Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread

[Xing]

I bet a lot of people won't mention the "given a clean bill of health" part.

[Xing]

https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/1106664010429140994?s=21

Nice, hopefully at least a few other campaigns follow suit.

[Xing]

I have to admit the recent polling showing Bernie’s personal approval rating dropping in concerning

He's the only candidate with positive net favorables in the recent CNN poll.

I love how CNN still took the time to write an entire hit peice on him over it.

Well, it was Harry Enten, what do you expect? Anyway, it's pretty much a given that Republicans are going to hate whoever Democrats nominate, meaning that the Democratic candidate will almost certainly have a lukewarm favorability rating overall, regardless of who ends up winning.

[Xing]

Crowd sizes aren't predictive, but I wish people used that argument consistently.

[Xing]

No idea on Harris.

2.400 in Houston and 3.000 in Atlanta were her best AFAIK.

Her announcement had something like 20,000, I beleive. More than Bernie’s

I must have missed the part were Oakland left California. Because that was my point to begin with, that she does draw in comparison mediocre crowds outside her home state. And seriously if Bernie gets 75% of the crowd size she had at her first rally in her home state that wouldn't be something I would brag about if I was a Harris supporter.

They brag about polls where she’s in single digits... what do you expect?  Talk about a personality cult!

Let's talk when us fans of Senator Harris turn around and vote for Trump or the Green Party.

You mean what the overwhelming majority of Sanders voters didn't do?

[Xing]

Bernie has over 750k donations now.

Link? I know he's trying to hit a million by Sunday, but I haven't seen current numbers anywhere.

[Xing]

No idea on Harris.

2.400 in Houston and 3.000 in Atlanta were her best AFAIK.

Her announcement had something like 20,000, I beleive. More than Bernie’s

I must have missed the part were Oakland left California. Because that was my point to begin with, that she does draw in comparison mediocre crowds outside her home state. And seriously if Bernie gets 75% of the crowd size she had at her first rally in her home state that wouldn't be something I would brag about if I was a Harris supporter.

They brag about polls where she’s in single digits... what do you expect?  Talk about a personality cult!

Let's talk when us fans of Senator Harris turn around and vote for Trump or the Green Party.

You mean what the overwhelming majority of Sanders voters didn't do?

Who cares about facts? That's just Russian conspiracy! (=Fake News for enlightened liberals)

Charming.

Still, significant enough numbers of Sanders supporters didn't vote Democrat in 2016. And a significant enough share of them continue to act as Trump's useful idiots.

That doesn't mean that grouping Sanders supporters who did vote for Hillary (the vast majority) in with them is justified.

[Xing]

Sanders to do a town hall event on Fox News Channel on April 15th:

https://apnews.com/5293e120a4904736b2a51d01cdbb08f8

Fox News Channel says Bernie Sanders will appear on the network for a town hall event on April 15, the first Democrat to venture onto Fox for this type of an event in the current presidential campaign cycle.

Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum will co-anchor the town hall, which will be held in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. It will focus on the economy and jobs.

Hopefully more Democrats follow suit #BreakUpTheEchoChamber

[Xing]

Don't get me wrong, Fox is garbage, but Democrats refusing to go on Fox just gives the "DeMoCrAtS aRe TrIgGeReD aNd WaNt To CeNsOr ThE rIgHt" crowd more ammunition, and it's better for Democrats to at least expose Fox viewers to their message, and disrupt the echo chamber, as some users here claim that they're fond of doing on Atlas.

[Xing]

Don't get me wrong, Fox is garbage, but Democrats refusing to go on Fox just gives the "DeMoCrAtS aRe TrIgGeReD aNd WaNt To CeNsOr ThE rIgHt" crowd more ammunition, and it's better for Democrats to at least expose Fox viewers to their message, and disrupt the echo chamber, as some users here claim that they're fond of doing on Atlas.

Ok but Trump won’t go anywhere but FOX News. Who cares if Republicans think we don’t want to go there? Bernie Sanders should be reaching out to constituencies he struggled with in 2016 instead of chasing Republicans. That’s his problem now. He’s worried about folks that wouldn’t spit on him if he were on fire.

Going on to Fox to get his message out in case a small percentage of Trump voters might be receptive (even a tiny number of voters defecting could be critical) and appealing to a broader base in the primary are not mutually exclusive.

[Xing]

Don't get me wrong, Fox is garbage, but Democrats refusing to go on Fox just gives the "DeMoCrAtS aRe TrIgGeReD aNd WaNt To CeNsOr ThE rIgHt" crowd more ammunition, and it's better for Democrats to at least expose Fox viewers to their message, and disrupt the echo chamber, as some users here claim that they're fond of doing on Atlas.

Ok but Trump won’t go anywhere but FOX News. Who cares if Republicans think we don’t want to go there? Bernie Sanders should be reaching out to constituencies he struggled with in 2016 instead of chasing Republicans. That’s his problem now. He’s worried about folks that wouldn’t spit on him if he were on fire.

Going on to Fox to get his message out in case a small percentage of Trump voters might be receptive (even a tiny number of voters defecting could be critical) and appealing to a broader base in the primary are not mutually exclusive.

Trump voters are not interested in what he has to say. They voted on their visceral hatred of Mexicans and Muslims. Let's stop pretending they are policy wonks who just need to have things explained to them gently like newborn babies. I know Bernie thinks he has the special sauce to make these people change their ideology but they are who they are. Him going over there is not going to change a thing. Nobody that watches FOX News is vital to a Democratic victory in 2020.

I never said that they were policy wonks. Some might consider Bernie (or any candidate, really) not because of policy, but because they feel like he "gets them" or is "authentic." It might be silly, but if that's how we get 50,000 more votes in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, so be it. Winning all of the rational, sane people in this country won't be enough for any Democrat. They need to win a majority (or at least a plurality in the right states, which can't be done only with votes from intelligent people.)

And yeah, the overwhelming majority of Trump supporters have no interest in voting for any Democrat. However, if he could even get 1-2% of Trump voters to consider voting for him, that could make the difference in a close race. Plus, this doesn't give Fox "credibility", it just disrupts the echo chamber. A lot of conservatives claim that Democrats are too afraid of engaging with them and leaving their bubble. This is a good way to prove them wrong. You can attack Fox and expose their viewers to a message that they probably never hear.

[Xing]

Or, maybe he understands better than the DNC how “swing voters” think, and that refusing to appear on Fox is a terrible look for Democrats, and doesn’t limit the power of Fox or dissuade viewers in any way. In fact, it could easily backfire. The DNC seems to have learned nothing from 2016, and seem like they would rather lose playing by the old rules than win by trying to modify their strategy.

[Xing]

Or, maybe he understands better than the DNC how “swing voters” think, and that refusing to appear on Fox is a terrible look for Democrats, and doesn’t limit the power of Fox or dissuade viewers in any way. In fact, it could easily backfire. The DNC seems to have learned nothing from 2016, and seem like they would rather lose playing by the old rules than win by trying to modify their strategy.

Fox News viewers are the antithesis of swing voters. I remember a presidential exit poll a few years ago showed that Fox News viewers were the most loyal Republican voting bloc, more than conservatives or registered Republicans.
But if Sanders thinks he can sway these voters by talking about Wall Street and big banks, bless his heart.

You're missing my point. I didn't say Fox viewers were swing voters. When "swing voters" see Democrats refusing to go on Fox, they they "wow, I guess Trump/the conservatives were right. Democrats are weak PC SJW triggered snowflakes that can't handle a difference of opinion. Trump is strong, I'll vote for him." Whereas if Sanders show up on Fox (this is not "promoting" the channel, and he's not the only Democrat to do so), they'll think "Bernie is authentic, and he'll talk to anyone. I'll vote for him!" Is that a rational or intelligent way to decide how to vote for someone? No, but that's how a lot of swing voters think, and the sooner Democrats realize this, the better.

[Xing]

Or, maybe he understands better than the DNC how “swing voters” think, and that refusing to appear on Fox is a terrible look for Democrats, and doesn’t limit the power of Fox or dissuade viewers in any way. In fact, it could easily backfire. The DNC seems to have learned nothing from 2016, and seem like they would rather lose playing by the old rules than win by trying to modify their strategy.

Fox News viewers are the antithesis of swing voters. I remember a presidential exit poll a few years ago showed that Fox News viewers were the most loyal Republican voting bloc, more than conservatives or registered Republicans.
But if Sanders thinks he can sway these voters by talking about Wall Street and big banks, bless his heart.

You're missing my point. I didn't say Fox viewers were swing voters. When "swing voters" see Democrats refusing to go on Fox, they they "wow, I guess Trump/the conservatives were right. Democrats are weak PC SJW triggered snowflakes that can't handle a difference of opinion. Trump is strong, I'll vote for him." Whereas if Sanders show up on Fox (this is not "promoting" the channel, and he's not the only Democrat to do so), they'll think "Bernie is authentic, and he'll talk to anyone. I'll vote for him!" Is that a rational or intelligent way to decide how to vote for someone? No, but that's how a lot of swing voters think, and the sooner Democrats realize this, the better.

How many times has Trump gone to MSNBC?
To CNN?
Nobody thinks the way you say. Everyone who isn't a die-hard Republican partisan knows for years now that Fox isn't a legitimate news channel but the propaganda arm of the Republican party.  

Plenty of people think the way I say. There are virtually no mythical moderate swing voters who will vote for the candidate they think has the most detailed policies and agenda and is the most moderate. Swing voters vote based on emotion and how a candidate makes them feel. Even if some swing voters know what Fox is, they'll still think a Democrat is weak for not going on Fox. They don't hold Trump to the same standard.

[Xing]

Oh for God's sake.  Suddenly going on Fox has made him an enemy of the Democratic Party? That seems to be the message I'm getting.

If Democrats restrict their messaging by excluding Fox News, they're no better than Trump is when he does media appearances.

Oh, there’s nothing sudden about this. Some Democrats have seen him as the “enemy” ever since he didn’t drop out immediately after losing South Carolina badly. A small percentage of his supporters are nuts, to be fair, but the people who complain the most on Twitter about “Berniebros” would have a tantrum at the news of him eating a grape. The hypocrisy is real.

[Xing]

The last ten years of Sanders' tax returns will be released on the fifteenth; Sanders challenges Trump to do the same:

https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1113949481429544960

What a leader! Can't wait to call this man our next President.

"People on the right have said..." LOL nope. Anyway, I'm sure that the attack will be modified to asking why he didn't do it sooner, but hopefully he'll at least put this argument against him to rest.

[Xing]

Alright, so now you're arguing that Sanders should be behaving like Trump, when your original claim was that even Trump didn't behave this way?

There's a huge difference between being in active campaign mode and what presidents do on a 24/7 basis. The point is that Trump isn't in a position where he needs to be pitching to a wide audience, because he's the president. A challenger who doesn't hold the office is a completely different story.

No, the argument was that if Democrats don't go to Fox then voters will think they are weak. And I say that Trump also refuses to go to some channels and I don't see anyone fretting about him looking weak.

Also, I don't believe that even when he will be in full campaign mode he will relent and go to those channels. It has become personal to him, the guy has repeatedly tweeted that he stopped watching CNN ffs.     

Let me spell it out for you. Double standards exist. Trump (and the Republican Party in general) is not held to the same standard as Democrats. Not by other Republicans, not by the media, etc. We can complain about how unfair it is, or we can focus on winning by proving that we're not afraid of Fox and depriving conservatives of their precious talking points.

[Xing]

I can't be the only Democrat who feels Bernie is the best asset the Republicans have. He's basically a literal cartoon of everything Democrats have been accused of being for the past 50-60 years.

The Republican strategy has worked so well because Democrats have run scared and allowed Republicans to dominate the narrative. It won’t work as well against Sanders, who won’t back down and is seen as authentic in his beliefs. If Republicans aren’t at least a bit worried about Sanders, they’re setting themselves up for failure.

[Xing]

These sorts of attacks just come across as desperate and spiteful. He never said that literally anyone who is a millionaire is a terrible person, simply that the rich ought to pay their fair share, and many go to extreme efforts to avoid paying taxes. I doubt Sanders himself would mind paying more in taxes. I get that some people do have actual disagreements with Sanders, but when he gets lambasted for these sorts of things by the same people who said it was unfair to attack Clinton for making more than Sanders’ net worth for speeches, it’s clear that some people would rather Trump win than Sanders.

[Xing]

It would seem that Clinton supporters on this site are still bitter towards Sanders even though it was Trump and not Sanders who defeated her. When she won the primary Sanders quickly supported her as he had promised, but that doesn't seem good enough for Clinton supporters.
It's quite sad really.

They seem to want to continue to be divisive which can only help Trump.

Ha, a Sanders supporter accusing others of being divisive!  Pot. Kettle. Black.

Seriously, though, your comment is the lamest kind of straw man. I can assure you that I and many, many others deeply dislike Sanders not only for what happened in 2016 but also for most of what he's done since.

What more could he have done for Hillary in 2016 besides vigorously endorse and campaign for her, as he did? And what has he “done” since then that’s so horrible, besides fix his sights on taking down Trump and creating a more progressive Democratic Party? I don’t expect any specifics from you, cause you have none.

A Sanders supporter criticizing someone for a lack of specifics!  That's cute.

Look, I'm not interested in rehashing 2016.  You think Sanders's support for Hillary was vigorous, and I remember it being resentful and tepid at best.  Neither of us is going to rewrite the other's memory, so no point in arguing about that.  But I will try to articulate why I disliked him then and why I still dislike him now. 

I think Sanders is basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause.  Sanders's explanation for everything he wants to do is that we need a revolution in this country.  But we're never going to get a revolution, and Sanders knows it.  You don’t build a revolution on top of an economy like ours.  If you want to get anything done, you’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through slow, boring, hard work.  If you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loaves—all the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment.  In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that’s never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, where do all his impressionable followers go? Do they join up with the corrupt establishment and commit themselves to slow, boring, hard work?  Or do they give up?  If you don’t want your followers to give up in disgust, your inspiration needs to be in the service of goals that are at least attainable. By offering a chimera instead, Sanders has done the progressive movement no favors.

So Sanders is a conman then?

Thanks for saying all his supporters are gullible f**ks. That's the way to win them over!

I'm not so silly that I think posting some comments on an Internet forum is going to "win anyone over."  I'm just curious to see how a Sanders supporter responds to my criticisms.  But as is typical of a Sanders supporter, you don't address the critique at all. 

Anyway, yes, I think Sanders is either a naive idiot or a self-aggrandizing conman, and most of his supporters are gullible and/or immature--more interested in virtue signaling than actually doing the hard work of making people's lives better.  But I guess I'm not supposed to say that.  I guess I'm supposed to coddle you infantile bozos?

How mature of you. Rather than dismiss you the way you’ve dismissed Sanders supporters, I’ll try to give you a serious response. Democrats have been singing the same “incremental change” tune for decades. Maybe it kind of worked in 1992, but how well has it worked for us lately? Frankly, on many issues, especially climate change, incremental change just won’t cut it. We need enormous, sweeping changes to have a chance of mitigating the damage at this point, since avoiding any consequences of climate change is no longer even possible. You may not like Bernie’s style, but he’s pointed out massive issues that exist in America, and small changes over time aren’t going to fix these if we get two years of a Democratic trifecta to make said incremental changes before the voters get tired of the status quo and hand at least one chamber of Congress to the Republicans, who have no interest in compromising with any Democrat, regardless of how “bipartisan” they may fancy themselves. At the very least, Bernie has made the idea of sweeping changes to health care, education, and income inequality mainstream, even if they’re not getting passed with a Republican majority in the Senate.

Can Bernie achieve literally everything he’s campaigning on in four years, or even eight? Of course not, I’m not an idiot. But he’s our best hope of moving the needle substantially instead of slightly, and changing political norms on these issues. He can lay the groundwork for even more changes further down the road, and bring more people into the political process. Not to mention, the fact that he does inspire legions of people shouldn’t be undersold. That’s how you win elections, like it or not. Don’t like how his supporters talk? Maybe try to understand them and why they’re disillusioned with the political process rather than labeling all of them as uninformed buffoons. If I judged every major candidate by their most obnoxious and least informed supporter, I’d have to conclude that every candidate is horrible.

[Xing]

Maybe try to understand them and why they’re disillusioned with the political process

That's exactly what I'm doing, and my conclusion is that they're disillusioned because political charlatans like Bernie Sanders keep making promises they have no intentions of keeping.  Sanders presents no real plan for anything--just a bunch of vague gestures and inchoate sputterings from his high horse.  He's done his best to convince a whole generation that politics is some kind of dumb morality play where the real heroes are those who don't compromise.  It's such a childish way of seeing the world, and I don't see why I have to pretend otherwise.

You’ve got the chicken and egg backwards. Bernie’s message resonates with many young people because they were already very disillusioned with politics, not the other way around. Is he setting their hopes too high? Perhaps, but the idea that we need to champion incremental change and be bipartisan in the era of Trump and the current Republican Party is, to me, extremely troubling. It’s time to stand our ground and fight back, even if it means being “stubborn”, and not always compromising. In my view, he’s convinced a generation to get involved and vote for a government that will represent their interests, rather than simply pay lip service to change while failing to address fundamental problems in society. The mantra that we need compromise and bipartisanship is frankly old, not fitting in the current political climate, and often itself is intellectually lazy if the only proposed plan to actually get anything done is to “reach across the aisle.”

Also, where do you get your assertion that he has “no plans”? From his rallies? Most candidates don’t go into detail about exactly how they’ll enact their policies in campaign rallies.

Look, I want to believe that you care about enacting change that will benefit people and simply believe that Sanders is going about it in the wrong way. If that’s what you do believe, fine, we don’t have to agree. But I think you have yet to really understand what motivates his core of supporters, rather than his most obnoxious ones on Twitter.

[Xing]

Bernie's taxes are out? Alright, let's see those checks to Putin.

Re:  "the idea that we need to champion incremental change and be bipartisan"  Nobody's arguing for that.  In fact, I think just the opposite.  We need aggressive but attainable goals, and strident partisanship is the only vehicle we have to accomplish those goals.  Sanders, unfortunately, shows no interest in either.  Like I said, he's got no plan to accomplish anything beyond shallow "political revolution" sloganeering, and he shows an undisguised contempt for the party organization actually trying to realize progress.

Re:  "he’s convinced a generation to get involved and vote for a government that will represent their interests"  A government that will represent (and has represented) their interests is a Democratic government, and Sanders is nothing but contemptuous of the Democratic party.  His whole appeal is premised on the idea that the party has betrayed the people, and as a man who has donated a lot of my own money, time, and energy to the party I find that insulting.  When he spits on the Democratic party, he spits on me.

Re:  "detail about exactly how they’ll enact their policies"  Every speech doesn't need to be a detailed policy proposal, but you've got to show some indication of how you'll get things done, especially if you're proposing a series of wildly expensive new programs.  Sanders won't even entertain ending the Senate filibuster.  He won't put minimal effort into outlining funding options for his proposals.  There's nothing serious about his proposed agenda, and no indication he'll be able to deliver on anything he promises.  Do I have to explain why it's dangerous to make promises you have no intention of keeping?

I don't get where you're getting this idea that he despises the Democratic Party. Sure, he's critical of the Democratic Party (especially the DNC), but how is that unfair? Being committed to the causes of the party doesn't mean never questioning whether the current leadership of the DNC is looking out for Democratic voters themselves.

He has never outright said that the party has betrayed the people, simply questioned some moves of the DNC which are, well, questionable. Are we not allowed to express frustration with a party that allowed Republicans to gain a massive amount of legislative seats and state senate seats, and rig elections through gerrymandering over the course of the past decade? While not all of the blame for Trump's win lies with the Democratic Party, they clearly did not take him seriously and made many mistakes that probably contributed to his win.

And speaking as someone who has also been involved with the Democratic Party for some time, let me say that there are times that I do feel betrayed. Hillary probably would have still won by a decent margin over Sanders even if the DNC had been impartial, but the fact that they were not impartial made me feel somewhat betrayed. And as someone who was an enthusiastic Obama supporter in 2008, I remember his vote against the Iraq War and proposal to use more diplomacy was a big factor in the primary. When his foreign policy ended up being largely similar to that of Bush's, I did feel pretty betrayed. I don't regret voting for him in 2008 or 2012, but he should absolutely be criticized for his use of drones, which is clearly not what most who voted for him had in mind.

[Xing]

He very well could be, though I honestly have no idea at this point. I don't think he's inevitable or DOA, despite what about half of this forum seems to think. I think people are predicting the primaries with way too much confidence, overall.

[Xing]

^I think they meant specifically his surrogates, though I'm still not sure which ones in particular they're referring to. Still, I really don't think Sanders himself can be blamed for the fact that some take their support of him to an unhealthy obsession. As I've said in other threads, if we judge candidates on their worst supporters, there are no good candidates.

[Xing]

The booing was a bit much, though I'll acknowledge as a "deranged Bernie Bro with a persecution complex" that it wasn't a great answer. It's good that he does have evidence that he's fought racism in the past, but he shouldn't always go there when asked about racism, and should talk about what he plans to do as well.