW! IOW.. Thank God/Universe for

Beto O'Rourke!

[George II]

114. Yes, a long list of qualified, loyal Democrats to choose from. Happy to see that.

[Autumn]

115. Oops, that wasn't for you. nt

[George II]

116. Excuse me?

[mcar]

52. Except Sirota

[Autumn]

56. Wow one whole idiot? How ever shall we survive? Anyone with half a brain is well aware

of the hows and whys of his campaign's acceptance of individual donations from the oil and gas industry. It is Texas after all. I'm sure Bernie knows that too. But hey that shits not going to stir itself you now . So...Sirota

[Cha]

60. Yeah, we're talking about The Gathering" and there's

way more idiots there than just sirota.

Link to tweet

[mcar]

100. More than Sirota, then

[Cha]

104. Per Zactly!

Link to tweet

[ZeroSomeBrains]

64. Bernie 2016 voter here as well

I'm fine with Bernie and have no problem with Beto. I don't know why we're all already at each other's throats. Let's all just calm down and wait for everyone to get in and be ready for whoever wins the primary to be rallied around.

We just won 40 freaking seats in the House. Maybe even another could flip. Let's be thankful of what we have done and stay unified as a group this primary season. Just a thought.

[Cha]

72. You'll have to ask "The Gathering" about that..

They're the ones attacking Beto and stirring the Shite.

Link to tweet

[ZeroSomeBrains]

78. What is this "Gathering"

I don't understand why we're already creating nicknames for other parts of our caucus. The jacobin is a leftist website about socialism and marxism. News flash. They'll lean Bernie if he runs. I'm sure other magazines are telling bernie not to run or someone else not to run or someone else to run. Who cares? Almost no one has announced yet.

Every part of the party needs to come to grips with the fact that other people with different ideologies and thinking are working towards the same goal. Electing a democratic president a majority leader in the Senate keeping the House in 2020 and flipping governorships and state legislatures around the country. That's the goal. Not calling one group a name or hating some other group or getting at each other's throats this easily from all sides.

[Cha]

81. "The Gathering" are the ones

who named it that.

This is on nobody else but them.

[Autumn]

79. Some people just like to divide and stir the shit. One person like Sirota says something and

Pierce paints anyone who has ever seen Bernie, supported him in 16 or has ever spoken his name as the Sanders camp. Talk about a festival of stupid.

We are bad evil people, incapable of liking any another politician.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

82. Thank you!

God. The insanity of the primaries has already started and almost no one has announced. Let's all calm down a little. I swear at least half of DU needs to just smoke a joint and relax.

[Autumn]

84. It helps

[marlakay]

91. I am one of them

Worked on Bernie's campaign but want someone younger to excite the youth. Watched moderate Republicans I know from Texas vote for him.

[Garrett78]

33. Bernie has no grounds for staying in the race if he loses white millennials. And he knows it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

42. I just hope

that we don't get sucked into the endless rabbit-hole of discussing "purity" and demanding 100% progressive fealty to Bernie Sanders before being nominated. Anybody running for the Presidency on the Democratic side will 1000X more competent and progressive than Trump and we need to get rid of Trump. Everything else needs to be stowed until afterwards.

[Yavin4]

55. Accepting campaign donations IS NOT EQUIVALENT to voting for legislation on their behalf

And vice versa. A candidate may not have gotten a contribution from the NRA, but if she/he voted for an NRA backed legislation then I would have a major problem with that.

[Turbineguy]

59. It would be nice if we did not lose to trump again.

And yes, we cannot rely of the loathsomeness of the GOP to push the election towards the Democratic Party.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

69. 100% Agree

I just posited that we need to stay unified this primary season and it seems like everyone is at each other's throats already when barely anyone has announced. Focus people. We need to win the White House in 2020. Your most favorite candidate may not win. Get over it now and let's get ready for the fight to come against the Republicans.

[DoctorJoJo]

62. Bernie is WAY Too Old--He Missed His Shot

Now he needs to fade away and go gently into the good night!

[NurseJackie]

73. Many people share those feelings and that opinion.

[Cha]

77. Yeah, he doesn't care.

[still_one]

66. I think it is much too early to jump to possible mistakes that haven't happened since no one has

Really announced if they will run. However, the greatest potential risk the Democrats have is that the Democrats have too many candidates running against each other, and some of those candidates stay in too long in spite of the numbers showing it would be mathematically impossible to win the nomination

Now that California has moved up its primary that will reduce the risk of that

Still, too many candidates increase the risk for dividing Democrats more than necessary

[mcar]

101. California moving it's primary should make things interesting

[still_one]

103. I agree

[Garrett78]

109. It's significant but the schedule won't be all that different. As I posted yesterday:

California is significant in terms of how many delegates we have, but we may see a major vote splitting if 5+ candidates (including multiple Californians) are still in the race. And 8 other states vote that day.

More states doing away with caucuses will have more impact than anything else.

Here's what the first 6 weeks looked like in 2016:

2/1: IA
2/9: NH
2/20: NV
2/27: SC
3/1: AL, AR, CO, GA, MA, MN, OK, TN, TX, VA, VT
3/5: KS, LA, NE
3/6: ME
3/8: MI, MS
3/15: FL, IL, MO, NC, OH

Here's what the first 6 weeks look like for 2020:

2/3: IA
2/11: NH
2/22: NV
2/29: SC
3/3: AL, CA, MA, NC, OK, TN, TX, VA, VT
3/7: LA
3/10: ID, MI, MS, MO, OH
3/17: AZ, FL, IL

[Garrett78]

120. I'm hoping we'll end up with fewer candidates than many have forecasted. But...

...it'll almost definitely be double digits, and probably closer to 20 than 10. And, as I said in post #109, we may see some serious vote splitting in California and other Super Tuesday states--not to mention the 4 individual contests that precede Super Tuesday.

Because we don't have a winner-take-all system (thank goodness) in the Democratic primary, California voting early might not have as much impact as one might think. I guess that will depend in part on how many are still standing after the first 4 contests.

Some good candidates will get drowned out, and it'll be a circus at first. But I'll trust the process.

[betsuni]

67. K&R

[Cha]

68. Charlie Pierce is Speaking Truth to Power.. too

bad some can't handle that.

"The Gathering" was stirring the Shite.. and he called them out.

[Duppers]

74. Pierce is eroding my respect for him. 😵

As posted above by octoberlib:

"Sirota falsely claimed that O'Rourke took a bunch of donations from big oil. It was pointed out to him on the chart he tweeted that they were all individual donations. On FEC forms, occupation is listed when an individual donation is made. If he has a point to make ,fine but no need to lie."

[Cha]

76. My Respect for Pierce has only gotten Stronger..

Link to tweet

[Eliot Rosewater]

80. Thank GOD Piece is speaking out, I wish I could.

[Cha]

85. Exactly, Eliot! you can

see by some responses that he's not appreciated for speaking the truth for calling out the smearers at The Gathering. The more people who do this the better. The m$m sure as hell isn't going to.

I take the opposite attitude. Charlie Pierce

[Eliot Rosewater]

87. If you dont learn from your mistakes, you will repeat them. When you are not even allowed to

discuss things as if they "were mistakes" in the first place, you may be doomed.

[Cha]

89. Precisely.

[Eliot Rosewater]

97. Yep. PREACH I say, HE can say what others DONT DARE !

[cwydro]

95. Why can't you?

It’s a free country still.

[mcar]

102. Why would Sirota making a false accusation

erode your respect for Pierce?

[Prof.Higgins]

90. Our Democratic Party nominee will crush Trump like Houae of Reps Blue Wave did. n/t

[SergeStorms]

92. It's still my belief...

that the Democratic party should run a Democrat for president.

[saljr1]

93. The only candidate I want for the Democratic nominee is

The Candidate that can WIN. I was a Bernie supporter last election but I don't believe he can win this time around. The candidates I believe can win are Beto, Brown or Klobuchar. But, that's just my personal opinion and I could be wrong.

[Eric J in MN]

134. Do you think Biden would lose if he's the nominee? NT

NT

[JHan]

98. Pierce and his bitter truths . K&R

[Cha]

106. Sanders supporters have launched a coordinated attack on liberal firebrand Beto O'Rourke

Link to tweet

[BannonsLiver]

113. Bernie has always been lukewarm on Beto

At best. Which doesn’t make a lot of sense from Bernie’s perspective. Had Beto won, he wouldn’t be in a position to throw a monkey wrench into Bernie 2020, which is what they’re afraid of and why Bernie acolytes are trying to slur him. Would have made more sense for Bernie to have worked his ass off for Beto.

[Cha]

117. That's good reasoning..

BS and supporters attack anyone who doesn't toe the line.. like the Democratic Party(Just Won a record breaking BLUE WAVE.. that BS scoffed) and President Obama.

Guess they're not going to attack tulsi gabbard.. who's part of The Gathering and actually says she's "thinking about running for potus.

[Eric J in MN]

129. Did Bernie Sanders say something about Beto O'Rourke? NT

NT

[Garrett78]

119. Harris is also just as liberal.

This divide has never really been about issue stances. It has more to do with this notion that classism (labeled populism) rules all, and the severe downplaying of racism and sexism (that whole "white working class/economic anxiety" narrative).

Anyone who might cut into Bernie's white millennial support is going to be viewed as a threat by Sanders. Because Sanders would then have no basis for running, much less staying in the race long-term. And the likes of Tim Ryan have even less justification for seeking the nomination.

[Cha]

123. Very Perceptive, Garrett..

There were always the buzzwords there to divide us.. that are now stale and musty from overuse and rendered meaningless.

They tried those divisive "corporatist" slurs with Sharice Davids and Gretchen Whitmer.. didn't work.

It is Necessary and Vital to fight for Healthcare, our Minorities, and Equal Rights for All. We don't relegate those issues to the back burner.

Thankfully, Midterms 2018 culminated in Awesome BLUE WAVES Happening!.. Just like so many different Dems across our Nation worked for.. and all kinds of Dems swept into Office claiming the HOUSE. They have the Power Now to put a STOP to much of what trump is trying to do. Like the Damn Stupid Dividing WALL!

And, then along came Beto!

Beto O'Rourke Slams Trump Administration Handling of Migrant Caravan: ‘Let's Do This the Right Way’

Link to tweet

https://www.newsweek.com/if-beto-orourke-was-president-heres-how-he-would-handle-migrant-caravan-1230644

[Docreed2003]

107. Oh the attacks have most certainly started

Beto is only the most recent to be attacked as "not liberal enough". It's disgusting and crap like this opinion piece I've attached below speak volumes about the motivations of some individuals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-this-progressive-texan-cant-get-excited-about-beto-orourke/2018/12/05/641c7f0e-f8b9-11e8-8c9a-860ce2a8148f_story.html?utm_term=.7910e07fc15f

[betsuni]

112. The author thinks Beto isn't progressive because he doesn't say the magic populist words.

Beto said universal health care for all, not Medicare-for-all. Didn't say Green New Deal when talking about the environment. Apparently, being flexible and open to more than one idea or phrase means you aren't progressive enough. Okay then!

[Docreed2003]

118. Exactly...

[George II]

125. If we nominate the "most liberal" we'll lose. Only a small % of the Democratic Party considers....

....themselves "liberal" and an even smaller % of independents do so.

In order to win, a candidate has to get the most votes.

[Docreed2003]

128. Oh I agree

I just find it's, let's say, interesting that some circles are already lining up to cast shade on popular candidates like Beto and Booker and Harris as being somehow "not liberal enough". Their game is transparent.

[George II]

141. You should have been here in January 2009 and beyond. By mid-February people...

...were complaining that Obama hadn't implemented his full platform and portfolio of promises yet, even though he was President for only a few weeks. Really, that's what happened! It got so bad that I stopped coming here for about two years.

I've thrown these numbers out a few times - let's say that of 100% of Democrats maybe 15-20% are on the "far right" of the Party and maybe 15-20% are on the "far left". That leaves a huge chunk of Democrats - LOYAL Democrats - in the middle, somewhere around 60-70%.

[Docreed2003]

142. I think your assessment is spot on

The wonderful thing about our party is the vast spectrum of individuals and beliefs, but I agree the majority are in the middle somewhere.


I wasn't a member here in 2009 but I saw the unrealistic critiques of Pres Obama, here and elsewhere. I hope that, after 2016, most have learned that we can't demonize our own and expect to win elections. That remains to be seen.

[empedocles]

108. 'Those who cannot remember the pas are condemned to repeat it' - Santayana

Both 2016 and 2018 Midterms

[Gothmog]

121. Good OP

[Lady Freedom Returns]

122. I'm sick of Bernie and those that votes 3rd party.

They know the power of numbers. They agree with Democrats. But they shoot us both in the foot, making the way for republicans to win.

[Jim Lane]

126. It's absurd to lump them together. Bernie is the exact opposite.

Thinking back to 2000, I'm still a member in good standing of the Fuck Nader contingent. Despite my respect for Nader's earlier accomplishments, I remain convinced that if he'd run in the Democratic primaries and not the general election, then Gore would've become President. The result in 2000 is the classic illustration of why third-party politics is a mistake.

Well, Bernie actually did what Nader should've done. Bernie ran for the Democratic nomination. When he didn't get it, he swallowed his disappointment and endorsed Hillary -- to the (very vocal) dismay of many of his supporters. He went out and campaigned for her, too.

The thanks he gets on DU is snippy comments that he didn't campaign enough, and now he gets lumped in with the third-party zealots who actively opposed Hillary.

[Eric J in MN]

131. When Bernie Sanders endorsed HRC

...I saw reactions from HRC supporters on Twitter surprised that he gave her such a strong endorsement.

Now there is a revisionist history that he gave her a weak endorsement.

[Jim Lane]

136. Quite right about that revisionist history

Another aspect of it is the suggestion that, merely by having the effrontery to run against her for the nomination, he helped elect Trump. Clinton herself seemed to support this in her book, according to the excerpts I've seen. People who want to bash Bernie won't acknowledge his refusal to make an issue about her "damn emails" when it might have brought him some votes.

[LongtimeAZDem]

137. I never saw that here ; I remember everyone askeing when he was going to get serious, and being shut

down for "re-fighting the primaries".

[LongtimeAZDem]

138. He didn't endorse Clinton until the convention, way too late to rally his supporters.

In the meantime, he foisted Cornell West on us while his supporters screamed "Never Hillary".

[Jim Lane]

139. Thank you for proving my point. (n/t)

[LongtimeAZDem]

130. It's time to play hardball with Bernie; he's gotten a pass for too long

Clinton never really went after him hard, because there was always the sense that he would eventually throw in the towel and support her.

He has made it clear that he's willing to attack any Democratic candidate, and he's just going to be an albatross around our necks again. He needs to be taken out old school, soon, so we can get on with building a winning campaign.

[Eric J in MN]

132. What do you mean by

..."He needs to be taken out old school"?

[LongtimeAZDem]

135. Full court press; go after his lack of legislation, his business dealings, the works.

I say this as someone who has liked him for years, long before most Americans had ever heard of him. When I saw Howard Stackhouse on The West Wing, I saw it as a great tribute to him.

But enough is enough; I don't want to see him sink us again. He was treated with kid gloves last time, and it cost this country dearly.

[flamingdem]

133. Love me some Beto