More news/videos/tweets/etc. in the comments.
In case you haven’t noticed, Trump and the Republican Party have been attacking our campaign. It looks like the most dangerous president in modern history is getting nervous, and he should be. Our rally in M […]
Have a great day friends!
If you have candidate suggestions for our menus please add them below!
Paula Jean Swearengin is running for WV Senator again this year: https://paulajean.com
With a big progressive turnout she could do it too!
With the Iowa caucuses around the corner, progressive presidential hopefuls Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) aren’t just clashing on the campaign trail — they’re also scrapping for endorsements on Capitol Hill.
House Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus said the race for presidential endorsements has kicked into high gear in the closing weeks before the Feb. 4 Iowa caucuses.
Many downplay the significance of political endorsements, but campaigns see them as a way to show momentum and boost fundraising as the first voters in the nation prepare to head to the polls.
“It’s crunch time,” said one undecided progressive freshman Democrat, who was heavily lobbied by both the Sanders and Warren camps this past week. “I’ve heard more about endorsing presidential candidates in the last three days than I’ve heard in the last three months.”
Just as polls show progressive voters are divided between Sanders and Warren, so is the nearly 100-member Progressive Caucus. Both progressive rock stars have attracted high-profile endorsements in the CPC in recent days and weeks.
Warren’s endorsements include Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), brother of Julián Castro who backed Warren after dropping out of the presidential race this month; Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), a member of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) leadership team; several female freshman lawmakers; and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a former Progressive Caucus co-chairman who now heads the Natural Resources Committee.
But Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who helped found the Progressive Caucus in 1991, has landed endorsements from nearly all of the current CPC leadership team. This week, Co-Chairman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) threw his support behind Sanders, declaring the senator’s “authenticity, honesty, and movement for equality is the antidote our nation needs now.” Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), CPC’s first vice chairman, has been serving as co-chairman of Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign and his top surrogate on Capitol Hill.
Three members of “the squad” — the four freshman women of color — also are on Team Bernie: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who is the chief whip or vote-counter for the CPC. The fourth squad member, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), endorsed her home-state senator, Warren.
Khanna, a former Obama official who now represents a liberal San Francisco Bay Area district, had been aggressively working to secure Pocan’s endorsement for weeks, sources said. Texting and button-holing colleagues in the Capitol, Khanna also has been trying to recruit other undecided lawmakers, including Pocan’s CPC co-chair, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), and Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), a Black Caucus member.
Jayapal hasn’t made any decision, but she appears to be leaning toward Sanders.
Good news about Jayapal
Jayapal has prided herself on being a Democratic Socialist. She goes for Liz, she’ll look stupid. T and R, LD!!
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders received the endorsement of the American Postal Workers Union Local 44 in Central Iowa, the campaign announced Saturday.
Mike Bates, president of APWU Local 44, called Sanders a “champion for postal workers.”
“He will fight for postal banking that would bring in revenue to the Postal Service and stop the legalized loan sharking of check into cash and payday loans that feed on the working poor,” Bates said in a statement. “He has our backs and we will have his back in this election. The DMI Area Local 44 of the American Postal Workers Union will do everything we can to elect Senator Bernie Sanders for President of the United States of America.”
The endorsement, voted upon by the more than 700 members of the union this week, is one of more than 130 individual Iowa union worker endorsements already announced in support of Sanders this cycle.
In thanking the union for their support, Sanders pivoted to Pres. Donald Trump. “Donald Trump wants to privatize the Postal Service and threaten over 630,000 jobs. That absolutely cannot happen,” said Sen. Sanders. “I’m proud to stand together with the postal workers of Local 44 as we fight to strengthen USPS, protect jobs and allow post offices to provide basic banking services.”
Sanders has a plan for postal workers that would allow the Postal Service to provide basic financial services and other consumer products and services.
“Post offices would offer basic checking and savings accounts, debit cards, direct deposit, online banking services, and low-interest, small dollar loans,” Sanders’ plan states. “It would end the racial disparities in access to banking and access to credit, while also stopping financial institutions from reaping massive fees off the poor and underserved.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden is finally firing back at Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ depiction of him as a longtime proponent of Social Security cuts, following a Tuesday debate in Des Moines, Iowa, that omitted the issue entirely.
But in seeking to reassure voters about his commitment to protecting Social Security, Biden is mischaracterizing Sanders’ tactics.
Biden inaccurately claimed on Saturday that a video circulated by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign had been “doctored” to make him seem more supportive of Social Security cuts than he really is.
The Sanders campaign has circulated video of part of a speech Biden delivered to the Brookings Institution in April 2018 in which he discusses his views about Social Security and appears to credit then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for zeroing in on the program’s financial problems. Sanders adviser David Sirota has also referenced the speech in the Jan. 7 edition of his email newsletter, “Bern Notice,” claiming that Biden had “lauded Paul Ryan for proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare.”
“Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What’s the first thing he decided we had to go after? Social Security and Medicare,” Biden said at the time. “That’s the only way you can find room to pay for it.”
“We need a pro-growth, progressive tax code that treats workers as job creators, as well, not just investors; that gets rid of un-protective loopholes like stepped-up basis; and it raises enough revenue to make sure that the Social Security and Medicare can stay, it still needs adjustments, but can stay; and pay for the things we all acknowledge will grow the country,” he added.
cnn may have helped us. everyone loves an underdog.
In the highly competitive Democratic presidential race, expanding the electorate is vitally important for the pack of four candidates straining to break out in the coming two weeks.
And with good reason. The candidate who turns out the most and the broadest array of first time participants stands a very good chance of winning.
“They’ve got to be working new people. There’s nor rhyme nor reason not to,” said Paul Tewes, who directed Barack Obama’s surprise victory in Iowa in 2008. “I pity the ones that aren’t, if that’s the case.”
Certainly, other campaigns are trying to expand the pool of voters, but it is Sanders and Buttigieg who are betting most heavily on attracting the most newcomers.
“A significant part of our strategy is engaging people who have been left out of politics,” said Misty Rebik, Sanders’ Iowa state campaign director. “And we’re doing that by meeting people where they are.”
Sanders’ volunteers set up a table outside a CVS in Cedar Rapids last week, and they talked to people as they entered the store. Others volunteers have become regulars at the familiar red-roofed Casey’s Convenience Stores throughout Iowa, a common daily coffee stop for older Iowans who gather to talk politics. Some campaign volunteers have even recruited some of the Casey’s regulars to help make phone calls from the tables near the pizza counter.
One Sanders organizer was kicked out of a half-dozen nursing homes, which typically are used as satellite caucus locations, after showing up to talk to residents, Rebik said. “But she came back with lots of commit-to-caucus cards,” Rebik said. “That’s all I’m saying.”
When calls to past caucus participants showed signs of being ineffective, the Sanders campaign sent volunteers, wearing “Bernie” T-shirts and carrying clipboards, to approach patrons at at farmers markets and parades.
It’s not that Sanders, who narrowly lost the caucus in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, is unfamiliar with traditional organizing, the act of reaching out to past caucus participants by using the Iowa Democratic Party’s voter list.
It’s that Sanders, who this time has multiple top-tier opponents dividing up traditional caucus voters, cannot rely solely on his past supporters, some of whom have decided to back a different candidate in 2020.
Plus, his arm’s-length association with the national Democratic Party, as a self-identified Democratic socialist, has soured relations with many in the party’s establishment, forcing him to look outside the traditional base for support.
Though Chloe Sokolov always considered herself a Bernie supporter, the 25-year-old bartender at Eatery A, a popular Des Moines restaurant, plans to caucus for the first time this year in part because Sanders’ campaign convened more than 50 service industry workers to discuss their economic challenges.
“It was actually a really big turnout, maybe 60,” Sokolov said of the mid-December meeting. “I’ve never caucused in Iowa, but it’s important to me especially this year.”
This year, there appears to be healthy interest among new participants, based on recent Des Moines Register/CNN/MediaCom polls, which show roughly 30 percent of those participating would do so for the first time.
The fact that the percentage is lower than the eve of the 2008 caucuses could merely mean that the surge of first-timers 12 years ago raises the bar for another such influx.
This is behind a WaPo paywall for me. I’d love to get a birdie perspective.
Just to be clear folks, Joe Biden's got a decades long track record of contemplating cuts to Social Security. No one needs to rely on a contested 2018 statement to make this case. I wrote about it here: https://t.co/umbKFYoiOC
— (((Helaine Olen))) (@helaineolen) January 18, 2020
My wife pays the $10 per month for WA Post, so I can get the articles.
A reasonably good article about SS and the need to keep it funded.
two camps — will run out of money, or essential program give it more money
One man firmly in the latter camp is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT.), who is bringing back his Social Security Expansion Act on Wednesday. The day selected is no accident: Wednesday also marks something Social Security activists call Scrap the Cap Day, an annual event designed to highlight how little millionaires pay into the system.
this is the last paragraph and I added the bold
Sanders tells me that he believes momentum on the issue has shifted in recent years. As recently as a decade ago, even many Democrats agreed with Republicans that Social Security needed to be trimmed back. Now among his bill’s co-sponsors are several declared and potential presidential candidates, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). “I think most elected officials would be terribly, terribly unpopular if after giving a trillion-dollar tax cut to corporations and wealthy Americans,” they voted to take benefits away from those living on a Social Security stipend, Sanders said. (Note that Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), have stepped forward to argue just that.) Sanders’s office says an analysis by the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary says his bill would solidify the system for about 50 years. Larson’s bill would take us to the end of the century. So why not take the opportunity to simultaneously improve lives and bulk up Social Security? I can think of a lot of worse ideas.
Bydone must have forgot about Obama’s “Grand Bargin” in 2011 when both of them were going sell their souls on SS.
Yes, I remember the Catfood Commission.
Pretty good article
One Democrat who isn’t vulnerable? You guessed it: Sanders. He’s a longtime Social Security champion and last year introduced legislation that would increase benefits for lower-income Americans, as well as change the cost-of-living formula to compensate for the higher inflation seniors experience thanks to their disproportionate medical spending. He said he would pay for it by eliminating the payroll tax cap on income above $250,000 and include dividends and capital gains in that number. The Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary says the Sanders initiative would, if adopted, stabilize the program’s finances for next half-century.
It’s tough to overstate how important Social Security is: As the National Institute on Retirement Security pointed out in a study released Tuesday, the program is the only income source for 40 percent of retirees over the age of 60. Age discrimination remains a potent issue. For all the talk of raising the retirement age to account for longer lifespans, a majority of people over the age of 50 are likely to be forced out of their job at some point. This stuff is a day-to-day reality for millions of Americans. Whether or not Biden’s record on Social Security gets a full hearing in the Democratic primary — starting, say, with Tuesday night’s debate — it will certainly get one in a general election if he’s nominated. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Just as the Biden campaign argues that Republicans would lambaste the Vermont senator as a socialist if he wins the Democratic nomination, Sanders’ backers retort that Trump would use the same video clips they cite to harm Biden with older voters who will prove critical in battleground states in November.
I’m glad that Sanders has been putting the spotlight on Biden’s centrist approach to ‘fixing’ social security, but I kind of wish he campaign didn’t circulate that video in which Biden appears to have been speaking sarcastically (using that creepy whispering thing that Biden does).
It’s interesting to watch Biden’s campaign react to the spotlight on Social Security (not to mention watching the MSM largely spring into action defending Joe). Some of the many receipts I’ve seen regarding Biden’s efforts to cut Social Security are this article from The Motley Fool.
Joe Biden Has Called for Social Security Cuts 3 Times
As detailed by Bob Woodward, an investigative journalist who’s worked for the Washington Post for the past 48 years, in his 2012 book The Price of Politics, then-President Obama leaned on Vice President Biden to be his key negotiator at the congressional level between Democrats and Republicans regarding Social Security and other revenue-generating and expenditure-cutting initiatives. The final tax deal that reached Obama’s desk in 2010 extended the George W. Bush-era tax cuts and, most notably, created a payroll-tax holiday that cut payroll tax collection by $112 billion.
In 2017, payroll taxes accounted for more than 88% of the just over $1 trillion collected by the Social Security program. By providing a partial payroll-tax holiday, lawmakers hindered the revenue collection potential of the Social Security program’s workhorse.
It’s also worth noting that when Biden helped to orchestrate this tax deal, it was well known that Social Security was in deep trouble. In 2010, the Trustees had been forecasting an eventual depletion of Social Security’s asset reserves by 2037, and the report has been alluding to a long-term cash shortfall since 1985. Thus, even with Social Security short on long-term revenue, Biden led the creation of a tax plan that further reduced the program’s income for a short amount of time.
Okay, remember that this article was published on The Motley Fool, so it should not be a surprise to anyone that it ends with this:
Now, understand that highlighting Biden’s record on Social Security reform isn’t meant to shame him or put him on a pedestal. Rather, it highlights Biden as perhaps one of the few candidates in Washington who may be willing to look at resolutions from both sides of the aisle when fixing Social Security. Since each party brings something to the table that the other lacks, a centrist wouldn’t be such a bad thing for America’s most important social program.
The writer favors Biden for the very reason that Biden would cut Social Security!
Sorry about all the bolding, I hope it doesn’t come across as yelling…although there is probably some exasperation in there. This issue is so important and Bernie’s campaign needs to ace it!
Well the good thing was that it got Biden to comment and he wrongly claimed that the video was doctored. It set up the press to examine all the other Biden SS stuff out there. Also hopefully gets the attention away from that stupid divisive Warren stuff.
Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper run the Rolling Stones sponsored podcast Useful Idiots
I had never watched them before until they had Michael Moore on and then Glenn Greenwald
And I followed up with Michael Moore’s podcast on the Bernie/Warren flap on a woman being president
I found the three podcasts excellent.
Michael Moore laid out his history with Bernie and Liz — noting that he probably gave Liz the first national attention when she was in a couple of his movies.
Glenn is risking his life to write about the situation in Brazil and his reporting. He spent a long time on the democratic party and the transformation of Rachel Maddow to a DNC syncopath. Now that she makes $10 million per year, she goes along with the dem establishment and this was not how she worked with Glenn years ago when they were on Air America radio broadcasts and they talked extensively about problems with the democratic party.
Also, Glenn pointed out the destructive campaign to blame Russia for Trump’s election and loose focus on important issues.
And Glenn who used to be a welcome guest on MSNBC has been banned because he doesn’t play nice with the dems. And others who called out the Russia hoax — yes some interference, yes Trump and Russia are mafia operations, but that is not the reason to start up the cold war rhetoric again.
I am writing this because there is a diary up at DK/TOP attacking Moore for his attacks on Warren. There are over 500 comments and scanning some of them it is clear their hatred for Moore and there are a few comments on Glenn. Most people there are big on personalities and they love a food fight.
Moore’s comments on Liz Warren really, deeply, pissed them off. And they remind us that Moore didn’t say nice things about Hillary. How dare he point out that Bernie had a dozen or more rallies in Michigan for Hillary and Hillary would not even come to MI. And that Bernie had almost as many rallies for Hillary (after she became the nominee) as many rallies for Hillary in MI than Hillary had in the entire US for Obama. How dare he point that out!
Impeachment is a political process written into the constitution.
Republicans incorrectly argue that impeachment must be for criminal behavior alone.
But in this case there is both political basis for impeachment and also criminal behavior.
Table of Contents
Introduction: The Problem of Missing Witnesses and Documents for the Conviction of Donald J. Trump
Campaign Finance Law
Honest Services Fraud
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Contempt of Congress
Impoundment Act (non-criminal law)
Editor’s note from co-editor-in-chief Ryan Goodman: This collection of leading legal experts discusses a range of federal crimes that apply to the conduct of President Donald Trump, based on the evidence produced by the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry. These crimes include all of the federal offences listed in the Chapter headings, except for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In that Chapter, the author concludes that the impeachment inquiry did not examine the relevant evidence for one of the elements of the crime, although a lot of that evidence has arisen in investigative reports by journalists. The final Chapter includes an important federal law that does not trigger criminal liability, but does implicate the President’s constitutional obligation to ensure the laws are faithfully executed. Close readers will also notice some nuances in the authors’ analyses. Compare for example Barbara McQuade’s and Randall Eliason’s discussion of whether a White House visit for a head of state counts as an “official act” for the purposes of bribery and honest services fraud. Finally, a point worth underscoring: as Andrew Weissmann explains in the Introduction, impeachable offenses need not be criminal in nature, and not all crimes are impeachable offences. Members of Congress certainly do not need to conclude that the President committed a crime for impeachment, conviction, and removal. Nevertheless, the fact that these leading experts reach the conclusion that several federal crimes apply to President Trump’s conduct involving Ukraine is an important consideration for the annals of history and for the historic decision Congress now faces.
Food for thought; we have video of Bydone talking about cuts to SS. Their is NO video of Bernie saying a women cant be president. The craprate media takes Warrens words as the gospel truth. Meantime Bydone says the video was doctored and the media runs with it.
Sorry for the influx of spam lately, thanks for those for giving feedback/helping fight it.
Probably coincidental that it’s picking up right about now…
Talk about Spam, LD. That anti-Michael Moore diary over at TOP that Don m is referring to is big-time Spam/garbage. First, I have never heard of the yahoo posting it and I registered on there 12 years ago. Second, the idiots attacking Moore and Bernie are a bunch of hot air who are either bots or beyond politically clueless. I listened to the entire Moore podcast, and he’s upset over Liz’s machinations cos he liked/respected her. TOP has really deteriorated in the last 4 years. Markos has his $$millions and it shows. A real shame. 🙁
Thanks for saving me the grief orl! I detest the pie fights over there. Nothing but time and energy suckers!
Bernie’s role in stopping Obama’s cuts to SS
another diary on DK/TOP on Biden and SS
not quite as bad as the Michael Moore flap, so far
I did post a couple of comments and it was worth it as a reminder of Obama’s grand bargain to cut SS
it was good to remind us about that
and I posted a link to a publication that DK/TOP hates – The Intercept
This was a far cry from Obama’s position on the program in late 2012, when his administration argued for reducing Social Security benefits by recalculating the way cost of living adjustments are made.
“President Obama’s evolution on Social Security, from at one time being open to cuts to calling for an expansion of benefits … is certainly welcome news, but not at all surprising,” said Alex Lawson, the executive director of Social Security Works, a nonprofit group that advocates for protecting and expanding the program.
Lawson’s organization has worked with lawmakers and other nonprofit organizations to oppose Obama’s proposed Social Security cuts and shift the conversation towards expansion. By the summer of 2014, a small group of Democratic caucus senators, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, started advocating for lifting Social Security’s payroll tax cap so wealthier people paid more into the system, and then increasing benefits to seniors. Polling by advocacy groups found broad support for expansion.
This idea became a central theme in Sanders’s presidential campaign. In the speech announcing his candidacy, the senator said that “instead of cutting Social Security, we’re going to expand Social Security benefits.”
“It has become impossible for elected officials to ignore the simple fact that Social Security is a solution and not a problem, and that the only thing wrong with it are that benefits are too low,” Lawson said.
Thank you for your service Don.
Rep. @PramilaJayapal has been a brilliant leader for progressive ideas. She's led the fight against Trump's racism, sexism and xenophobia. Together, we will defeat Trump and build a working class movement and transform this country so it works for all. https://t.co/sYx6zIYsrE
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 19, 2020
Major endorsement for the Bernster! Jayapal is one of the sharpest/ shrewdest reps in the House. 🙂
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is endorsing Bernie Sanders for president and will become his national health policy chair, the Sanders campaign confirmed Sunday.
Jayapal’s decision means Sanders now has the backing of both CPC co-chairs. Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan announced his endorsement of Sanders last week. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who tweeted that Jayapal’s support was a “really big deal,” Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib lined up behind the Vermont senator last year.
Jayapal, representing Washington state, is the lead sponsor of the House “Medicare for All” bill and had been courted by both Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for whom she issued a key statement of support in November amid criticism on the left of Warren’s revised Medicare for All “transition” plan.
“I’m all in for @BernieSanders for President!,” Jayapal tweeted on Sunday. “Bernie has the bold passion, authenticity & clarity that working people across this country desperately need. We are building the progressive movement that will bring justice & opportunity & transform our country. Join us!”
The Sanders campaign also announced on Sunday that Jayapal will join the presidential hopeful in Des Moines, Iowa, on Monday for a campaign rally.
Oh my god oh my god oh my God!
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a rising star in the Democratic Party’s liberal wing and one of the most prominent women of color in Congress, is endorsing Sen. Bernie Sanders for president, choosing him over Sen. Elizabeth Warren on the heels of an explosive confrontation over the question of whether a woman can defeat President Trump.
In a telephone interview with The Washington Post on Sunday, Jayapal (D-Wash.) said she decided to endorse Sanders because “he has a clarity on policy prescriptions that goes right to the heart of what working people need.” She will unveil her endorsement Monday in Iowa.
Jayapal also told The Post she will be named national health policy chair for the Sanders campaign, as well as a Washington State chair.
The endorsement is a significant get for Sanders (I-Vt.) and a blow to Warren (D-Mass.), who has forged a friendship with Jayapal in recent years and is seeking to rally support from women as she makes her closing argument to voters before the first nominating contest in Iowa on Feb. 3.
The backing of Jayapal, who is Indian American and co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, reflects Sanders’s growing strength on the left and his diversifying coalition. After building a following in 2016 that some saw as too male and too white, Sanders has secured endorsements this time around from barrier-breaking Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
Sanders campaign officials are hoping to deploy Ocasio-Cortez in Iowa in the final stretch of the race there. They have built a busy schedule of events in the early states with a roster of surrogates as Sanders tends to his duties in the Senate as a juror in the Trump impeachment trial.
The endorsements keep rolling in for Bernie with Jayapal being the latest. How long before a desperate DNC trots out Obama endorsing Bydone, Warren or Butti. My guess if Bernie does well it will be before super Tuesday. The DNC,DNCC neolibs are getting nervous as if Bernie wins thing those 2 entities will be made over with progressives and a lot of neolibs will be out of a job!!
The problem for Obama — who to support with no-one appearing particularly viable.
Rob in Vermont’s latest Bernie diary at DK. Worth a look and a rec.
wonderful rally with naomi and cusack. he sounded really good, too.
But to many supporters, Sanders is the only candidate who channels their pain. “People are hurting, and [Sanders] was able to speak to that hurt in a way that was authentic,” Varshini Prakash, the executive director of Sunrise Movement, which endorsed Sanders, told me after the Iowa City rally. “It feels often like we are just shouting into the void and politicians aren’t hearing us. … I think Bernie Sanders in 2016 was one of the first moments when my generation and people like me recognized that we could have a politician in office who cared deeply about what we cared about and wanted to fight our fight with us.”
The way Sanders has mirrored this anger differentiates him from his rivals. Yes, other Democrats are mad about all the same indignities. But where other candidates are promising love and unity, incremental steps toward their policy goals, and a return to normalcy after the Trump era, Sanders is promising to tear the system down. For his supporters, this is a virtue. For his critics, this is untenable. Whatever you make of it, this is Sanders, and he’s been like this all along.
“I think if you’re paying attention to what’s happening right now and you’re not angry, there’s something wrong,” says Nicole Khvalabov, 22, a University of Iowa student who attended the Iowa City rally. “I think a lot of other candidates spend a lot more time kind of sugarcoating what’s going on.”
As the 2020 campaign builds, this outrage at the injustice of it all will continue to be at the core of Sanders’ campaign. “There’s a tremendous amount of frustration, and he gives voice to that frustration because he authentically presents the reality that they’re facing,” Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Sanders, told TIME.
Sanders is promising to tear the system down
Is that accurate though? I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of what Bernie is about really.
This from Bernie seems much closer to me:
“We are going to tear down the fences that prevent our kids from getting an equal, quality education, and create an education system that works for all of our people.”
seems closer to the truth.
We are going to tear down the fences that prevent our kids from getting an equal, quality education, and create an education system that works for all of our people. pic.twitter.com/XUnCDQVoC9
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 24, 2019
In fact, I believe that characterization is a centrist slur.
Speaking to Washington donors in in November, Obama cautioned against placing too much stock into “certain left-leaning Twitter feeds or the activist wing of our party.”
“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality,” he said. “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.”
Stuff it BO (p-u)!
tes. major lines of attack. tear it down. massive expansion. and so on.
these terms are a contradiction, but since they are only repeating words until they worm into brains, it doesn’t matter.
The system exists to perpetuate the “two-party” system. A third party will not be able to compete, and be at best a spoiler.
Senator Sanders’ strategy of taking-over one of the two parties is much more likely to prevail. And he+us seem to be making good progress on that.
Life-long Futuristic Progressives like me are loving every minute of this one. We no longer feel like political oddballs.
his surrogates are on fire.
wish warren would take vp (ugh) or better, Treasury secretary, drop out and endorse, for the gosh darn good of the country!
Warren has damaged herself badly. When is she up for re-election?
She was just re-elected. She will need to stay the senate for a couple of years.
Klobuchar subtly takes Bernie’s side in the Warren dispute
— Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) January 18, 2020
that’s a subtle smear.
she could have referenced his record. but better than taking Warren’s side.
This speech on the floor of the Senate from @JoeBiden fighting for the crime bill that he wrote, it was named after him, if it was given by any single Republican, would make them public enemy #1 from Democrats.
It's despicable and full of racial tropes & disgusting exaggerations pic.twitter.com/LDGVqwAgLS
— Shaun King (@shaunking) May 19, 2019
Pow wow in Tsuut’ina is always about inclusion. Hal Eagletail and his siblings decided that they wanted to host a special for those living with disabilities.
This is why we do what we do. The world is about inclusion. Heartfelt thanks to everyone. Tell people you love them.
— Native tribal (@Nativetribal7) January 17, 2020
What’s incredible is that @VaughnHillyard & MSNBC could just put this video on the air and let voters decide — but they refuse to put this video on air because it may ruin their narrative. Instead, they are parroting Biden’s false & debunked claims. pic.twitter.com/MIAx4nO9Qa https://t.co/9VmcGs46Zw
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) January 19, 2020
I agree with you. She is a very smart cookie though I would not be surprised to see her aim for House Speaker. 🙂
It was shortly after midnight in Baghdad on Friday, Jan. 3, when a missile strike ordered by President Trump killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
When stock markets opened the next day, dozens of members of Congress saw bumps in their portfolios as their holdings in defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon increased in value on the possibility of war. Over the next three trading days, the leading defense industry stock index would surge 2.4% above Thursday’s close.
Among these members of Congress with personal investments in the defense industry are several who sit on committees that determine major sources of funding for defense companies and weapons contractors.
According to a Sludge review of financial disclosures, 51 members of Congress and their spouses own between $2.3 and $5.8 million worth of stocks in companies that are among the top 30 defense contractors in the world. Members of Congress generally report the values of their investments in ranges, so it’s not possible to know exactly how much their stocks are worth. As Congress debates whether to limit President Trump’s power to take military action against Iran, the complete list of senators and representatives who own defense stocks is displayed below in this article.
Eighteen members of Congress, combined, own as much as $760,000 worth of stock of Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor in terms of overall defense revenues. The value of Lockheed Martin stock surged by 4.3% on the day after Soleimani’s assassination—a day in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average overall traded down.
The Members of Congress Who Profit From War https://t.co/GmwxLy36yc
— Brian Trautman 🌹 (@brianjtrautman) January 19, 2020
Warren backers already seizing on Sanders’ wording, saying gender or sexuality (in Pete’s case) isn’t a “problem.” Just goes to show there is nothing to be gained by Warren or Sanders by dwelling on this disagreement. https://t.co/HRQCkzN46V
— Amanda Becker (@AmandaBecker) January 19, 2020
Bernie didn’t bring up Pete’s sexuality, that was yet another lie in a long line of many pushed out by the media lately. They turned guy into gay, and it’s extremely clear he says guy.
— Single Payer or Bust🌹 (@stephlynn1982) January 19, 2020
honestly, I think Bernie sees the opportunity to show solidarity with Warren. And the fact that they are continuing to twist his words and defend Joe Biden says worlds.
Behind me Is Venice Beach where AOC & Bernie had their rally recently.
fun ! 🐚🌊🌊🐬🐳🐳
You look great! How is the knee doing?
It gets fatigued pretty quickly. I put an ice pack on it several times a day, but I have a gizmo at home that does the best “icing” for it. Wish the airlines allowed gel packs!
Donald Trump wants to privatize the Postal Service and threaten over 630,000 jobs. That absolutely cannot happen. I’m proud to stand with the postal workers of Local 44 as we fight to strengthen USPS, protect jobs and allow post offices to provide basic banking services. https://t.co/uOpivHRadl
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 18, 2020
BREAKING: The Bernie Sanders campaign just surpassed 5,000,000 calls made in just over two weeks.
The campaign was hoping to make 5,000,000 calls by February 3rd.
They got there 15 days early. pic.twitter.com/AJ9qjS9UQF
— Michael Sayman (@michaelsayman) January 19, 2020
It is very difficult to imagine someone other than Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden becoming the Democratic nominee with these numbers. The other candidates would have to overcome huge odds to build numbers necessary to win. It's not impossible, but surely difficult. pic.twitter.com/cCIHmYnXrn
— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) January 19, 2020
Bernie, keeping it real.
"Please don't play media games with me."
Bernie repeats what he's said over & over, no clarification necessary, it truly is just a big theatrical game. They just want to dstract from the fact Bernie is now THE front-runner. https://t.co/jxyqhm3Wtl
— Jenna (@MomForProgress) January 19, 2020
Elizabeth Warren hit Joe Biden for his past stances on changing Social Security and expressed solidarity with Bernie Sanders on the issue as the two liberal senators seek to move past their recent feud.
“Bernie Sanders and I established the ‘Expand Social Security Caucus’ in the Senate,” Warren said in a quick interview as she hopped into her car outside a candidate forum in Iowa. “As a senator, Joe Biden had a very different position on Social Security, and I think everyone’s records on Social Security are important in this election.”
this is wonderful!
Unfortunately, she is not a native born US citizen. But her new role as Nat’l Healthcare surrogate for Bernie is telling; she’s a rising star, just like AOC, Rashida, and Ilhan.
this has been a confusing day. Hoping this unroll can clear things up a little.
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) January 19, 2020
So glad Warren is agreeing with Bernie on Biden’s Social Security record. I thanked her.
Good Both Bernie and Warren going after the centrists. Forget this stupid feud. Concentrate on the real enemy
Elizabeth Warren is taking a shot at primary opponent Michael Bloomberg over the 45-day extension he’s received to file his personal financial disclosure form to the Federal Election Commission. That delay will keep Super Tuesday voters from knowing whether the former New York City mayor has “serious conflicts of interest,” Warren said in Des Moines on Sunday.
“If he has entanglements with China, serious conflicts of interest, business interests in other parts of the world or with other corporations, when do we get to know about that? Not until after Super Tuesday,” Warren said. “That is not how democracy is supposed to work, and we need to shut that down.”
LOL. What a dopey endorsement. Two candidates from opposite ends of the political spectrum, endorsed because they are women. What a joke. But poor Biden 🤣
The New York Times editorial board endorsed the two leading female candidates for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination on Sunday, throwing its support behind Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
The board’s decision to back not one but two candidates is a significant break with convention, one that it says is meant to address the “realist” and “radical” models being presented to voters by the 2020 Democratic field. While arguing that President Trump must be defeated, the board does not take a position on the best path forward for Democrats, writing that both approaches “warrant serious consideration.” (The editorial board is separate from the New York Times newsroom.)
does Nothing Yeet Times use the wird correctly? 😂😂😂
And yet, as much as the rollout of the Very Special Episode has been about the Democratic primary, it has also very much been about the New York Times and The Role of the New York Times in the Democratic primary. And in this state of hyper-self-awareness and inflated ego, the Times has done what the Times does best: choke. Not unlike a few years ago when the Times’ endorsement of Andrew Cuomo for governor consisted almost exclusively of reasons not to vote for him, the paper’s editorial board has decided that, in lieu of any sort of cleareyed, moral direction, it will offer readers throat clearing, ambivalence, and a vague gesture at who might possibly be OK.
Don’t like Warren? Well, don’t yell at the editorial board’s bosses just yet, because they hate her too, sort of! And don’t you think she’s just a little too patronizing? That’s why they also kind of endorsed Klobuchar, who’s currently polling at just under 4 percent. Mad about the Times endorsing Klobuchar? You can’t be, because they didn’t. Not really, at least.
The indecisiveness might have felt less grating if the Times hadn’t put so much effort into turning the endorsement into a spectacle in its own right. The promised inside look at how the Times made one of its most ostensibly important decisions of the year turned out to mean viewers spent an hour watching the paper crumble under the weight of its own self-importance. But hey, at least the ratings were probably good.
Hello Berners it been a while since I opened one so here goes. With MLK day on Monday thought i’d kick off the this Meme.
Also it seems $hill tells Dems to vote for Bernie: well actually for the Dem most […]
Tip jar for all that do OT’s Thank you!!!!
T and R, wi61!! 🙂
Thanks for starting a thread wi61!
Yup on today’s level of police response. Military-style.
Thanks for kicking this off, wi61. I’ve been worried that no one was going to extend me the opportunity today to lurk. I really appreciate all you guys and gals. I even miss windancer(sp?) and tyranno… My sister and I were just talking a few days ago about Chitown ’68. Hope it doesn’t get to that.
I miss windancer13 & tyranocaster too! I see tyrano on twitter sometimes at least.
Happy Saturday ASTDAND!
In Iowa, it’s less of a problem because he won’t make viability and his supporters can recaucus with Bernie. In NH, Bernie is also losing votes to Tulsi, but a good portion of her voters are Republicans who wouldn’t vote for any other Dem.
“If Sanders has a problem in New Hampshire, I think it’s a Yang problem,” said Dante Scala, a political science professor the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey School of Public Policy and a local demographics expert. “Every young voter Yang takes, I think you could make a good case it’s a Sanders voter.”
Sanders easily won the state’s primary in 2016 with 60 percent of the vote, thanks in large part to a coalition of young people, independents, and voters looking outside the establishment. Based on interviews conducted at dozens of events held over the past few months, Yang is attracting the same types of voters at his campaign stops
Tulsi will crash in NH. She’s not polling that well.
I’ve seen more Yang and Bernie signs here in the West LA area. None for Biden or Warren.
The young people who were fervently behind Bernie in 2016 won’t bolt to Yang. A lot of them don’t trust hm. If anyone goes for Yang, it will be tech nerds who are usually ‘meh’ about politics.
Well he moved to VT. He must like the cold! 🤗
But with comfortable bedding. Most everyone sleeps better when the temperature is lower. There are also some rumors from the same media who said that Jeff Zucker at CNN has instructed the producers to turn up the heat during Bernie’s upcoming town hall.
1) I much prefer cool air at night for sleeping.
2) Really?? I hope that’s a joke about turning up the heat!
I’m reminded of a young Sudanese refuge in the documentary Lost Boys of Sudan say that if he mentioned (am paraphrasing) that it was hot outside in the Walmart parking lot as he gathered shopping carts he might hear,’thought you’d be used to it!’, he laughed, and went on to say, “Just because I’m used to it doesn’t mean I LIKE it!”
Donald Trump wants to privatize the Postal Service and threaten over 630,000 jobs. That absolutely cannot happen. I’m proud to stand with the postal workers of Local 44 as we fight to strengthen USPS, protect jobs and allow post offices to provide basic banking services. https://t.co/uOpivHRadl
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 18, 2020
I have been waiting for the Bernster to start raising havoc here. He was passionate about the USPS on the Hartmann shows.
"Bernie does has a sort of physicality, you know, when he talks — that is a shaking your finger at Hillary Clinton, shoving your finger, wierdy…." — @JoyAnnReid to her body language expert.
Milk those stereotypes, Joy. https://t.co/qXjvYi7IjS
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 18, 2020
I suppose this ” expert ” isn’t Jewish?
This appears to be antisemitic to me.
MSNBC is a fucking disgrace. What it allows on its air – this segment of bullshit charlatan body language analysis to prove Bernie is lying mixed with Joy Reid's anti-semitic stereotypes about his pushy use of his hands when speaking – is appalling but typical. The hacker did it. https://t.co/BHPyg6cPSG
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 18, 2020
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is set to headline a campaign event in Iowa for his presidential bid next week in the middle of the Senate’s impeachment trial.
Sanders’s campaign announced that he will hold a rally at the University of Northern Iowa on Wednesday evening, the day after the trial of President Trump is set to kick off.
The senator is also slated to hold two events in Iowa on Monday, on the eve of the impeachment proceedings.
I read somewhere that Biden has been hoarding most of his Iowa campaigning for during trial.
2 minute extra clip from Glennwald interview
The wide-ranging discussion I had on @RollingStone's "Useful Idiots" with @mtaibbi & @kthalps was one of my favorite about US politics in awhile. Here's my 2-part answer about going on Fox & disgusting accusations of being a white supremacist sympathizer/fascist-enabler: pic.twitter.com/EwNbb5bWEI
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 18, 2020
extended Greenwald interview by Taibbi. Glenn on at 35min
Did you hear about the latest scandal?
Right on the heels of Joy Reid and her body language expert (who is apparently a regular on Lou Dobbs) we learn this!
78 year old man giving 10 speeches a day needs honey! https://t.co/5lyba5eXJ2
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) January 17, 2020
Btw, by ‘FREEZING’, they are referring how Bernie’s team asks hotels to:
Make sure room temperature is at 60 (or 65 with one fan running)
Most is pretty basic stuff that you or I would do, security for campaign material I don’t have to worry about that, just a precaution by Bernie and staff. If you want real crazy demands look at a rock band or tv stars or other politicians –the’re out in the twilight zone.
— Alexandria Villaseñor (@AlexandriaV2005) January 17, 2020
— Jordan Meehan 🏳️🌈 (@JordanMeehan) January 17, 2020
— Nathaniel Stinnett (@NCStinn) January 17, 2020
“Joe Biden commands a boardroom” Barf. Looks like we know where that endorsement is going. Quelle Surprise!
These top reporters don’t hesitate to grill Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, often with gotcha questions and Republican talking points.
So why are they so easy on Joe? I can only speculate.
I think part of it is that they’re a bit awestruck. (“Joe Biden commands a boardroom,” the New York Times editorial board wrote about its collective interview with him.)
Part of it is that when Biden answers questions about his fitness by saying “look at me,” our elite journalists are simply not rude or direct enough to say: “Yeah, we look at you, and what we see someone who often can’t complete a coherent thought.”
Maybe, like Biden’s fellow candidates — who have also failed to sufficiently confront him in their debates or take out negative ads — they are worried about blowback from Biden’s supporters.
Maybe they just can’t bring themselves to help Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Most likely, these journalists — the most elite of the journalistic elite — are just plain comfortable with Biden, and don’t feel remotely antagonistic, because he reflects their centrist, Washington cocktail-party ideology.
He’s not talking about rocking the boat. He’s talking about going back to the way things were, and they were happy then.
By not actively asking Biden any hard questions, these top-tier journalists are offering de facto support for the pre-Trump status quo ante, without overtly looking like they are taking sides.
But if they allow a weak candidate to become the sole alternative to Trump, which appears to be the unacknowledged or unconscious goal, the net effect may be paving the way for four more years.
Trump tweet: “They are rigging the election again against Bernie Sanders, just like last time, only even more obviously. They are bringing him out of so important Iowa in order that, as a Senator, he sit through the Impeachment Hoax Trial. Crazy Nancy thereby gives the strong edge to Sleepy [Biden].
Even a blind Squirrel finds a nut, Trumpcorp not far off from being actually right on something for a change and I hate to admit it.. Next complaint will be that Bernie uses a private jet to go to Iowa during the trial.
Shocked that Wapo ran this! Not that Cnn or Msdnc would either. Still the question that the weapons of mass deception cant answer is how come young people 35 under are for Bernie? Look at the Butti surge!!!!, from 0% to 1% a 100% increase :). Bernie has to start hitting Uncle Joe on his votes on Medicare and soon, maybe some of our fellow boomers will wake up.Another point for black boomers concerning Social Security – Almost three-fourths (72 percent) of African American beneficiaries rely on Social Security for at least half their income, compared to less than two-thirds (65 percent) of all beneficiaries. And they trust Bydone– crazy
a tweet said that this is a BS article on TheGuardian
I co-founded Occupy Wall Street. Now I’m headed to Davos. Why?
Rejecting Davos is easy when one hasn’t been invited. Now that I have a chance to go, I want to discover its revolutionary potential
Occupy Wall Street (OWS) was a protest movement that began on September 17, 2011, in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City’s Wall Street financial district, against economic inequality. The Canadian anti-consumerist and pro-environment group/magazine Adbusters initiated the call for a protest.
Date: September 17, 2011
Note that the magazine Adbusters initiated the call. That is where Micha White was and he has since gone on to speak at college campuses and other places and written about revolution. I was following him on the web and I went to two presentations he made here in OH at a two universities. One was a 2+ hour drive.
I was unimpressed
He is in marketing and he gets time on the big stage. Well, there are even politicians who get invited so just an invitation doesn’t mean much. In fact, he is possibly another village idiot who the powerful will use for their own ends like they have in many other places.
Maybe I am being too cynical, but I wouldn’t send him as my representative
To turn down the World Economic Forum would mean believing that I can know in advance what will could come from going. On the contrary, my experience as an activist has taught me it is often the emergent and unexpected outcomes that end up being the most significant. I had to go to see what would happen if I went.
and he is seeking the hidden Davos
And then there is the hidden Davos: the private, off-the-record events organized by the World Economic Forum. These secretive invite-only meetings are held under the Chatham House rule, a strict guideline that protects the anonymity of participants in order to facilitate frank discussion. These, along with the equally confidential bilateral meetings held between participants in corridors and hotel lobbies, is the Davos with the potential to usher in great social changes.
In the hidden Davos opposing social forces, activists and elites, can put their egos and personas aside to speak freely and find common cause for joint action on the global crises that impact us all – from income inequality to climate change. It is here that the argument can be made that elites must stop suppressing protest and instead harness the creative energy of social movements to achieve great changes. The Forum is perhaps the only place on earth where these opportunities for fraternization are possible.
if he marches outside with Greta, then I will have a little more hope that he can make a difference
here is the action that is important at Davos
Greta Thunberg tells world leaders to end fossil fuel ‘madness’
The world of finance has a responsibility to the planet, the people and all other species living on it. In fact, it ought to be in every company and stakeholder’s interest to make sure the planet they live on will thrive. But history has not shown the corporate world’s willingness to hold themselves accountable. So it falls on us, the children, to do that. We call upon the world’s leaders to stop investing in the fossil fuel economy that is at the very heart of this planetary crisis. Instead, they should invest their money in existing sustainable technologies, research and in restoring nature. Short-term profit should not trump long-term stability of life
The theme of this year’s gathering in Davos is “stakeholders for a cohesive and sustainable world”. According to the forum’s website, leaders will meet to discuss ideas and improve our global progress on climate change. Our request to them is perhaps not so far-fetched considering that they say they understand and prioritise this emergency. Anything less than immediately ceasing these investments in the fossil fuel industry would be a betrayal of life itself. Today’s business as usual is turning into a crime against humanity. We demand that leaders play their part in putting an end to this madness. Our future is at stake, let that be their investment.
Not the right kind of gays I guess
A popular Providence LGBTQ nightclub says the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg canceled a fundraiser with Buttigieg’s husband Friday night due to concerns over the venue’s appropriateness.
Chasten Buttigieg, husband of the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, had been slated to headline the fundraiser at the Dark Lady Friday night.
The event had been widely promoted on social media, including by City Council President Sabina Matos. Buttigieg, the first openly gay candidate to mount a major run for president, is believed to be in the top tier of candidates ahead of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary next month. He has been endorsed by Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza.
Buck Asprinio, the general manager of the Dark Lady, said members of the campaign who arrived at the venue ahead of the event said they asked staff members to remove the “dancing pole” in the middle of the club. They refused to do so.
“It’s been here since we opened and it’s not going anywhere,” Asprinio said. “The dancer pole is part of who we are ─ if you want to dance on a pole, we’re the place to be.”
It’s good that Biden took the bait and brought SS to the forefront.
Joe Biden has called for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign to “disown” what he calls “doctored video” that some Sanders supporters say shows the former vice president endorsing Republican calls to cut Social Security and Medicare.
“There’s a little doctored video going around … put out by one of Bernie’s people,” Biden told supporters Saturday in Indianola, Iowa, referring to a 2018 speech in which Biden discussed then-House Speaker Paul Ryan saying rising deficit demanded action on the popular entitlement programs.
“I’m looking for his campaign to come forward and disown it,” Biden continued, pointing to his 2020 campaign proposals designed to shore up Social Security. “But they haven’t done it yet.”
The video in question, circulated on Twitter by a top Sanders adviser, does not appear to be altered. But the short clip omits Biden’s larger argument over how Ryan handled the 2017 tax cuts and subsequent budget debates. A separate Sanders’ adviser included a transcript of Biden’s remarks in the video clip in a separate campaign newsletter. He added other, more extended video, of Biden as a U.S. senator in 1995 and presidential candidate in 2007 explaining his support for a more austere federal budget, including putting Social Security and Medicare “on the table.”
The 2020 campaign flap highlights long-standing philosophical fissures between the progressive Sanders, who has spent decades arguing for a massive expansion of the federal government, and the more centrist Biden. Those differences have come to the forefront as Biden and Sanders are bunched with Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren atop early state polls weeks before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.
Responding to Biden’s remarks Saturday, Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir said, “Joe Biden should be honest with voters and stop trying to doctor his own public record of consistently and repeatedly trying to cut Social Security.”
“The facts are very clear: Biden not only pushed to cut Social Security — he is on tape proudly bragging about it on multiple occasions,” Shakir said in a statement. “The vice president must stop dodging questions about his record, and start explaining why he has so aggressively pushed to slash one of the most significant and successful social programs in American history, which millions of Americans rely on for survival.”
Sanders’ camp, meanwhile, maintains that Biden’s history is more important than his current proposals. Another of their favorite video clips shows then-Sen. Biden, in the first years after Republicans’ 1994 midterm election romp, calling for a more austere approach. “When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security, as well,” Biden said at the time. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. … And I not only tried it once. I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.”
There is a da#med good reason why Byedone is a 2- time POTUS campaign loser. He had his mental cookies together back then, too.
he can run, but he can’t hide.
also, Bernie does not want a “massive expansion” of government. He wants a reallocation of money.
This ‘body language expert’ is an anti-vaxxer.
Supports a method of incrimination that likely leads to false incarceration
Said Hillary Clinton was using ‘evil laughter’ in 2007
And she was spreading a conspiracy that Obama ordered the CIA to train ISIS
And frequented Fox News/Fox Business (here seen with the fashy as hell Lou Dobbs) in 2016
Great work, MSNBC!
Just…turn off the TV, folks.
Groan.. The only time the boob tube is turned on here is by hubby.
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg was interrupted at a campaign rally in New Hampshire on Friday by climate activists angered by the former South Bend, Indiana mayor’s lackluster approach to the climate crisis and his campaign’s continued reliance on fossil fuel money.
“I can’t make out your song, but we definitely want the same things,” Buttigieg told the group of climate action advocates who broke out in song and held up signs reading “Pete Takes Money From Fossil Fuel Billionaires” during the candidate’s remarks at the event in Concord.
Buttigieg countered the protest and criticism by tell the crowd there was some “inaccurate information going up here” and noting that he “took the fossil fuel pledge” and is “determined to bring about solutions on climate change.”
While Buttigieg has, in fact, signed the “No Fossil Fuel Money” pledge, critics of the candidate point out that his continued openness to PACs and high-dollar bundlers means it’s impossible to know exactly which individuals and what kind of corporate interests are backing and funding his campaign.
Climate activists crashed this Buttigieg event with signs that referenced his reported fossil fuel hypocrisy pic.twitter.com/f3GhiRSEqT
— NowThis (@nowthisnews) January 17, 2020
— 350 New Hampshire (@350NH) January 17, 2020
OUR CAMPAIGN SCARES TRUMP: In case you haven’t noticed, Trump and the Republican Party have been attacking our campaign. It looks like the most dangerous president in modern history is getting nervous, and he should be. Join us for our rally in Manchester, NH:
Posted by Bernie Sanders on Saturday, January 18, 2020
Bernie rally in NH. Naomi Klein is speaking at the moment,
Now we need a TV ad!!! Obama was going to sell out boomers on SS as well
Bernie’s campaign must be thrilled that Biden took the Social Security bait. It’s a good ground to go after Biden on and turns the page on the Warren crap.
Pretty bad mistake by Biden to bring this up. A preview of his mistakes if he goes against Trump
For its part, the Sanders campaign appeared to relish the opportunity to have the issue discussed in detail. National press secretary Briahna Joy Gray tweeted a video capturing Biden’s comments at the Iowa event and said she hoped the “media covers this as a substantive policy agreement”
David Sirota, a speechwriter and frequent message amplifier for the Sanders campaign, sent an email out Saturday evening that stated: “Biden claimed that one video of him pushing Social Security ‘adjustments’ was doctored—but Biden’s absurd assertion has been widely debunked and discredited by reporters and Social Security advocates.”
Journalists who have looked at the issue closely, including The Intercept’s Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim, agreed it is not accurate to describe the video Biden is referencing as “doctored.”
Grim reported in a piece published Monday that Biden has “advocated cutting social security for 40 years.”
And despite the Biden campaign’s now repeated assertion that the comments about agreeing with Paul Ryan were taken out of context, Grim’s reporting argues that “Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark.”
n a column this week, Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, said it is no longer possible for Biden to outrun his record on attacking Social Security—a history that Republicans will surely weaponize against him in the general election.
Biden’s record, argued Lawson—who endorsed Sanders officially in December—would be a “a major vulnerability should he become the Democratic nominee. In the 2016 election, Donald Trump continually promised to protect Social Security and Medicare. That was a lie. But lying has never bothered Trump, and he’ll be happy to use the same playbook in 2020.”
Hope the media covers this as a substantive policy disagreement.
And I hope they play the video. https://t.co/L1EI6XRgQr
— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) January 18, 2020
I hope @PolitiFact at least check this claim from Biden.
There was no doctored video. That’s a fabrication. Interesting to see if Politifact let’s this stand: https://t.co/LSrqyPlzzD
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) January 18, 2020
This video now has almost 450,000 views. Keep retweeting it. Don't let @JoeBiden get away with misleading Iowa voters about his repeated efforts to undermine Democrats and help the GOP try to slash Social Security. Retweet it and spread the word.#BidenSocialSecurityCuts https://t.co/LVo8PXK36a
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) January 19, 2020
This is a good video, and consistent with Sen. Sanders’ policy to run on a more positive note:
Sometimes it feels like our world is falling apart, but REAL change is all around us.
Every conversation, protest, canvass, and donation fuels our movement.
— People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) January 14, 2020
I am not sure to have seen it here, but is is a good one by Berners not part of the campaign.
This is so beautiful. I cant watch it without bringing a tear. And I can’t stop watching it.
Right, I expect that there were plans to publicize Biden’s history on this subject during last weeks’s debate but the opportunity was preempted by the script/private convo distraction.
A resource for Berners or friends who have doubts about Bernie;
”And as the Sanders campaign is fond of noting, Biden has a long history of endorsing Social Security benefit cuts dating back to the 1980s and 1990s.” Thanks Joe for bringing this up!
Former Vice President Joe Biden is finally firing back at Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ depiction of him as a longtime proponent of Social Security cuts, following a Tuesday debate in Des Moines, Iowa, that omitted the issue entirely.
But in seeking to reassure voters about his commitment to protecting Social Security, Biden is mischaracterizing Sanders’ tactics.
Biden inaccurately claimed on Saturday that a video circulated by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign had been “doctored” to make him seem more supportive of Social Security cuts than he really is.
But “doctoring” a video such that it could be considered “a fake,” generally refers to footage that is fabricated or tampered with, rather than a video excerpt that is simply lacking the full context.
What’s more, Biden’s uses the term “adjustments” in reference to Social Security after going on a riff about whether affluent Americans actually need their benefits, making it sound as if he implicitly is interested in some form of means-testing or income-based benefit reductions.
“Now, I don’t know a whole lot of people in the top one-tenth of 1 percent or the top 1 percent who are relying on Social Security when they retire. I don’t know a lot of them. Maybe you guys do,” he said in his speech to Brookings, before launching into his plans for a “pro-growth, progressive tax code.”
As Biden notes in his conversation with the voter on Saturday, his Social Security plan would increase benefits and extend the program’s solvency by lifting the cap on taxable income for Social Security purposes. The benefit increases he proposes include the creation of a minimum benefit at 125% of the federal poverty level, tackling poverty in late old age through a benefit bump-up for people collecting benefits for 20 years or more, and a change allowing surviving spouses to keep a larger share of benefits.
But in the past, some proposals to reform the program that have included at least one of these benefit increases also cut benefits in other ways.
And as the Sanders campaign is fond of noting, Biden has a long history of endorsing Social Security benefit cuts dating back to the 1980s and 1990s.
As then-President Barack Obama’s vice president, Biden served as Obama’s liaison to Senate Republicans at a time when Obama had put a cut to Social Security cost-of-living adjustment on the table in pursuit of “grand bargain” that would also increase tax revenue. Obama would make that technical change, the “chained” consumer price index, part of his 2013 budget resolution, prompting a White House protest where Sanders spoke.
After you have created your content, you require to find people which want to read it. Content marketing will not be as effortless as it sounds. Right now there are countless ways to find new viewers to get your articles and build a loyal following. Read on the best advice in the best way to be able to find an target audience.
Move for the…[Read more]
Bernie Sanders, the 78-year-old Senator from Vermont, has 27% support among likely Democratic voters, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll, followed by Joe Biden with 24% and Elizabeth Warren […]
Tips, Comments, Complaints, Etc!
Bernie Sanders might actually win this thing. A recent poll has him in first place in Iowa, and he is basically tied with Joe Biden in New Hampshire. Sanders is running second in Nevada and South Carolina, where he has vastly improved his margins among southern black voters (which doomed his candidacy in 2016), and outright ahead in California. The Democratic Party might be about to nominate the first self-identified socialist for president in American history.
This is already sparking panic and anger among the Democratic Party establishment and their co-ideologues in the mainstream press. If Sanders’ polls continue to rise — and especially if he starts to win — we’re about to see an epic conniption fit. In fact, it’s already started.
On the party side, the case against Sanders is supposedly about electability. Sanders would lose to Trump, complain the party hacks, which simply can’t be risked. “You need a candidate with a message that can help us win swing voters in battleground states,” former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the Associated Press. “The degree of difficulty dramatically increases under a Bernie Sanders candidacy. It just gets a lot harder.” An anonymous Democratic “strategist” complained to The Hill that Sanders’ attacks on Biden were unfair and helping Trump. And this isn’t new — for months party grandees and big donors have been fretting that with Biden running such a feckless campaign, there isn’t a strong not-Sanders campaign to unify around.
Now, Donald Trump is an incumbent president and the economy is strong, and therefore Sanders definitely could lose. But that is also true of any other candidate — there are simply no guarantees here. Electability is a vague and nearly unknowable concept, and trusting that centrists are a safer bet has repeatedly blown up in the party’s face. As Ryan Grim writes in his book We’ve Got People, the party elite pulled this same trick in 1988 against Jesse Jackson when he ran a Sanders-style campaign attempting to assemble a “Rainbow Coalition” of working-class people of all races. When Jackson pulled out a surprise victory in the Michigan primary, elites scrambled to boost up Michael Dukakis, arguing that he was the best chance to best then-Vice President George Bush. Dukakis, of course, went on to lose badly.
Similar arguments were deployed on behalf of John Kerry against Howard Dean in the 2004 presidential primary. Better to have a war hero to run in a time of war, the argument went. Instead, Kerry got badly tangled up with his votes to invade Iraq but against additional spending to fund it, and he lost to George W. Bush. And as Grim notes, when Rahm Emanuel ran the Democratic campaign for the House in 2006, he recruited and campaigned for conservative candidates — and cut money off from progressives who won primaries, deeming their seats “unwinnable.” But some of those he refused to fund still went on to win in the general, while others lost by only a tiny margin. Party hacks like Emanuel make centrist “electability” a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I’m already hearing rumblings from worried investors. They will be watching Iowa verrrry carefully.
p.s. I hope the markets don’t react too much one way or another.
Funny, look at the headline:
The best-laid plans of Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders were upended this week – and his campaign is struggling to get back on track.
Sanders went into the week looking to draw a sharper contrast between his progressive agenda and that of former Vice President Joe Biden, a moderate and his top rival for the Democratic nomination.
Instead, his flap with fellow senator, friend and progressive ally Elizabeth Warren over gender and electability has dominated the news, an unwelcome twist for a campaign that pulled into the top of the race in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire just weeks before the first voting begins.
The U.S. senator from Vermont has found himself on the defensive after Warren accused him of telling her during a 2018 meeting that a woman could not beat Republican President Donald Trump in the November election. Sanders has denied saying that.
The disagreement between the two liberals grew more inflamed after a CNN microphone caught Warren telling Sanders he made her out to be a liar at Tuesday’s debate in Iowa.
The back-and-forth has had their supporters at odds on social media, distressing progressives who want to present a unified front against a “corporate Democrat” going into the 2020 nominating contests, which kick off on Feb. 3 in Iowa.
So far, the dispute does not appear to have hurt Sanders, who saw his support among independents and Democrats rise by 2 points to 20% – ahead of Biden’s 19% – in the past week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday.
Bernie is struggling… his campaign is off course… but “the dispute does not appear to have hurt Sanders”. Funny how they still manage to get a dozen+ paragraphs out of that.
Liz is NO LIBERAL (h/t Webster’s D)!! T and Rs to LD, and humphrey (last night’s post)!! 🙂
New article out this morning from common dreams shows Bernie is leading.
Amid Raft of State-Level Endorsements, Sanders Leads Democrats in New National Poll
“It’s just one poll, but it looks like Bernie is unhurt and Warren unhelped by the brouhaha.”
more from that article…
Meanwhile, a new Emerson poll out of New Hampshire released Friday showed Sanders maintaining a discernible lead in the nation’s first primary state.
With the support of 23% of state primary voters, Sanders was followed by Buttigieg in second place at 18%, while Biden and Warren were tied in third with 14% each. Sen. Amy Klobuchar rounded out the top five with 10%.
Isn’t it really the other way around? Sanders seems to be moving on, building his movement. Warren? Who even knows?
Liked for LD’s commentary.
Democratic party operative and CNN political commentator Hilary Rosen said Sen. Elizabeth Warren was “seething” at the debate because she felt confident that Sen. Bernie Sanders told her that a woman could not win in 2020.
“I think it pissed her off that Bernie denied that he ever said it,” Rosen told CNN’s Don Lemon. “Look, he was trying to get her not to run for president. Who do we believe? Like I believe Elizabeth Warren.”
Or of course, there are the facts actually reported at the time..
would Sanders telling Warren she couldn't win because she's a woman be "dissuading" her from running?
— victim of capitalism (@joshieecs) January 17, 2020
Huge Michigan voter turnout could turn into national embarrassmentTwo Michigan elections experts have some record-breaking predictions for 2020 that could end up putting Michigan in a potentially embarrassing national spotlight.
Chris Thomas, the former Michigan director of elections at the Secretary of State’s Office, said Michigan is on track for a record-breaking turnout in 2020, reaching up to 5.3 million voters. The last time Michigan came anywhere close to that total was 2008 when 5 million Michiganders cast ballots.
Mark Grebner, the founder of the East Lansing-based Practical Political Consulting, which tracks voters and voting trends in Michigan, had an even more eye-popping prediction of 6 million votes in November.
“Turnout is going to be huge,” Grebner said. “And there are going to be big problems.”
[Stay up to date on Michigan politics as we near the 2020 election: Sign up for our free elections newsletter here.]
They both cited the enthusiasm shown in the 2018 election cycle when a record 4.3 million voters cast ballots in an off-year election. That total busted the previous record by more than a half-million votes and both expect that the controversial presidency of Donald Trump will only see higher than normal civic engagement rates in 2020
The video is worth watching
A few weeks ago, the Washington Post published a trove of confidential documents detailing “explicit and sustained efforts by the U.S. government to deliberately mislead the public” about the prospects for victory in Afghanistan. These papers revealed that America’s military commanders distorted “statistics to make it appear the United States was winning the war when that was not the case,” while its civilian leadership buried intelligence testifying to the Taliban’s resurgent strength. The aim of this systematic mendacity was to insulate our foreign-policy elites’ plans for “winning” the conflict from the threat of an informed public debate. And yet, even as our leaders sacrificed democratic accountability to the higher cause of military victory, they had no clear idea of how to define the latter concept, let alone achieve it. Now, 18 years, $1 trillion, and over 2,300 American deaths later, the U.S. military is slowly but surely bequeathing Afghanistan to the Islamist forces that U.S. troops were trying to topple in the first place.
One week after the Post alerted the public to this historic scandal, Congress rewarded the bureaucracy responsible for it with a $22 billion budget increase. Before Donald Trump took office, the U.S. was spending more on its military each year than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, the United Kingdom, and Japan’s military spending, combined. With the passage of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Pentagon’s budget is now $130 billion larger than it was in 2016. Meanwhile, nearly 2 million Americans are still living in places that do not have running water.
Eighty-six senators voted for that NDAA. Bernie Sanders was not one of them. Despite the Post’s revelations — and the Taliban’s impending triumph — almost no one in Congress has been willing to describe the war in Afghanistan as a mistake. The socialist senator is an exception.
The Missouri Library Association says it is monitoring a bill put forward in the state House by a Republican lawmaker, which, if passed, could create committees across the state with the power to jail librarians for distributing material the panels deem “inappropriate.”
Under the Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act (H.B. 2044), locally elected “parental library review boards” would be permitted to unilaterally remove books they decide are sexually explicit or otherwise inappropriate for young readers from library shelves.
Libraries that allow children to borrow books that have been banned or whose access has been restricted would risk losing state funding, and librarians could be ordered to pay fines of up to $500 or sentenced to jail time for up to a year.
The Missouri Library Association (MLA), a non-profit which advocates for library service and librarians, said in a statement and on social media on Wednesday that it “will always stand against censorship and for the freedom to read, and therefore opposes Missouri House Bill 2044.”
And if Pence gets in, this kind of stuff will explode.
Imo, the chance that Pence will end up in the WH has been ignored for far too long. He’s been flying under the radar for the most part.
agree. be careful what you wish for, etc.
And to think that Republicans are always crowing about ‘big government’. This sounds like ‘big government’ intruding into a lot of people’s lives AND creating a bureaucratic nightmare!
I like Elizabeth Warren. I also like Bernie Sanders. On ideological grounds, they are my preferred candidates. Whether either can win remains to be seen. The primary contest is an important “barometer,” though there is no ultimate test beyond winning itself.
Warren’s electability argument might be right. Or it might not be right. Again, we will see how things unfold . . . .
At the same time, I think the latest brouhahas about Sanders and his “dissing” of Warren are kind of absurd.
First it was claimed that he was “going on the attack” because apparently some campaign offices were making scripted phone calls to potential voters that said that Warren was a more centrist candidate than Sanders, that her base of support was “educated people,” and that she did not mobilize new voters the way that Sanders does.
We can argue about whether these claims are right or wrong (they seem arguably true to me, especially the first two). But in any case, it is hard to see them as slanderous. or even “attacking.” They do assert a difference between the candidates–and there is a difference, indeed more than one! Isn’t that what campaigns do?
And isn’t that what Warren has done recently when she has muted her support for Medicare for All, and then claimed that she is the best candidate because she can “unify” disparate wings of the party?
The day the stuff about the script came out, Julian Castro, one of Warren’s top surrogates, was introducing Warren by saying she was the one to pick because 25% of Dems won’t vote for Bernie or Biden. All these article claim that the volunteers were saying Warren’s supporters were part of the “elite” which is a lie and how the Warren campaign characterized it.
This was a good read.
Interesting downstream effect of this week’s gambit – how can Warren credibly claim that she’s a unity candidate, after resorting to overt mudslinging? Guess it’s time for Plan C for her campaign…
To Polar Bear about Bruno Latour
and the lack of common ground for geopolitical issues
Polar Bear provided a link to a book review of Bruno’s latest book. It was behind a paywall so I didn’t get the whole thing. The book itself has been Xeroxed and posted on the web and is linked below. It is only 102 pages of texts with long footnotes.
Here is a later article by Bruno Latour which describes the challenge of global politics.
Architects and designers are facing a new problem when they aspire to build for a habitable planet.1 They have to answer a new question, because what used to be a
poor joke—“My dear fellow, you seem to live on another planet”—has become
literal—“Yes, we do intend to live on a different planet!” In the “old days” when
political scientists talked about geopolitics, they meant different nations with
opposing interests waging wars on the same material and geographic stage. Today,
geopolitics is also concerned with wars over the definition of the stage itself. A
conflict will be called, from now on, “of planetary relevance” not because it has the
planet for a stage, but because it is about which planet you are claiming to inhabit and
I am starting from the premise that what I have called the New Climatic Regime
organizes all political affiliations.2 The climate question is not one aspect of politics
among others, but that which defines the political order from beginning to end,
forcing all of us to redefine the older questions of social justice along with those of
identity, subsistence, and attachment to place. In recent years we have shifted from
questions of ecology—nature remaining outside the social order—to questions of
existential subsistence on threatened territories. Nature is no longer outside us but
under our feet, and it shakes the ground. Just as at the beginning of modern political
philosophy, in the time of Thomas Hobbes, we are dealing with humans not unified
but divided by nature to the point that they are engaged in civil wars as violent as the
religious wars of the past, and forced to look for peace by altogether reinventing the
social order.3 Climate mutation means that the question of the land on which we all
stand has come back into focus, hence the general political disorientation, especially
for the left, which did not expect to have to talk again of “people” and “soil”—
questions mostly abandoned to the right.
Since it is impossible to tackle this sort of conflict head on, I will turn to fiction and
take you on a brief tour of a planetarium of my invention. Whereas old planetary
influences on our horoscopes have been thrown into doubt for quite some time,
there is no question that the gravitational pulls of my seven hypothetical planets
have an immense influence on the way you feel, the way you behave, and especially
the way you predict your destiny. So, let’s visit a fictional astrology verging on
The principle that will lead me in this reckoning is the link between the territory
necessary for our subsistence and the territory that we recognize—legally,
affectively—as our own and thus as the source of our freedom and autonomy.4 In what follows, a territory is considered not as a chunk of space but as all the entities,
no matter how remote, that allow a particular agent to subsist. I will start from the
assumption that the present disorientation is due to the fabulous increase in the lack
of fit between the two sets of constraints: we inhabit as citizens a land that is not the
one we could subsist on, hence the increased feeling of homelessness, a feeling thatis
transforming the former ecological questions into a new set of more urgent and
more tragic political struggles. People everywhere are again in need of land, a
situation that I call, for this reason, the new “wicked universal
Thank you so much, Don! I am too scattered to keep track of emails very well, but this will give me an opportunity to really read something of his. Thank you.
These are a couple of good places to start. Glad I got back to you.
From the quotation from his fictional planetarium above
(I copied it to WORD and found out that the copy from a pdf put in line feeds which led to the strange spacing above. Here is one long sentence.
The climate question is not one aspect of politics among others, but that which defines the political order from beginning to end, forcing all of us to redefine the older questions of social justice along with those of identity, subsistence, and attachment to place. In recent years we have shifted from questions of ecology—nature remaining outside the social order—to questions of existential subsistence on threatened territories.
I added the bold.
What could be stronger than existential substance on threatened territories?
We are facing the same future as Kola bears in AU.
In even more recent articles, Bruno has used the word engender
How can the earth including the life forms engender themselves?
The Obama coalition has become almost mythic within the Democratic Party for having united first-time voters, people of color and moderates to win the presidency in 2008. This year, Senator Bernie Sanders is betting that he can win with the support of young voters and people of color — but without the moderates.
To do that, he’s counting on winning over and energizing the Latino vote. The ultimate test of whether he will be able to do that is in California, where Latinos are the single biggest nonwhite voting bloc. While young Latinos in California overwhelmingly support Mr. Sanders, to become the Democratic nominee, he will need the support of their parents and grandparents as well.
Alas, a podcast. I’d be curious to hear the substance of the editorial, not sure I agree with the last premise there.
What a world. Ive posted Tucker two days in a row
Glenn Greenwald makes the point about seeking out allies from a broad spectrum
will the dem establishment learn???
too much butter on their bread already so cling to where bread is buttered
every day it seems even more important to elect Bernie
“ tell her you’re busy if she ever calls.” lol
Some good news in Australia
As wildfires tear through Australia, a specialized team of firefighters has managed to save hidden groves of the Wollemi pine — a rare prehistoric tree that outlived the dinosaurs.
The trees are so rare, they were thought to be extinct until 1994.https://t.co/oLHrccHopZ
— NPR (@NPR) January 16, 2020
On cue, Real Clear Politics, The Hill, and Politico join in to anoint Biden after the CNN manufactured debate flap. Corporate media is so transparent.
thank God we have a sea of mostly young people, it seems, that continue to surge forward in waves and ignore the MSM. I would love to bring in more of the population but you know the old saying, you can lead a horse to water…
Well then, according to some people, I guess that means that Biden will need to exceed expectations in Iowa now in order to be taken seriously??
I saw the short interview before but missed the fact that it was with the NYT and the tweet says that Bernie’s kick ass is probably why NYT will not endorse him on Jan 19 in two days
On Sun the NYTimes will endorse its candidate for President. They sat down with each candidate to interview them. During his interview, Bernie wouldn’t suck up. When referring 2 the struggle of the working class, he told them,”Maybe the NY Times has failed them too.” Wow. Truth. https://t.co/nkYDDnlMNz
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) January 17, 2020
LOL. The Times was never going to endorse Bernie. It’s between Warren, Biden, and Bloomberg. Lucky the Times endorsement has zero impact on the audience Bernie appeals to. Actually, probably zero impact for anyone, but I guess supporters of those three (especially Warren and Bloomberg) might care somewhat.
In the long pod cast a couple of days ago from Michael Moore he concentrated on Liz and her lies.
During that podcast he mentioned that a couple FBI agents and a NY City cop came to his place in NY (lives there part time) because the bomber suspect in FL had more material on Moore than any other person. His van had bull eyes on several photos including Moore. They went to the post office before going to his house to see if there was anything sent in the mail to him like he did for others.
He noted in that podcast that he had captured the bomber on tape during taping a rally in FL. A little over 3 min of raw film that didn’t make the cut for his movie Fahrenheit 11/9
Shows the fanatics that we are up against and I don’t want to think about them out there and what they might do
There were some unhinged people picketing outside the Queens rally in October. One for sure was way mentally ill, I felt sorry for him, but there are some worrisome types out there. Some of them strung a big banner on the bridge in a move that appeared very reckless.
But “believe women” is getting thrown around by political strategists and official opinion-havers to support the Elizabeth Warren’s claim that Bernie Sanders told her, in a private meeting with no witnesses and no evidentiary support, that a woman could not win the presidency in 2020. This is not only a grotesque distortion of what “believe women” is supposed to mean, it undermines the good work the phrase’s use was doing.
The term “believe women” was never supposed to mean “believe everything that women say and don’t bother to investigate their claims”. The simplicity of the message has irked many – including me – in its ability to be misused and misappropriated since its inception, but many activists have taken it up in good faith to say believing women and believing victims is only the start of a process toward justice. But in the last couple days after Warren’s campaign first made the accusation and then double-downed at Tuesday’s debate (with an unfair and obviously biased assist from debate moderator Abby Phillip), many are using it to try to shut down any debate, investigation, or dissent. When Sanders’ campaign denied the accusation and supporters showed interviews going back decades of Sanders saying a woman could be president, plus evidence of Sanders’ wide support of female candidates in various campaigns, commentators remained unmoved. “Believe women.”
The language of abuse and trauma is creeping into political rhetoric, as if every interaction between a man and a woman these days can be understood as a potential violation. Virginia Heffernan wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “Sanders had gaslighted Warren over whether he told her a female candidate couldn’t win the 2020 election.” Gaslighting is a term for one person lying to their romantic partner so effectively and consistently that they start to question their version of reality. Had Heffernan simply said Sanders lied, it would not have given the accusation the melodramatic pull of centuries of stories of women being tormented and abused by the men in their lives. Lying is something politicians do. Gaslighting is something misogynistic monsters do.
The goal is to put the offense on a higher level than one of just lying. That way, if the Sanders campaign decides to point to all of the lies Warren has told throughout her career – that her father was a janitor, that she is Native American – her lies won’t matter as much because she’s just electioneering while his lies are rooted in misogyny. It’s a trick that still works for Hillary Clinton, who has repeatedly complained about the lack of support Sanders gave to her campaign, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. (Clinton, after losing the primary to Obama in 2008, appeared at two rallies with Obama and did 10 solo campaign appearances to help him get elected. Sanders, after losing the primary to Clinton in 2016, did three events with Clinton and 37 solo events.) Many of her supporters still claim this supposed lack of support is proof of Sanders’ “problem with women”.
This kind of dirty politics can be effective, but the real losers here are the women for whom “believe women” still means something. To turn it from a campaign for empathy to a cheap slogan to siphon off primary voters hurts the credibility of activists who have been trying to use it for good.
There’s always been an element of “by any means necessary” in American politics, with tactics like George W Bush’s 2000 campaign telephoning primary voters in South Carolina to insinuate his opponent John McCain had an “illegitimate black child” being surprisingly common. But it’s frankly disgusting to see so-called feminists undercut the work of judicial activists all for a political win. Using “believe women” in a smear campaign can only work to support the big smirk and the eyeroll of the people we need most to sway.
Voting has begun!
My amazing Rep @IlhanMN feelin’ the Bern 🔥 in the arctic cold MN temperatures… primary vote for @BernieSanders has been cast! ✅🗳 GO BERNIE!! #BernieSanders #Bernie2020 #FeelTheBern #minnesota #democraticprimaries #ivoted pic.twitter.com/e6yQD1BsYL
— Shelby Schnoor (@MNWildHeart) January 17, 2020
It must be nice to be able to buy, well at least have the money to try to buy, everything!
El Bloombito parody account says Bloomberg reached out with proposal to work together
The Michael Bloomberg campaign allegedly reached out to a parody Twitter account dubbed “Miguel Bloombito” in search of potential digital collaboration.
The account teases multi-billionaire, who has hired a Spanish tutor since the start of his campaign, on his mangled pronunciation of the second most spoken language in the U.S.
The account been making fun of Bloomberg since he was mayor, playing off his nickname in New York’s Latino community: “El Bloombito.”
Rachel Figueroa, a Staten Island resident who runs the account, told The Hill a producer at Hawkfish, the Bloomberg-owned tech firm that’s handling the campaign’s digital presence, reached out to her Wednesday asking if they could create content together.
“We are working with the Mike Bloomberg campaign on editorial content and we wanted to reach out because we are super interested in working with your Bloombito parody account,” the employee wrote, according to screenshots Figueroa shared with The Hill.
“I appreciate you thinking of me but no thank you,” she responded.
I missed this:
Black caucus in Nevada’s largest county endorses Sanders
“Bernie Sanders has been a lifelong advocate for civil rights and economic justice. His presidential campaign goes the furthest in addressing issues that impact the African American community nationally and here in Nevada,” caucus chairwoman Yvette Williams said in a statement. “As representatives of this community, CCBC looks forward to working with Sen. Bernie Sanders to ensure our political system works for everyone.”
Clark county, Nevada’s most populous county, includes Las Vegas. The Clark County Education Association, the state’s biggest teachers union, also endorsed Sanders earlier this week.
Nevada is also the first primary state with a substantial Latino population, a demographic with which Sanders has led in several polls this election cycle, particularly among young voters.
Which brings about the age old question of
“If the black caucus of Nevadas largest county endorses you at the same time you are being smeared by the media as a sexist backed by a bunch of bros and that same media doesnt cover it.. did it really happen?”
A lot of other endorsements have been overshadowed by anonymous cnn sourced stories.
this is spreading, very purposefully. don’t know if Bannon’s group is still strong, but it seems they have made quite a contribution.
The night the video was recorded, Bolsonaro had said of Alvim: “Now we have a real secretary of culture.”
Brazil culture secretary forced out after appearing to paraphrase Nazi Goebbels
— Sam Cowie (@SamCowie84) January 17, 2020
Not a single damn mention of “climate change.”
Trump’s NAFTA is a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry.
I voted NO because the future of our planet is more important than the short-term profits of Exxon Mobil and Chevron. pic.twitter.com/YgSZcigjjX
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 17, 2020
sent you an email. 🙏🦜🦜
got it! Ill try and get them out this afternoon but if something holds me up Tuesday for sure (Im off monday! maybe I can add to the menus now that I finally removed old candidates)
no hurry! please and thank you. 🤗🦜🤗🦜🤗
In America, the term “middle class” has long been used to describe the majority of wage and salary earners, from those receiving a median annual income of around $50,000 to those who earn three or four times that amount. Whether Democrat or Republican, politicians from across the political aisle claim to represent the middle class—that vast-yet-amorphous segment of the population where the managers and the managed all seem to fit together.
The term has always been somewhat problematic when it comes to politics. As Joan C. Williams observes in her 2017 book, “White Working Class: Overcoming Class Cluelessness in America,” a “central way we make class disappear is to describe virtually everyone as ‘middle class.’ ” The majority of Americans see themselves as middle class, including those in the top 10% earning several times the average income. According to Williams, a close friend of hers who “undoubtedly belonged to the top 1%” once referred to herself as middle class, a perspective that the author describes as “class cluelessness.”
This cluelessness was also evident in a New York Times article last summer titled “What Middle Class Families Want Politicians to Know,” which included interviews with a number of purportedly middle class families with household incomes of up to $400,000 (only one of the interviewees earned less than $100,000, with the average around $200,000).
The fact that people who earn a quarter-million dollars annually place themselves in the same category as those earning $70,000 tells us just how politically useless the term “middle class” has become in contemporary America. Even when we take into account geographic factors and fluctuations in the cost of living, there is little rational justification for categorizing a $60,000-a-year blue-collar worker with a lawyer or doctor earning in excess of $200,000.
In the post-World War II era, thanks to the struggle of labor and the policies of the New Deal, which aimed to reduce inequality and mediate class tensions, many in the working class became comfortably middle class.
The new middle class flourished until the capitalist class decided to revolt against the legacy of the New Deal toward the end of the 20th century. In the contemporary era, many who would have been middle-class in the postwar years have effectively been proletarianized once again, and economic inequality has returned pre-Great Depression heights. Proletarianization, Mills explained, “refers to shifts of middle-class occupations toward wage-workers in terms of: income, property, skill, prestige or power, irrespective of whether or not the people involved are aware of these changes.
The proletarianization of the middle class over the past 50 years has had an enormously detrimental effect on communities across the country, but it has taken quite a while for many working people in America to recognize their new situation in terms of consciousness and outlook. The enduring popularity of the term “middle class” reflects this state of affairs.
In the Democratic primaries, only one candidate has deliberately chosen to use “working class” over “middle class.” Not surprisingly, that candidate is Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The more young and working-class people come to recognize their own situation and place in the 21st century American economy, the more they seem to embrace “socialist” policies that are rejected by “middle class” sensibilities.
In the Democratic primaries, only one candidate has made raising levels of class consciousness part of his campaign strategy, and in an election that could very well be determined by working-class voters, this may be the strategy to defeat Trump.
Lowkey on the military industrial complex pic.twitter.com/NHVpwypn5o
— Lowkey (@Lowkey0nline) January 17, 2020
full vid, so much truth, so little time.
Hope he runs for something. Electric.
Eric Levitz takes apart David Brooks’ latest lunacy.
David Brooks’s latest column asserts that, in the United States, workers’ wages are determined largely by the value of what they produce. The quality of the well-paid pundit’s ensuing argument fatally undermines its own premise.
Brooks frames his case as a jeremiad against “Theyism” — which is to say, the belief that there is a “malevolent, elite ‘they’ out there” who “are destroying life for the rest of us.” Brooks argues that the malevolent politicians who engage in this rhetorical mode — namely Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump — take a “genuine tension in society” and blow it up “into an all-explaining cartoon in which one part of America is trying to destroy the other part.”
The columnist proceeds to sketch out an all-explaining cartoon in which the They-ists are trying to destroy the capitalist system that is working so well for the rest of us.
Specifically, Brooks posits that Bernie Sanders’s “class-war Theyism” — which holds that “billionaires have rigged the economy to benefit themselves and impoverish everyone else” — is plainly false. What follows is exceptionally dense with fallacies, even for a David Brooks column.
The billionaire class’s investment in the GOP is one reason why our historically wealthy nation has an aberrantly stingy welfare state. And our aberrantly stingy welfare state is a leading cause of our nation’s extraordinarily high levels of economic inequality. If Brooks’s thesis were correct — and America’s inequality problem were driven overwhelming by gaps in productivity rather than policy choices — then inequality in the U.S. and Western Europe should have grown at roughly similar rates over the past four decades, as both regions were subject to the same basic economic developments. But this did not happen, because Western Europe’s plutocrats aren’t quite as good at class war as the ones we’ve got over here.
Fortunately for Brooks, precisely because his column is so exquisitely wrong, its wrongness will have no adverse impact on his economic condition. The market for all-explaining cartoons that comfort the comfortable is a lucrative one, and he is indisputably a master of his trade.
What follows is exceptionally dense with fallacies, even for a David Brooks column
Honestly, not as many people are being fooled by these ‘pundits’ as before.
This really upset Winnie!
Don't tell David you have diabetes and work at Walmart earning 26k year with a health insurance deductible of $7500. Grandma is feeding your kids with her SSI money.
Actually, fuck you, David Brookshttps://t.co/rT8GpYdbs6
— Medicare for All! (@WaywardWinifred) January 17, 2020
just leave The garbage on the street and the children unattended and the toilets dirty for a week or so. Then let’s see how much value he describes to us peons.
the billionaires’ investment in both parties. that’s why the DNC didn’t get all in behind Bernie and are actively fighting him.
still, his main point, that Brooks is a clueless, selfish jerk who twists logic into pretzels to justify his world view, is most welcome.
Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders, stung by a feud with progressive ally Elizabeth Warren over gender and electability, released an ad aimed at U.S. women voters on Friday touting his support for women’s rights.
Ahead of a weekend trip to New Hampshire, the second state to vote in the Democratic presidential nominating race next month, the ad highlights Sanders’ support for equal pay, abortion rights, paid family leave and affordable child care.
“Bernie Sanders is on our side and always has been,” the female narrator says in the ad, which the campaign said would air in New Hampshire along with a second video touting Sanders’ ambitious goals such as universal healthcare and affordable college.
“Women do not need 80 cents on the dollar. They need the whole damn dollar,” Sanders says in the television spot.
Not such a great California poll. (Survey USA). Not so different from the last poll except Warren is doing much better
30% Joe Biden (+2 from Nov)
20% Bernie Sanders (+2)
20% Elizabeth Warren (+7)
8% Pete Buttigieg same
6% Mike Bloomberg (+3)
4% Andrew Yang (-1)
4% Tom Steyer
2% Tulsi Gabbard
2% Amy Klobuchar
maybe some cory and khives
It turns out that Bernie loves a trap beat. Developed by hip-hop producers in Atlanta and across the South in the aughts, trap has risen to prominence and at times even melded into pop music’s genre-amorphous production palate. By 2017, it found Bernie. Flittering hi-hats, 808 drum sounds, and bouncing spectral synths began accompanying videos on textbook issues: the myth of trickle-down economics, Amazon not paying living wages, immigration reform. But the anti-war video was different. The unapologetic real talk about a manifestly grave issue, the rap braggadocio from a guy who once put out an album of lefty folk classics, the low-budget music video aesthetic—all of it led to the birth of a sort of meme. Trap Beat Bernie.
To discuss the beats, their thematic connections to Sanders’ core issues, and how his team thinks about its use of music, Mother Jones spoke to Ansel Herz and Katie Downey, respectively digital director and deputy digital director for Sanders’ press office.
Why the fuck Bernie Sanders drop a trap beat mid video https://t.co/CEj0VGEwCH
— _riq (@mvnza) January 3, 2020
DSA all the way!!! 🌹🌹🌹 pic.twitter.com/7Pi6kQgPmk
— Wesley J Wiles #MMT Radical Environmentalist 🌹 (@WilesWj) January 17, 2020
the knight is Bernie.
As we go into this election year, it is imperative that we nominate the very best candidate to represent the interests of the people. That is why the @RoseCaucus is unanimously endorsing @BernieSanders for the Democratic nomination! 🌹 ✊🏽✊🏻✊🏿✊🏼✊🏾 🌹#Roses4Bernie #RoseCaucus pic.twitter.com/3VwLposE7O
— 🌹 Salem Snow For Congress (@Salem4Congress) January 17, 2020
Let’s be clear about who is rigging what: it is Donald Trump’s action to use the power of the federal government for his own political benefit that is the cause of the impeachment trial. Democrats are going to unite to sweep him out of the White House in November. https://t.co/FmtsHFsFhN
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 17, 2020
This man is leading with black voters. What a country.
In a long and often rambling interview with The New York Times published Friday, former Vice President Joe Biden responded to a question about the legacy of racism by blaming Black parents for the racial achievement gap.
In the third 2020 Democratic presidential debate, held in September, Biden had said that one way America could address the legacy of slavery and segregation was by bridging the “word gap” between white and Black children. “A kid coming from a very poor school, a very poor background, will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time we get there,” Biden said. He then recommended that Black parents play records at night to “make sure that kids hear words.”
The New York Times editorial board pressed Biden on these claims and asked him to elaborate on how solving the word gap would address the legacy of slavery. Biden began his answer by noting that former President Barack Obama had also been criticized for advising Black parents to take more responsibility for raising children. He then suggested that America could do more to help minority parents “provide more guidance and better guidance for themselves and their families.”
Finally, he suggested that Black parents may not participate in their children’s schooling due to embarrassment about their own lack of education. Biden said he’d learned from his wife, a former school teacher, that poor parents “don’t show up because they’re embarrassed. They’re embarrassed the teacher’s going to say — and it’s hard to say, ‘Well, I can’t read.’”
While somewhat masked by his choppy delivery, Biden’s suggestion that Black parents are reluctant to participate in their children’s education and are responsible for the racial achievement gap has no basis in fact.
This is the Intercept so what’s said here can be trusted. Bernie’s campaign wants to de-escalate. I don’t understand though why Warren did what she did on stage after the debate was over.
THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN of Sen. Bernie Sanders has researched the question of whether the same person can serve as both vice president and treasury secretary, according to three sources on the campaign. The person the Sanders campaign had in mind with the inquiry was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, his rival for the nomination and the bane of Wall Street over the last decade.
The answer the lawyers came back with was yes: There is nothing in the Constitution that bars the vice president from also serving as treasury secretary. Sanders has made no final decisions on a potential running mate or cabinet officers, considering such questions premature and presumptuous, but the research into the question of Warren’s dual eligibility reflects the political affinity that has long existed between the two — an affinity that was dealt a setback over the past week, as the pair clashed over the contents of a year-old private conversation. The sources were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations.
Warren and Sanders have been allies since at least 2008, before she came to Washington to chair a panel with oversight of the Wall Street bailout. An author of books on the struggles of the middle class and an expert on bankruptcy law, she was invited by Sanders to a Vermont town hall, where the two talked about their shared agenda. Sanders was a strong supporter of her effort to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the wake of the financial crisis and privately lobbied President Barack Obama to name her the head of the new agency. Ideologically, Sanders and Warren are largely aligned when it comes to Wall Street, though Warren has concentrated more attention on bankers, meaning the two different skill sets could complement each other in the same administration.
Warren, after her election to the Senate in 2012, lobbied for and won a seat on the Banking Committee, where she continued to hammer away at Wall Street and its feckless regulators. Warren’s is the type of oversight and policymaking Sanders could envision leading from the perch at the Treasury Department, sources said, with the added power of being vice president, as well. Though no serious discussions have begun about a cabinet or running mate, the campaign wanted to know whether such a scenario was constitutionally permissible.
The news of the Sanders’s camp interest in a dual role for Warren comes after a week of tension between the longtime allies.
It was widely assumed in the immediate aftermath of the story that Warren’s campaign had planted the story. Indeed, CNN anchor Erin Burnett said as much on air. But Burnett was merely making an assumption, and had no inside knowledge of the sources, two CNN sources told The Intercept.
Since Warren told the story more broadly to a group of journalists, CNN’s sources could have come from outside the campaign.
On Monday, Warren told The Intercept that her campaign did not intentionally plant the CNN story. That Warren told a number of journalists about the meeting a year ago adds context to that statement. If Warren had only told her closest advisers about the meeting, then it would be logical to assume that her campaign dictated the timing of the story, dropping it just ahead of a debate, and just weeks before the primary, to undercut Sanders. But since Warren told the story more broadly to a group of journalists, CNN’s sources could have come from outside the campaign. The revelation does not rule out the possibility that someone in her campaign was a source, but it opens up other possibilities, as well.
In chat groups and in private conversations with people outside the campaign, Warren aides have insisted that they were not the source of the leak, and only learned about it in the midst of debate prep, contributing to the delayed response. The first time the campaign saw Sanders’s on-record denial was in print in the CNN story. “What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist, and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could,” Sanders said. After the story broke, the tension continued to escalate.
Neither camp took potential offroads. Sanders could have allowed that since he had said that “Trump is a sexist…who would weaponize whatever he could,” that he could understand how Warren may have inferred from that that he didn’t think a woman could overcome such obstacles. Warren could have said that she takes her friend at his word that he didn’t mean it, and the press could have moved on. Neither gave an inch, though, and Warren issued a blunt statement. “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed,” Warren said in her statement, that didn’t come until 7:30 in the evening, after the story had festered for much of the day.
Bernie rising, Warren stagnant. Bernie clearly second. Bernie leading the under 50s at 32% to Biden’s 24% and Warren’s 16%. SUSA has been more Biden friendly than other polls but it’s good that Bernie is rising more than anyone other than Bloomberg.
National SUSA poll
Biden 32 (+2)
Bernie 21 (+4)
Warren 14 (-1)
Buttigieg 9 (-2)
Bloomberg 9 (+6)
You don't need to be an educator to help us amplify #EducatorsForBernie!
Parents, students, public education allies…why do you stand with the millions of teachers that support #Bernie2020? What about his plans speak to you as it relates to education?#NotMeUS https://t.co/ZvvET3xjjd
— TrekkerTeach (@trekkerteach12) January 18, 2020
The individual who came across this deserves the credit. I am only sharing it. More in the comment section.
victim of capitalism
ACAB · anti-capitalist · anti-fascist · anarchist-curious · cis gay […]
After what happened this week this could be a bombshell.
THIS IS QUITE A CATCH! (Yes I intended to yell.)😁👇
— victim of capitalism (@joshieecs) January 17, 2020
Pay attention to the date!
By Jonathan Martin
Dec. 13, 2018
WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders met Wednesday night at her condominium in Washington to discuss their political intentions but did not reach any accord about coordinating their dueling presidential ambitions, according to two Democrats briefed on their discussion.
Only the two senators were present and they stated what has become abundantly clear: that they are both seriously considering seeking the Democratic nomination in 2020. But neither Ms. Warren nor Mr. Sanders sought support from the other or tried to dissuade the other from running, said the officials familiar with the meeting.
Ms. Warren sought the sit-down and did so as a courtesy and because they have a longstanding friendship that is rooted in candor, according to one Democrat close to the Massachusetts senator. Her office declined to comment about the meeting.
LOL They added this update today in keeping with the latest narrative.
[Update: Bernie Sanders is said to have told Elizabeth Warren that a woman could not win the presidency.]
Oh that addition makes me FURIOUS!!!
why in hell she ran should’ve been our first clue. i imagine he was a liil upset
I don’t think so. Remember Bernie always says “it is not about me it is about us”.
“is said”? that’s some fancy journalism.
great catch, btw. i hope they dated their update
Now I would imagine that he is not happy about her latest actions as it will only hurt the cause.
true but if she was for us, she would’ve thrown all her weight behind bernie? c u tmrw🤗
Restrict your comments to this issue as I imagine that LD will have a new post up in the morning.
I don’t spend my time in mansions talking to big-dollar donors about our campaign behind closed doors. We’re doing our campaign update to our donors and supporters right here, right now, with all of […]
Tips, Comments, Complaints, Etc!
If the video does not start on Bernie’s appearance, please fast forward to the 18 minute mark!
New data out Wednesday from federal and international scientists that confirmed 2019 was the second-warmest year on record and capped off the warmest decade on record underscores the scale of the global crisis, said climate advocates.
The temperature data was released in the U.S. by NOAA and NASA. The World Meteorological Organization, which consolidates analysis from NOAA and NASA as well as datasets from the U.K.’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts and its Copernicus Climate Change Service, and the Japan Meteorological Agency, also issued its findings Wednesday.
“The decade that just ended is clearly the warmest decade on record,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “Every decade since the 1960s clearly has been warmer than the one before.”
The agencies also drew attention to the record warmth from 2015-2019—a time frame that included warmest-year-on-the-books 2016, which, unlike 2019, included a strong El Niño event.
“The past five years have been the five warmest on record; the last decade has been the warmest on record: These are unquestionably alarming signs,” said Jean-Noël Thépaut, director of ECMWF Copernicus.
The trajectory the Earth is headed in is leading towards even more dangerous levels of heating.
“On the current path of carbon dioxide emissions, we are heading towards a temperature increase of 3 to 5 degrees Celsius by the end of century,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.
Cornel West campaigned here Wednesday for Sen. Bernard Sanders, counseling voters against buying into what he called the shady ways in which the Vermont socialist’s rivals are trying to sow division in the 2020 Democratic presidential race and his political revolution.
The word of caution from the fiery black scholar and activist follows a he-said-she-said, clash between Mr. Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren that spilled onto the debate stage this week over whether he told her that a woman couldn’t win the presidency.
The debate ended with post-debate hot-mic moment, which CNN released Wednesday night, that showed Ms. Warren accuse Mr. Sanders of calling her “a liar on national television” because he disagreed with her version of events. Mr. Sanders was taken aback, saying they should have that conversation another time, and reminding her that “you called me a liar.”
Less than 24 hours later, Mr. West and Nina Turner, national co-chair of the Sanders campaign, were here on the campus of Iowa State University vouching for the 78-year-old’s integrity.
“Martin Luther King, Jr. was very much like Bernie Sanders,” Mr. West told the dozens that turned out for the event. “It was about honesty in the face of deception. It is not about mendacity. It is not about being too arrogant, condescending.”
T and R, LD!! I will post campaign meetup notes in a separate comment. 🙂 I, for one who has been a life-long ERA-for-both-sexes supporter, am really disgusted with the quality of female candidates. If $hrill and Warren are the best we gals can hope for, I give up! 🙁
$hrill and Warren that’s our generation, and I hear ya about giving up. That why I’m hoping for a Nina, AOC or someone else from the next generation. Bernie’s the last shot from ours.
‘They should be scared.’ As Bernie Sanders rises in Iowa, his 2020 supporters slam establishment warnings he could lose to Donald Trump.
For the last five years, Diane and Joel Franken have been fervent students of the politics of Bernie Sanders and the mechanics of his presidential campaigns.
The couple, dressed in matching blue “Bernie” T-shirts for a recent event in Davenport, have seen the Vermont senator speak at 10 rallies, watched him play softball at the Field of Dreams in Iowa, frequently volunteered for the campaign and even housed Sanders campaign staffers in their home for the last two presidential cycles.
They’ve noticed some differences in 2020 compared with the last go-round: The staff is more diverse and experienced, the campaign is doing a better job of reaching out to black and Latino voters, and the voter contact program is more sophisticated than it was four years ago. Plus, Iowans are far more familiar with Sanders, who now has the benefit of being a household name, with his push for a political revolution well-known to the masses.
“I have no doubt he’s going to win Iowa this time. His ground team this year is unbelievable,” Joel Franken, a 73-year-old arts educator, said before a recent Sanders rally at St. Ambrose University as his wife nodded in agreement. “They’re just so solid organizationalwise, they did well in the caucus system last time — which is not easy — and I think they really have it knocked this year.”
A key Iowa poll adds to Franken’s optimism, placing Sanders atop the Democratic field in Iowa for the first time in either of his runs for president. It’s far from a runaway, however, as former Vice President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg all remain within a few points of one another in the most recent Iowa surveys.
In poll after poll, however, one advantage Sanders clearly has demonstrated is having the most enthusiastic and committed supporters in the state of any candidate — important factors since caucusing involves heading out on a likely cold February night the day after the Super Bowl and committing a couple of hours to back a candidate.
Beyond the poll numbers, Sanders has a built-in benefit as the only contender competing in Iowa for a second-straight election, with many of his campaign organizers and volunteers returning. He also holds a growing financial advantage over his fellow front-runners in Iowa, $96 million last year from more than 1 million donors and more than 4 million individual grassroots contributions, a record for a presidential campaign.
What CNN did to Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic presidential debate — stabbing him with the gender card on behalf of a weakened Elizabeth Warren — was cheap and unfair.
And it was shameful.
I’m probably the last guy to defend Sanders. He is a man of the far left and I most certainly am not.
But even a conservative like me can see that Sanders was cheated out of the Democratic presidential nomination the last time, with the Democratic National Committee rigging the whole thing for Hillary Clinton. And now it’s happening again.
No wonder Sanders’ supporters are upset. They’ve seen this before. They watched the same game play out three years ago, when the Democratic nomination was almost his, and establishment media handmaidens of the Democratic National Committee protected Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump.
A Sanders vs. Trump campaign in 2016 would have been a clash of populist titans. Sanders could have won. We might see this matchup in 2020. Establishment Democrats are panicked, and conventional wisdom suggests Trump would smash him, but I’m not so sure.
The electorate has been primed by relentless media attacks on Trump, who attacks them back. Americans are unsettled and worried about their future in a world undergoing economic upheaval. Bernie could win.
The Democratic base is energized for 2020. Sanders, who suffered a heart attack weeks ago, looks positively vital when compared to Biden. Conventional wisdom also once said Republican Jeb Bush couldn’t be beat. How did that turn out?
Joe is the new Jeb.
This may be correlated (not statistically, of course). You’ll have to click on the image to read what it says.
Sanders is likely to face two strikes—one in the capitol and one from capital—if he wins the Democratic nomination and later the White House.
Saw this yesterday, an excellent read.
A comprehensive new study that reviewed nearly three decades of existing analyses shows implementation of a single-payer healthcare system like Medicare for All could dramatically reduce costs in the United States, with savings likely experienced in the first year and definitely over the longer term.
The meta-analysis, published Wednesday in the PLOS Medicine journal, reviewed 22 existing studies of state and national single-payer healthcare proposals.
Christopher Cai, a third-year medical student at the University of California at San Francisco and the primary author of the study, explained in a statement that the economic findings were similar regardless of ideological perspective.
“The most important conclusion from our study is that there is near consensus among that single-payer would save money, both in the first year of implementation and in the long term,” Cai told Common Dreams. “These findings held true regardless of the political affiliation of study authors.”
Of the 22 studies reviewed, 19 of them, or 86%, showed that healthcare costs would be reduced in the first year. All showed savings within a decade.
— Rep. Mark Pocan, who didn’t back anyone in Wisconsin’s Democratic presidential primary in 2016, announced Thursday that this year he is endorsing Bernie Sanders, giving the Vermont senator a boost in the battleground state three months before its primary.
Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren have been battling to win over the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and Pocan’s endorsement is a big score for Sanders in Wisconsin.
“I have enormous respect for Elizabeth Warren,” Pocan told The Associated Press in an interview. “I just think not only do families connect very strongly with Bernie Sanders, the electability is very important.”
Pocan, who also will be chairing Sanders’ Wisconsin campaign, is one of the most liberal members of Congress and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. He said that he decided to endorse this year because he felt Sanders had a strong connection to his beliefs and the best chance of winning.
“We really can’t take another term of Donald Trump,” Pocan said. “To me, the single strongest candidate we have running, the most electable, the most likely to beat Donald Trump is Bernie Sanders.”
Sanders carried all but one of Wisconsin’s 72 counties in 2016, defeating Hillary Clinton by 13 points.
This is good news. Now only if he could snare Tammy Baldwin’s support.
And Progressive Caucus co-chair Jayapal, but that probably won’t come until after the first caucuses and primaries.
Baldwin may be a lost cause. sadly.
I figured Warren then Bydone for her, but with her hit job on Bernie it may have swayed her to Bydone
“I just think not only do families connect very strongly with Bernie Sanders, the electability is very important.”
As you know Bernie won WI in 16. Trumpcorp won wi by only 23 K votes. 250K registered Dems sat the election out. If Bernie’s the nominee trumpcorp will not carry wi.
i Honestly think we will win in a landslide if Bernie wins. And I think they know that and that’s why they’re putting up every damn roadblock they can.
Eighteen progressive groups have signed a unity pledge vowing to keep their fire trained on the “corporate wing” of the Democratic Party amid a burgeoning feud between Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) that has split the left.
The signers include seven groups who back Sanders’s 2020 presidential bid and two that back Warren’s. The remaining nine groups are either supportive of both candidates, such as Democracy for America, or have not endorsed anyone yet.
The three-part pledge says the groups will “focus our fight for the nomination against candidates supported by the corporate wing, instead of fighting each other.” The groups say they’re committed to ensuring a progressive candidate wins the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination and that they’ll join forces to ensure that candidate ultimately defeats President Trump.
“When progressives fight each other, the establishment wins,” said Charles Chamberlain, the chairman for Democracy for America. “We saw it in 2004 when progressives took each other out and John Kerry slipped through to win Iowa and then went on to lose in November to a very unpopular Republican incumbent. We’re determined to not let that happen again.”
Sanders and Warren are at the top of many polls of Iowa with the caucuses only weeks away, and liberals are fearful that the bitter dispute will hurt both candidates and potentially pave the way for a centrist contender, such as former Vice President Joe Biden or former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, to emerge victorious.
“We need a bold progressive president. In our opinion, the most inspirational and electable Democrat we could nominate is Elizabeth Warren,” the Progressive Change Campaign Committee said in a statement. “We are joining this effort out of a belief that it represents leaders in the progressive movement urging everyone from campaign staff to Twitter commenters to focus on defeating a corporate, establishment Democrat like Joe Biden. This effort inherently includes standing opposed to sexism and bad-faith arguments in the primary process. We look forward to working with our friends to enforce these principles.”
The unity effort, called the “Progressives Unite 2020 campaign,” features a website where members can sign the pledge and commit to voting for either Sanders or Warren at their caucus or primary.
The pledge Thursday includes groups that are supporting Sanders or Warren, or both, or who have not yet endorsed any candidate. Among its ranks are DFA, Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, Sunrise Movement and the Working Families Party.
The groups said in a prepared statement that they will ask members to sign onto a pledge to vote strategically for Sanders and Warren in their caucuses or primaries. They said that in Iowa the groups will be “working to ensure their members do not leave their Feb. 3 caucus site without casting their final vote for one of the top two progressives in the race.”
this is good. concentrating on second choice caucus votes is important and doable.
We need to listen to Norman Solomon, Ilhan Omar, and Waleed Shahid and try to clean up the mess Warren created.
The dismal conflict that erupted this week between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren should never have happened. But now that it has, supporters must provide grassroots leadership to mitigate the dangerous mess.
The argument that broke out between Warren and Sanders last weekend and escalated in recent days is already history that threatens to foreshadow tragedy. Progressives cannot afford to give any more aid and comfort to the forces behind corporate contenders Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, or the plutocratic $54 billion man Michael Bloomberg waiting in the wings.
In a sense, this moment calls for Sanders and Warren supporters to be better than their candidates, who’ve descended into an avoidably harsh conflict that hugely benefits corporate power and corporate Democrats—and will do so even more to the extent that it doesn’t subside.
“So much is at stake that Sanders and Warren must be called upon to look beyond their own anger, no matter how justified. A demolition derby between the two—or their supporters—won’t resolve who’s right. But it will help the right wing.
As an active Sanders supporter, I had been heartened by the nonaggression pact and frequent mutual support on many substantive issues between Warren and Sanders. While I’m much more aligned with Bernie’s political worldview, I have held Warren in high regard. Not so high now.
But here’s the overarching point: Whatever Sanders and Warren supporters think of each other’s candidate now, there is no plausible pathway forward to the 2020 presidential nomination for either if the conflict festers.
Lost in a volcano of anger from many Bernie supporters is the reality that a tactical coalition with Warren is vital for blocking the nomination of the likes of Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg. That’s why BBB are surely elated at what has happened between Warren and Sanders in recent days—and why BBB surely hope that a lot of Sanders supporters declare political war on Warren and vice versa. The sounds of that clash in the weeks ahead would be music to the ears of corporate Democrats.
It’s easier—and maybe more emotionally satisfying—for anger to spin out of control. But this is a tactical situation. If you want Bernie to win, it makes no sense to try to escalate the conflict with Warren.
I support Bernie because I believe he is the candidate to end our endless wars, fight bad trade deals and address the climate crisis.
He has inspired countless progressive women to run for office and has had our back when it mattered most.
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 15, 2020
Both a Sanders or Warren presidency would be historic.
Progressives should focus on making a case against Biden and Buttigieg in the coming weeks. Both candidates missed a few shots last night.
People should vote for the eventual nominee.
Be careful of all these bots today.
— Waleed Shahid (@_waleedshahid) January 15, 2020
I agree, insofar as the response shouldn’t be to attack Warren supporters (potential Sanders voters when the chips are down) or place too much emphasis on how Warren is a sellout and a liar. Bernie and his team need to keep their eyes on the primaries and on promoting Biden’s record, which is intentionally being buried and obfuscated at this time.
But I, as a reader, can walk and chew gum at the same time. And Solomon gets my ire for slinging this bullshit.
In a sense, this moment calls for Sanders and Warren supporters to be better than their candidates, who’ve descended into an avoidably harsh conflict that hugely benefits corporate power and corporate Democrats
This is not a “both sides were bad” situation. One candidate started this. One candidate refused to put it aside during and after the debate. And one candidate decided to focus her energies during the debate on taking down a fellow progressive, instead of on the establishment hacks trying to profit from this.
In doing so, she put her personal advancement over the fate of the country. You cannot credibly claim after this episode that Warren is going to reliably fight for working class people in this country. She tipped her hand.
You can argue that this is a tactical play of sorts by Solomon and others who are pushing this line. But what I like about progressives is that they generally don’t act as though their audience is too stupid to grasp the truth of things. Omar’s tweets, for example, don’t need to stoop to false equivalencies to get to essentially the same point. As the song goes, “all I want is the truth. just give me some truth!”
Hopefully Bernie will win all three
For the first time in the history of Iowa’s Democratic caucuses, the party will report the raw vote count for each candidate. And because of idiosyncrasies in the caucus process, the person with the most votes at the beginning won’t necessarily be the one with the biggest delegate haul at the end.
Think of it as Iowa’s version of the 2016 Electoral College issue: Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump handily in the popular vote total but lost the ultimate battle for electoral votes because of her failure in a handful of key places.
In Iowa, traditionally it’s the delegates that matter. And party leaders here emphasize that shouldn’t change: ultimately the presidential primary contest comes down to who gets the most delegates.
But the disclosure of two vote tallies and one delegate count on the night of the Feb. 3 caucuses — a move made to inject more transparency into the caucus process — is threatening to muddle the narrative coming out of Iowa. Depending on how the numbers are interpreted, there’s a scenario in which more than one candidate could claim a “win.”
Among the changes to the system is the addition of so-called “preference cards,” in which each caucus-goer will fill in their name and the candidate they support. Candidates must win 15 percent support after an initial count to remain viable; if not, the candidate is eliminated. Supporters of eliminated candidates are allowed to flip over their preference cards and choose among the remaining hopefuls before a second, and final, raw vote count. After that, the totals will be calculated and delegates apportioned.
In previous caucus years, only the delegate counts at the end were provided to the media. But this year, Democrats will also be providing the before-and-after raw vote totals, too. The party is expected to release results of each count at the same time.
Hope they are ready for a heavy turnout. 🙂
Sanders said Medicare for All would “end the $100 billion a year that the health care industry makes.”
The math holds up. If anything, it’s an underestimate because it doesn’t include one of the largest sources of health care profits: hospitals, health systems and physicians. We rate it True.
Campaign report: our little group of 11 mirrored a similar pattern from 4-5 years ago. It was a rainbow coalition of ages. You had millennials up through old boomers. We were instructed on how to load the BernieApp on our phones. Events are being planned. This is anecdotal, but one of the older retired union guys said that Bernie topped an impromptu straw poll of local Democrats. Interesting. The national campaign organization is much bigger than 4 years ago. It is run like a cyber clock, tight and competent. 🙂 FL’s primary is 3/17, but our group is planning at a national level. I can say one thing: Liz Warren did herself no favors with that debate stunt.
Liz didn’t do the progressive cause, and by extension the country and even the world, any favors either.
she did the neolibcons a big favor. that may be where she is most comfortable.
im still for her as 2nd choice for caucuses.
Definitely not a fan of Morning Joe or anyone on it, but it’s on MSNBC and any take supporting Bernie is helpful
MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski said she believed “somebody’s not telling the truth” regarding Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s claim that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told her a woman could not win the presidential election.
Brzezinski appeared to suggest that the person not telling the truth might be Warren, stating that she had “a bad feeling it might be the accuser.”
“I don’t know what happened there, but somebody’s not telling the truth, and I have a bad feeling it might be the accuser,” Brzezinski added.
The battle has alarmed progressive groups and created a serious rift between the presidential race’s two most powerful liberal voices.
Brzezinski appeared to be more sympathetic to Sanders during the “Morning Joe” broadcast on Thursday.
Although MJ’s commentary also helps Biden and Buttigieg. Amy Klobuchar…not so much.
Sen. Bernie Sanders took to the Senate floor Wednesday to explain why he intends to stand with labor and climate groups in opposition to a major new trade agreement with Mexico and Canada ahead of an expected vote by the Republican-majority upper chamber Thursday to approve the deal.
The floor speech from Sanders (I-Vt.) came after national advocacy groups, including Sunrise Movement and Food & Water Action, thanked the White House hopeful for clearly stating his opposition to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) during Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate.
USMCA, which passed the Democrat-controlled House last month by a 385-41 vote, would replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Some critics of President Donald Trump’s new deal call it NAFTA 2.0, as Sanders did Wednesday.
Although USMCA is backed by a few labor unions, including the AFL-CIO, Sanders pointed out that others—such as the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers—are against it. Major environmental organizations such as the Sunrise Movement, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, and others also have made their opposition clear.
“And it is opposed by the National Family Farm Coalition, which believes it will lock in rules that have devastated family farms and expanded corporate control over agriculture in North America,” said Sanders. “I am proud to stand with these labor unions, environmental groups and family farmers against Trump’s NAFTA 2.0.”
“I not only voted against NAFTA in 1993, but marched against it,” added the senator, who has a history of opposing what he sees as flawed corporate-friendly trade deals.
I stand proudly with labor unions, environmental organizations and family farmers against Trump’s NAFTA 2.0.
In my view, we must rewrite our disastrous trade agreements to end the outsourcing of American jobs, combat climate change, and stop the destructive race to the bottom. pic.twitter.com/A9HulGS7fG
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 16, 2020
THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN of former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg spent $20,000 over the summer hiring gig workers through the platform Amazon Mechanical Turk, or MTurk, one of the most controversial actors in the gig-working space. Studies have found gig workers at the company are paid far below minimum wage, even though many on the platform work full-time.
The Buttigieg campaign contracted with MTurk for “polling” in August and September, according to Federal Election Commission records. MTurk allows a job requester to post the type of task they want completed and a price they’ll pay for it (the site allows payments as low as 1 cent). It is unclear from the FEC records how much the campaign paid per survey. A campaign spokesperson said they took steps to ensure participants were paid above the minimum wage for surveys that lasted 2-3 minutes, but would not specify how much the participants were paid.
The campaign’s use of an exploitative platform like MTurk is in sharp contrast with the way Buttigieg has cast himself as a pro-worker candidate. He has been outspoken about the need for labor protections for those in the gig economy, whom companies often misclassify as independent contractors rather than employees in order to skirt labor protections. He has proposed several measures that would achieve better labor standards for gig workers, including a $15 minimum wage, cracking down on payroll fraud that lists gig workers as independent contractors, and ending right-to-work laws.
This past weekend, at a culinary union’s town hall in Las Vegas, Buttigieg told the audience, “If you’re a gig worker, as far as I’m concerned, you’re doing a gig, you’re working. And if you’re working, that makes you a worker, and if you’re a worker, you deserve protections. We are going to make sure gig workers have the chance to organize and unionize, too.” In August, Buttigieg joined gig workers to rally outside of Uber’s headquarters in support of a California law that aimed to crack down on exploitation.
But workers on MTurk are not considered employees by the company, which is owned by Amazon, and do not have any labor or wage protections, nor do they have the freedom to join a union. Workers there tried to form a union in 2014 and Amazon, which collects a 20 percent fee per “worker reward,” squashed the effort.
While exploitation is rampant in the gig economy, MTurk has been identified as one of the worst offenders by journalists and researchers.
A little while later, this exchange occurred:
Nick Fox: Can I just follow up on that one question? Given what we’ve gone through over the last three years when Democrats hear about the president flying around the country holding rallies, they might cringe. And I’m wondering how you flying around the country in 2021 rallying the people would be different than what Donald Trump has been doing?
Bernie Sanders: Well, I don’t know if I should be insulted by that question. I’ve spent my life fighting against everything that Donald Trump stands for.
In this era of resurgent left electoral activity, the conflation of left and right populism is one of the preferred tactics of the elite political center. As Luke Savage observed in Jacobin in 2016, the ultimate function of the shallow comparison is to “neutralize the Sanders insurgency and others like it. In affixing the same [populist] label to both the far right and the Left, liberals and centrists are able, in a single maneuver, to inoculate themselves against challenges from the latter.” This tactic was on full display in the editorial board’s line of questioning.
I was a little confused by the block quote – I though Sanders said in the interview the bit about “conflation of left and right populism.” I’dve been very impressed by the candor!
Sanders organizer Kyle Jurek told undercover journalists that “there is a reason why Stalin had gulags,” that Sanders wanted “free education” so that Trump supporters could be taught how to “not be a f—ing Nazi,” and that he wants to “walk into that MSNBC studios, drag those motherf—ers out by their hair, and light them on fire in the streets.”
Iowa state director Misty Rebik and Iowa co-field director Brooke Adams both locked their Twitter accounts after Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe claimed they hired or worked with Jurek, who deleted his Twitter account this afternoon.
O’Keefe published a Sept. 21 tweet of Adams celebrating with Jurek along with accompanying text that read: “This room is about to hit 20,000 phone calls!! Led by our top-tier organizers @hiranodanielle and Kyle Jurek!”
big mistake to keep this guy on. sounds like he was pretty vocal. assume he’s gone now. plays into all the ugh.
Everything that Project Veritas does is a scam.
O’Keefe and his gang of entrappers are total assholes.
The other day I had to see a sister (a Trudeau Liberal who has been seriously warped by her hate for Trump and Russia) claim on fb that Bernie helped the Catholic church cover up pedophilia in VT and that Russia helped Bernie resulting in Trump, and then one of my brothers (warped by Trump and the far right-wing media) texted me about this Project Veritas nonsense saying that Milwaukee would burn and it didn’t look good for Bernie. Then all of the Warren crap hit the fan at the same time.
So, thanks for that glass of wine Benny! 😉
I haven't read this, but maybe I should. ☺️
'Tough Times Can Make You Stonger, Wiser, and Better' pic.twitter.com/j2RviczSlA
— Mags (@magsview77) January 16, 2020
Speaking of spam, I cleared out the Spam closet. Clean again!
Thanks for that!
ld i may have entered my address wrong. nothing yet.
Hi Polar, ill contact you by tpw mail after work.
@magsview, did yours arrive?
Despite the improvements Democrats secured to better protect workers:
I am voting against USMCA.
Because it doesn't address climate change, the greatest threat facing our planet. pic.twitter.com/WxyRpcH2pZ
— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) January 16, 2020
But it passes anyway.
U.S. Senate passes #USMCA, 89-10.
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 16, 2020
you can bet he wouldn’t have if it wasn’t such a lopsided vote. what a scam fake govt.
This, exactly. He hears the primary footsteps coming, perhaps?
Surprised about Schumer. Here’s the nine Dems who voted no. Three former Pres candidates and one current one. Markey from Mass voted no. I think Warren made a bad political choice here. Grassroots labor is not really for it and environmental groups are adamantly against. Hope Bernie uses it to his advantage.
i wonder if warren feels betrayed by her grassroots donors. vicious cycle, backpedaling on m4a, fewer donations. etc.
70,000 impressions so far
Many of the same people who are pushing this smear against @BernieSanders are also people who 'questioned' if we were ready for an African American president in hopes of helping @HillaryClinton. Meanwhile in 1988… pic.twitter.com/f9qykbYgzw
— TheProgressiveWing (@ProgressiveWing) January 13, 2020
Third Way editorial against Bernie in WaPo
The corporate wing of the Democratic Party—which called me “an existential threat"—is attacking us again because our agenda of fighting for working people is very popular and threatens corporate elites who fill their pockets.
We’re making them nervous. Keep it up. https://t.co/BVBUtW6Fmf
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 16, 2020
What’s curious, though, is that the rift isn’t over policy particulars. The Warren vs. Sanders progressivism fight seems to be more stylistic, an unexpectedly tense class war of sorts within the broader progressive class war. Should progressive populism be wonky and detail-oriented and appeal to college-educated former Clinton voters? Or a more contentious outsider assault on the powers-that-be from the overlooked millions of the middle and lower-middle class?
The groundwork for more open hostilities was perhaps laid at the start of last weekend with some numerical tinder. As I boarded a plane for Des Moines, Iowa, on Friday night, I scanned the results of the just-released Des Moines Register poll. The survey showed Sanders leading in the state with 20 percent of the vote, a notable shuffle in the race from the last poll from that pollster, which showed former Mayor Pete Buttigieg in the lead and Sanders scrapping for third place with former Vice President Joe Biden. Saturday afternoon I found myself in Newton, Iowa, listening to Larry Hurto, 68, reciting the full results of the poll to me from memory as he waited for Sanders to arrive at a rally. With Sanders, Hurto told me, “What you see is what you get.” Kim Life, 60, told me she’d voted for Clinton in 2016 but felt that, this time around, Sanders was the man for our times. “Things in the world are so unstable,” she said. “He hasn’t changed in 40 years.” Warren, she told me, was more influenced by corporate America than she let on.
Variations on this theme — Sanders as credible progressive curmudgeon and Warren as vaguely deceptive opportunist — popped up as I followed Sanders across the state. America is a country whose politics are pheromonal; voters are largely attracted to certain candidates not for their policy positions but for the cut of their jib or the familiarity of the story at the heart of their self-mythology. And among the Sanders-committed, there seemed to be a sense that the candidate’s famous frankness was his greatest asset — and it could well be with certain groups.
The other part of the controversial Sanders campaign talking points on Warren was that her supporters — the wealthy, well-educated ones — would already “show up and vote Democratic no matter what … she’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.” At his rallies, Sanders was putting his electability foot forward — supporters waved “Bernie beats Trump” signs while he spoke. In November, The New York Times polled battleground state voters and found that persuadable, white working-class voters had policy views that aligned with some Sanders/Warren proposals, but “by a margin of 84 percent to 9 percent, they say political correctness has gone too far. They say academics and journalists look down on people like them.” Nonwhite persuadable voters supported systemic change candidates and single-payer health care, but 50 percent approve of Trump, a man known for pushing the boundaries of correctness, political or otherwise.
The anti-political-correctness voters and Trump-approvers are perhaps the demographics where Sanders has the greatest chance to make inroads. While his trademark directness isn’t anti-PC, it’s of a sympatico strain, in a way: “I don’t care what you think, I’m going to say and do what I please.” The Sanders brand is based entirely on that slippery, overused quality that politics so prizes: authenticity. He has believed in the same things for decades and advocated for them in the same polemical style. Even his heavy Brooklyn brogue remains unchanged despite his having left the borough in the ’60s. It speaks to being from a place, not a rootless cosmopolitan class.
Sanders is not wrong in pointing out that Warren’s populism — and make no mistake, it is that; she does her fair share of billionaire-bashing — has resonated with a different audience than his. In part, it’s because her packaging of populism is meant to extend an ideological hand to the establishment Democratic voters who cottoned to Clinton in 2016 but regretted, perhaps, their inability to see that the country was ravenous for system-busting talk. She scratches the itch of big ’ole change but understands that the Democratic Party is filled with people who are still comfortable within the system, even if they have intellectual critiques of it.
Sanders’s selling of populism is conscious of its place in the sweep of progressive history. In Iowa, he talked about how not so long ago, public education was seen as a radical idea and cited the aphorism, “It always seems impossible until it’s done,” to explain the mental block the country could overcome to accept Medicare for All.
>90% errors undetected
Voters! Pls contact your county election office and inquire whether each polling place will give voters the option to mark a ballot by hand. (Pls let me know what you find out.) If the answer is “no,” pls demand that this change & send them the article below. 1/ https://t.co/S8wBV5EpAT
— Jennifer Cohn (@jennycohn1) January 10, 2020
Even though I think it’s time to address Biden now, I couldn’t resist sharing this:
Hot fucking damn!@PeteButtigieg: "So the proposition that I’ve been on front lines of corporate price fixing is bullshit. Just to get that out of the way."@BCAppelbaum: "You worked for a company that was fixing bread prices."
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) January 16, 2020
Funny name, but they have 62,000 members:
BREAKING: New Urbanist Memes for Transit Oriented Teens’ admins have officially endorsed Bernie Sanders for President of the United States! pic.twitter.com/WeAEU1tgCj
— People for Bernie (@People4Bernie) January 16, 2020
Sanders himself thanked New Urbanist Memes for Transit-Oriented Teens, which has nearly 200,000 public transit-obsessed members.
Bernie Sanders has just scored a crucial endorsement from the New Urbanist Memes for Transit-Oriented Teens, a popular leftist Facebook meme group. The Facebook meme group connects teens and millennials across the world who are entertained (or obsessed) with memes about urban transportation and planning.
In an admin post published Wednesday, the group announced its endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders was motivated by “Sanders’ vision of peace, equity and justice.”
The administrative board praises Bernie’s track record before zeroing in on which “particularly speak to us as NUMTOTs.” NUMTOTs here are concerned with policies that seek to transform cities and “bring us closer to building equitable, affordable, and sustainable places in which we all can not only live, but thrive.”
On Thursday, Senator Sanders posted in the group, thanking them for the endorsement and reaffirming his commitment to the policies that drew NUMTOTs to him in the first place:
The Clark County Black Caucus said Thursday that it would throw its support behind Bernie Sanders, the latest in a flurry of Nevada endorsements this week as he seeks to shore up support in a key early contest.
“When you look at his platform and his consistency, over the years he has a long history fighting for civil rights and economic justice,” Yvette Williams, chair of the Clark County Black Caucus, tells CBS News.
“We’ve interviewed him as well, and he has concrete plans in place that will address many of the inequities, inequalities, and injustices of black America,” Williams added.
Clark County includes Las Vegas, and is far and away the most populous county in the state. Racking up supporters in the county is essential for any candidate who hopes to win the Nevada caucuses on February 22nd.
The Clark County Black Caucus’ endorsement comes as other Nevada groups have rallied to Sanders. On Tuesday, the immigrant rights group Make the Road Action made public its plans to leverage their organizing heft in Nevada for the Sanders campaign. Meanwhile, the Clark County Education Association, Nevada’s largest teachers union, announced Monday that it too would back the Vermont senator.
The Clark County Black Caucus, which backed Sanders in 2016, had endorsed Cory Booker late last year after a vote among its membership of some 400 Nevadans. At the time, the group indicated that Sanders was their second choice.
Williams hopes the Clark County Black Caucus can help boost the senator’s chances among that demographic and is planning events to support the campaign in its home stretch. Early voting in Nevada kicks off in just a month, on February 15th.
“I have no ill will with Biden. But I just strongly believe that it’s time for change for black America. It’s time for Bernie Sanders and his policy that’s going to provide for an America that’s more racially just,” said Williams.
“The Clark County Black Caucus said Thursday it would throw its support behind Bernie Sanders, the latest in a flurry of Nevada endorsements this week as he seeks to shore up support in a key early contest.” @CBSNews
— Nina Turner (@ninaturner) January 16, 2020
Is it my imagination or is Bernie getting more endorsement’s now than in 16?
He is doing pretty well with respect to 2016 and it is still early. If you remember Hillary had locked up a vast majority even before the primary actually began.
IMPORTANT: The race right now is btwn Bernie & Biden, but the media’s neglect means voters know little abt Biden’s record. Watch & SHARE this new #HearTheBern video, in which @krystalball & @joshfoxfilm explain why his judgment is disqualifying. https://t.co/Bjtby3KPqI
— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) January 16, 2020
No, the lead isn’t huge. One could say the three candidates are nearly in a virtual tie. But what is true: Sanders’ support in California appears to steadily be rising.
One reason why? The Latinx vote.
A survey from the Latino Community Foundation found that a majority of Latino registered voters in California support Sanders. He’s raised more money from Latino donors than any of his rivals. He’s also the only candidate with a campaign office in California’s heavily Latino Central Valley.
With the California Primary moved up to Super Tuesday in March, ABC7 News went to Fresno, Calif. to explore Sanders’ ground game and strategy to win California by winning the Latino vote.
Eighty-six senators voted for that NDAA. Bernie Sanders was not one of them. Despite the Post’s revelations — and the Taliban’s impending triumph — almost no one in Congress has been willing to describe the war in Afghanistan as a mistake. The socialist senator is an exception.
In recent weeks, as Sanders has secured his grip on second place in the Democratic primary, the senator’s heretical views on foreign policy have attracted media scrutiny. The tenor of this coverage tends to be facially neutral, but tacitly skeptical, if not outright alarmed. A Washington Post story titled “How Bernie Sanders would upend America’s global role” is a representative example. Sean Sullivan’s account of how a Sanders presidency could rattle “the world order” is somewhat fair-minded, dutifully acknowledging that history has proven the senator’s instincts on Iraq prescient. But the piece’s overwhelming emphasis is on the radicalism of Sanders’s views — a radicalism that it simultaneously exaggerates and declines to contextualize. The piece repeatedly informs its readers of the marginal position that Sanders has taken on a given issue, without offering any insight into whether that stance is well-reasoned or substantiated. The fact that his opinions are marginal is treated as more relevant than whether they are correct.
This prioritization is made clear in the piece’s opening paragraphs:
When Bolivia’s leftist president was pressured to resign by his country’s military after an audit found signs of a tainted election two months ago, many American leaders showed little interest in condemning the ouster. Some said it was a potentially positive step for democracy — a sign, as President Trump put it, that “the will of the people will always prevail.”
A sharply different response came from Sen. Bernie Sanders, who immediately condemned “what appears to be a coup.” The ousted leader, Evo Morales, who had challenged term limits to remain in power, later thanked the senator from Vermont and Democratic presidential candidate, referring to him affectionately as “brother.”
Readers are never provided with Sanders’s argument for seeing Morales’s ouster as an apparent coup, nor with information as to how ensuing events in Bolivia have validated or contradicted the senator’s assessment. We are only told that Morales presided over a tainted election and challenged term limits to remain in power. Among the things we are not told: (1) No one disputes that Morales won the most votes of any candidate in that “tainted” election, only whether his true margin was large enough to avoid a runoff, (2) in light of the audit’s concerns on the latter point, Morales agreed to convene new elections, (3) some well-reputed election analysts have disputed the audit’s premises, and (4) Morales’s ouster brought a far-right, anti-indigenous faction to power that had received no democratic mandate whatsoever, and nevertheless proceeded to overstep its bounds as a caretaker government.
I suspect that the impulse to exaggerate Sanders’s foreign-policy radicalism, and the impulse to elide the factual basis for his blasphemies, are related. If the bipartisan consensus on foreign policy were easier to defend on the merits, there would be less need to paint its progressive apostates as ideologically blinkered suckers for neo-Soviet regimes. It isn’t the extremity of Sanders’s worldview that makes it threatening to the “world order” (as the Post conceives of that phrase), but its reasonableness.
Congress’s bipartisan foreign policy consensus asserts that the United States has a vital interest in preserving Saudi hegemony in the Middle East (even though Riyadh’s totalitarian Islamist regime is more oppressive than Iran’s, sponsors jihadism, and is no longer needed as a supplier of oil to the U.S. economy); that Israel cannot defend itself unless U.S. taxpayers subsidize its army (even though it is a wealthy nation with one of the world’s most powerful militaries); that terrorism poses such a dire threat to Americans’ physical well-being, the U.S. must bestride the globe preemptively executing every Islamist militia we deem suspicious (even though fewer than 300 Americans have been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since 9/11, and majority of those deaths came as a result of domestic extremists); and, above all, that the Pentagon’s budget should always be higher (no matter how many trillions of dollars the Department squanders while misleading Americans into endless wars that exacerbate the very problems they were launched to solve).
The fundamental cause of all this rabid irrationality is simple: America’s foreign-policy consensus is forged by domestic political pressures, not the dictates of reason. Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves may no longer be indispensable to the U.S. economy, but its patronage remains indispensable to many a D.C. foreign-policy professional. Israel may no longer be a fledgling nation-state in need of subsidization, but it still commands the reflexive sympathy of a significant segment of the U.S. electorate. Terrorism may not actually be a top-tier threat to Americans’ public safety, but terrorist attacks generate more media coverage than fatal car accidents or deaths from air pollution, and thus, are a greater political liability than other sources of mass death. And the Pentagon may have spent much of the past two decades destabilizing the Middle East and green-lighting spectacularly exorbitant and ill-conceived weapons systems, but the military remains one of America’s only trusted institutions, and its contracts supply a broad cross section of capital with easy profits, and a broad cross section of American workers with steady jobs.
a keeper. thx
Well Bernie sure highlighted Chuck’s vote
As one of the only candidates opposing Trump's trade deal, I want to thank Sen. @ChuckSchumer for joining this fight. USMCA will make climate change worse. We will do better when I’m president. https://t.co/b4ebWyh9rr
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 16, 2020
When she launched her campaign, Elizabeth Warren made the Green New Deal a pillar of her platform. At Tuesday's debate, she didn't mention it. Two days later, she voted to give Trump a win on trade with his USMCA, which does not mention climate change or greenhouse gas emissions.
— Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) January 16, 2020
one minute, i’m hurt, the next, infuriated. wth, liz
”There is no excuse for any Democrat to vote for a trade deal that compromises our climate.“
In response to Schumer’s opposition, Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S., issued the following statement:
We applaud Schumer’s decision to champion the cause of climate change by voting against Trump’s USMCA. As wildfires rage out of control and our planet endures record-breaking temperatures, Democrats must stop oil and gas companies from using backroom trade deals to destroy the environment.
In opposing Trump’s trade deal, Leader Schumer is protesting the inevitable increase in the trade of tar sands, oil and fracked gas across the continent. The trade agreement will help corporate polluters, like Chevron and ExxonMobil, challenge environmental protections in private tribunals. The USMCA is both an insult to communities across North America who live on the front lines of corporate pollution and a giant step in the wrong direction.
Leader Schumer has demonstrated climate leadership by opposing USMCA. There is no excuse for any Democrat to vote for a trade deal that compromises our climate.
No talk yet. The article is subtly slanted to Bernie: Warren was furious, she caught Bernie off guard, and Bernie tried to defuse the situation.
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) haven’t spoken since a heated exchange on the debate stage in Iowa Tuesday, when Warren accused her rival of calling her a liar on national television.
Sanders told reporters in the Capitol Thursday that the two leading progressive rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination haven’t made any attempt to bury the hatchet since Tuesday and declined to discuss the matter any further.
Asked if he and Warren have spoken since the debate, Sanders replied tersely: “No, we haven’t spoken.”
Warren appeared furious after the debate when she confronted Sanders about denying her claim that he told her in a 2018 meeting that a woman couldn’t beat Trump in November’s general election.
“I think you called me a liar on national TV,” Warren said, seemingly catching Sanders off guard.
“What?” he replied.
“I think you called me a liar on national TV,” she repeated.
Sanders appeared to try to defuse the situation by offering to talk about it later.
But the senator did not feel like talking about it at the start of Trump’s impeachment trial.
“Look, today I want to focus on this very solemn issue,” he said, referring to the trial. “Today is a day we focus on an issue of enormous consequence. It’s not a political day, it’s a day of solemnity. It’s a day of ultimate solemnity.”
“When someone shows you who they are — believe them.”
i am a true believer in people changing, but she seems to be going the other way.
“appeared” us the key word b4 furious. staged. she had direction.
what it takes to save a unique stand of trees in Australia
only place in the world
don’t tell people where they are because contact could bring in pathogens
short video at the start
Carlson is pretty bad on most things but he’s right here. I think they so overplayed their hand that it’s going to backfire”
But Fox News host Tucker Carlson thinks there is more to it and detailed his feelings during a scathing monologue on Wednesday night’s edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” He noted that Democratic fundraisers will “recoil in terror” if Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, so CNN president Jeff Zucker has decided to “destroy” his campaign.
“Zucker poses as a television executive but he operates like a political consultant. His latest client is the Democratic establishment, which has dispatched him to crush Bernie Sanders before he can take control of the party,” Carlson said before airing a montage of CNN personalities bashing Sanders while praising Warren.
“It almost seemed personal, and in some ways it was personal,” Carlson said. “Just four days ago, CNN settled a lawsuit with its unionized employees for a record $76 million dollars… when that deal was announced, Bernie Sanders issued a statement celebrating the win for CNN’s oppressed and miserable workforce.”
Carlson said that it’s clear “Zucker was not amused” by Sanders siding with the network’s unionized staffers and “readied his troops for battle” as a result.
Michael Moore’s podcast
He was on an interview with Matt Taibbi and mentioned that he was starting a media. This is the first time that I noticed his podcasts.
Michel knows Bernie and knowing him, he knows that Bernie would never say that a woman wouldn’t be president. And you can see from the title of this podcast where he comes from in this podcast.
(below are some notes from the podcast in almost the first 20 minutes)
I want this issue to go away. Got to fix the system.
Even talking about this on this podcast –” after 48 hours, a knife in my heart – a malicious lie ” Liz confirming the lie.
Only 2 know the truth.
Unless some misunderstanding
Liz statement so strange
old Liz that I knew, not a BSer — mark that day that dem lost election
slanderous personal attack on your friend
could blow up the entire democratic position
(listening some more)
issue isn’t about YOU
issue about Trump wrecking the country
if neither Liz or Bernie to go to the convention without enough support – Trump could could win
liz waited a year
until you were loosing
two people I (michael) know and love
one threw hand gernade at other
can stick head in sand – life hard enough
for last couple of years done this with Liz — why say that, why do it, what campaign consultants, not being yourself — don’t sound like same person in old footage of you – you are different — pretty sure first person to take you to country wide audience – exhilirating hearing you
so many times you said in the last year knew not true — took important, too good, ignored them, .. we do it
starting saying things — 100% grass root funded
Nathan Robinson — good piece Liz said and done during campaign
This is a great podcast. This particular segment anyhow. Haven’t heard any other segments but MM really hits the nail on the head. Good analysis. I highly recommend to everyone to find an hour to listen to it.
yes. he is 💔.
I kept listening and listening and now up to 40 min
Moore pointed out about super delegates at convention that if there is not a winner over 50% on the first ballot, then the uncollected super delegates can vote
Michael imagined having a meeting with just Bernie and Liz (he imagined this a couple of months ago but it never happened) that going into the convention the top one would be president, the second one VP and the second one would give the delegates to the top one and they would have over 50%
and they would represent the majority of Americans and democrats
i feel like Hillary is behind this. she threw in with the dark side tbh.
How did pulling that stunt work for you Liz?
A New Hampshire state lawmaker has announced he is switching his support from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) in the Democratic presidential primary race, arguing that Klobuchar is more “electable” than Warren across the country.
Underlining by me.
wow. anyone going to Klobuchar I would never have voted for Bernie. But this is pretty rich, all these people coming out talking about electability. That’s Wood apparently got her all mad in the first place, was that script which by the way was apparently real but only used in a couple of states. and very mild.
i imagine they have their own version or they should. i wonder when they’ll honestly reinstate it now. poor liz.
Months ago Warren surrogate Ashlee Marie Preston was tweeting derogatory remarks about Sanders LGBTQ record
Months ago they accused AOC for being sexist/not a feminist for backing Bernie.
Nothing new with this except for the collaboration with CNN
Leaving others to cover the costs via rate increases in order for your medical needs to be met.
That's mighty socialist of you.
— TheProgressiveWing (@ProgressiveWing) January 16, 2020
BREAKING: Enviro groups begged Dems to help stop Trump's trade deal, but @BernieSanders today was the only 2020 Democrat to vote against it. Every other leading 2020 Dem backed it — and gave a big gift to Trump & his fossil fuel donors. https://t.co/mIDbC0FHCc
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) January 16, 2020
looks like liz is returning to the fold. probably setting up some way for donors to help. pretty soon she’ll probably just say idgaf and start accepting big miney again. She won’t lose any voters, at this point.
Bernie maintains a absurdly young base, only 19.2% over 50, but has made gains about 50-64s, bringing that number up from 16% quite a bit. Older voters are abandoning Warren the fastest, bringing her base to 34.8% w 50+, likewise with Biden, now at 49.6%. Pete is oldest at 55.5%
— BigSnake (@TSBigMoney) January 16, 2020
Just a thought, was this Warrens deplorables moment or even Romneys 47%?
And look what he gets in return!
Bernie has been uplifting Warren her entire political career. In the 2000s, he helped elevate Warren’s stature in public life and progressive circles. Then, he pressured Obama to appoint her to CFPB. Then, he asked her to run in 2016 and only jumped in after she declined. pic.twitter.com/E1DerK0EuC
— 29 U.S.C. § 157 (@OrganizingPower) January 16, 2020
Apologies if this was poated before,
Senator Bernie Sanders is the winner of our Post-#DemDebate Snap Poll. Figures:
Steyer 6% pic.twitter.com/Uk8WNICA9d
— US Politics Polls (@USPoliticsPoll) January 15, 2020
I know that the following tweet was posted late last night and it is worth repeating in case anyone missed it.
— Shaun King (@shaunking) January 16, 2020
I miss a lot of the late night Berners posting but do try to review the previous nights posts.
Don’t take offence to my comment wi61 as it was not intended. Repeating a previous comment is more than OK as it reinforces the point.
No worries Humphrey none taken.
Ron DeSantis narrowly won in 2018 in an election in which more than 20% of black citizens were not allowed to vote.
His legacy will be that he fought tooth-and-nail to make sure he gets to wage his re-election bid under that same Jim Crow-era rules of mass exclusion. https://t.co/arAU652BeG
— Taniel (@Taniel) January 16, 2020
The brief video is certainly worth a click!
Wow. Just wow.
This is a brilliant, nuanced answer from @BernieSanders on how tens of millions of people who sincerely feel abandoned by the political establishment were then easy prey for Donald Trump.
— Shaun King (@shaunking) January 16, 2020
Wonder what Bernie was thinking as he left the stage after his encounter with Warren? Not normal for Berine to have his head down.
I would answer with my thoughts but they would likely be censored.😜
hurt as hell and confused?
(Happening now) Protesters are currently being arrested at the Senate building for demanding that our representatives defend the constitution and not the president. #RemoveTrump @womensmarch
Join us in defending our democracy https://t.co/tF4BwAFsQF pic.twitter.com/Wk8JtUMI6X
— By the People 🗽🇺🇸 #RemoveTrump (@by_the_ppl) January 16, 2020
Biden is not as personally infuriating bc he doesn't pretend to be progressive but he is awful & would be a terrible president. Also let's not pretend Warren critics are arming Trump. Trump came up with "fauxcahontas" all on his own & she has a very thin skin.
— Katie Halper (@kthalps) January 16, 2020
LOL. Former Mayor Pete didn’t expect this question from the Times of all places. Love the water gulping 🤣
Please enjoy McKinsey Pete squirming and gulping down water as he's called out over the bread price-fixing scandal, directly to his face pic.twitter.com/mqA6Vm8Tq2
— ⌖Django🍞📈 (@SleepyDjango) January 16, 2020
Praise for Bernie from an unexpected source
I have been critical of Bernie Sanders over the last four years. I have been critical of his use of the Democratic Party as a vessel for his presidential aspirations. I have been critical of his lecturing tones on issues of race. I have been critical of his behavior towards Hillary Clinton and the manner in which he speaks to reporters. No rational individual would accuse me of being in the tank for Sanders. With that said, Sanders deserves praise for his focus on the issue of income equality in the United States. He has been the conscience that our country has so desperately needed and his message has reverberated throughout the Democratic Party.
Sanders has inspired a new generation of leaders, like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, while ushering in a more progressive tilt to a Democratic Party that has historically nominated more moderate candidates for president. The diehard support from his followers is proof that his message has a footing with Americans of all backgrounds. Only time will tell if Sanders can become the nominee, but there can be no denying the footprint that a previously unknown senator from Vermont would have on a Democratic Party looking for its populist message.
Michael Starr Hopkins is the founding partner of Northern Starr Strategies. He served on the Democratic presidential campaigns for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Delaney.
Lol. Is this his job application?
Well I cut out the parts where he is still critical—socialist etc. 😉
There will likely be a lot of these. Criticism goes down best when it’s leveled after saying that you like someone.
normal psyops. although he may be sincere.
Sanders’ Deputy Iowa state director told CBS News Thursday that the campaign is focused on maintaining an aggressive trail pace as days before caucusing go by. They’re even working on bringing “major musical acts” to Iowa on behalf of the senator to keep momentum and attitudes high.
Bernie in the lead. From last poll:
From October: Bernie is up 5, Biden and Warren are down 5
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has been steadily climbing in popularity this year and is now tied with former Vice President Joe Biden for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination among registered voters, according to a Reuters/Ipsos national poll.
The online poll, released Thursday, shows that 20% of registered Democrats and independents said they would back Sanders over 11 other candidates to run in the general election against President Donald Trump, an increase of 2 percentage points from a similar poll that ran last week.
Another 19% supported Biden, 12% said they would vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren, 9% backed former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and 6% said they would support Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.
Sanders and Bloomberg have increased their level of support in each of the last three Reuters/Ipsos polls starting in mid-December, while support for Biden, Warren and Buttigieg has remained flat.
The poll also shows that about one in five potential primary voters remain undecided. And among those who have picked, nearly two out of three say they are open to changing their minds.
Sanders, an independent who built a national network of fervent supporters while running for the party’s nomination in 2016, has consistently ranked among the most popular candidates since he entered the race.
The poll shows that standing does not appear to have been hurt by his recent confrontation with Warren over Sanders’ views of women and politics.
over Sander’s ALLEGED views
Well look at this!😁👇
NEW SENATOR APPROVAL RANKINGS: @BernieSanders retains his spot as the country's most popular senator among his/her constituents.@SenatorCollins unseats @senatemajldr as the most unpopular.https://t.co/6aFYI9jEAW pic.twitter.com/SBbuFruIIC
— Morning Consult (@MorningConsult) January 16, 2020
BTW Liz is the 9th least popular. You have to click to see the results.
It looks like Trump just let the 6 largest banks "get away with murder" something he promised he wouldn't do as president.
We need to break up these big banks & tax Wall Street to cancel all student debt.
— Warren Gunnels (@GunnelsWarren) January 16, 2020
Many big corporations, especially those in fossil fuels, insurance, MIC, do not like the direction of Bernie’s campaign.
The update was only 10-15 min long.
I like it that Bernie’s team is very goal-oriented.
Bernie is on his campaign update now.
- He says the support is accelerating. 500,000 doors on Iowa have been knocked on. Iowa has 3M citizens.
- Ground game in NH looks strong as well.
- Other stats: in the last two days alone, the campaign has received 200,000 contributions totalling close to $4M, includes 25,000 new donors. This is significant because two of the competitors have accepted donations from 40 billionaires. 5M contributions from 1.4 million people have donated to Sanders campaign. This is revolutionary as the campaign does not have to depend on wealthy donors.
- Trump’s campaign is nervous about the Sanders campaign, starting to tweet about it.
- Campaign support is multigenerational and mulitiracial in demographics.
- Great endorsements from grassroots organizations such as Sunrise Mvmt, etc. They collectively comprise of 2M supporters. Also from NNA Union, IBEW, NH Postal Workers, LA Teachers, etc)
Bernie sez, “Brothers and sisters, we are in an unprecedented campaign! Thank you for the extraordinary efforts on behind the campaign. This is what a political revolution is about. Thank you all very much!”
And the Sanders camp is even more frustrated over what they see as an orchestrated, dayslong campaign by Ms. Warren to revive her bid by suggesting Mr. Sanders is a misogynist.
Sanders advisers believe Ms. Warren has hurt herself with the accusations but also put them in a no-win situation, in which they are unable to fully strike back for fear of appearing insensitive but risk incurring damage of their own without rebutting her claims.
Ms. Warren’s decisions at Tuesday’s debate to openly challenge Mr. Sanders’s denial of that remark, and then to confront him after the debate and refuse to shake his hand before the cameras, have also led Sanders supporters to believe that she is acting underhandedly.
Responding to a reporter who tweeted about trying unsuccessfully to get Mr. Sanders to comment on the postdebate argument, a Sanders adviser, David Sirota, sought to stoke a different story line.
“I have a crazy idea: perhaps you should ask him about Joe Biden’s 40 year crusade to cut Social Security and Bernie’s own efforts to protect Social Security,” Mr. Sirota wrote.
Just another hit piece involving Sydney Ember and Martin.
They go on to glorify Warren without mentioning that she immediately walked it back.
Ms. Warren has also taken Mr. Sanders’s side in his grievance about the 2016 election. In an interview with CNN in November 2017, when she was asked whether she agreed that the primary had been tilted in Mrs. Clinton’s favor, Ms. Warren replied “yes.”
i agree with Bernie. Let them all stew in their own sour juices.
Oh interesting. Sanders in first and Warren tied for 3rd post debate in New Hampshire. I know we are all simply stunned that the media’s predictions were all totally wrong. 😜 https://t.co/DcGrlvZR4A
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) January 17, 2020
The only bad news from that poll is that Bernie is actually down 3 from their November poll. Buttigieg is down 4 so Bernie maintains his lead. Warren and Biden are the same. Klobuchar is up 8. I have a hard time believing that.
I’ll settle for the headline as most people don’t dig into the internals.
Me to + Bernie still ahead with MOE
And he’s ahead by 5 over Buttigieg now instead of 4
For whatever reason it doesn’t begin until the 16 minute mark.
CNN still hard at it!
Can you remember the last time a CNN reporter asked a politician about anything important three times in a row? Their support for war? their opposition to Medicare for all?
Petty CNN-curated controversies get the intrepid reporter treatment, everything else? Limp stenography. https://t.co/gedDz3LIkY
— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) January 16, 2020
just had to post this, very emotional and with the BS of the debate it keeps the BP down 😉
Even though I have pretty well stopped watching cable news (too stomach turning) I doubt that any of them have showed snippets of it like they do for other candidates. That is why it is important for it to get it views on sites like here and elsewhere.
Let me get this straight:
Anybody not supporting Bernie can say whatever fucked up, made up, baseless smearing lie they want.
But anybody supporting Bernie can never say anything in response to counter those lies or smears lest we be labeled as "divisive"?
Is that correct?
— Metal Gear Winkle: 🐍 Eater🌹 (@WinkleBerns) January 15, 2020
The anti-Bernie people need to stop using the MeToo hashtag bc people disagree with them online. This is absolutely disgusting and a slap in the face to the very real victims of sexual abuse of which I am one. It’s disgusting and you all need to stop it immediately. Shame on you.
— pokey pup (@Whatapityonyou) January 17, 2020
It’s a paid script. We get it. @BarackObama earned the same treatment from the Hillary camp, who now thrive in @ewarren camp…hence the series of poor decision making & sloppy political miscalculations #PresidentSanders #Bernie2020 https://t.co/njI0FCBa80
— Steven (@ShavedWookieeRN) January 17, 2020
I notice a bit of snark in this tweet.😜😂
I've heard from leading liberal anti-Trump leaders like Rick Wilson and David Frum that Bernie supporters won't vote for another nominee. Sorry, that's too much risk. We have to support Bernie. All the parents at my kid's all-white private school agree.
— Respectable Lawyer (@RespectableLaw) January 17, 2020
LOL They added this update today in keeping with the latest narrative.
Pay attention to the date!
By Jonathan Martin
Dec. 13, 2018
THIS IS QUITE A CATCH! (Yes I intended to yell.)😁👇
— victim of capitalism (@joshieecs) January 17, 2020
I created a separate post repeating this information so it gets the attention it deserves.
Please keep on with this open thread.
Look, I get that Warren has probably lied too much for most logical progressives, but have you considered that the alternative includes healthcare for everyone? Don't be selfish.
— Nate's Liver – Commentary (@SilERabbit) January 17, 2020
It’s marvelous. Look at how many smear articles about Bernie coming out this week!!!
We’re going to win.
I’m headed to Iowa tomorrow, para reunirme con la comunidad latina y hablar sobre la necesidad de votar por Bernie Sanders!!! ❤️
Si se puede, y lo haremos realidad!
— Michael Sayman (@michaelsayman) January 17, 2020
You won’t support Sanders because of his followers. Cool.
They won’t support your candidate because of their policies.
Don’t pretend this two things are equal.
— Benjamin Dixon (@BenjaminPDixon) January 16, 2020
I guess that makes you centrist types the Sinestros of the world, relying on fear for control—fear of change, fear of failure, and most of all, fear of losing what you have.
Don’t tell people what they can and cannot accomplish when they work together. Not a good look. https://t.co/BNCDY2cc2B
— Walker Bragman (@WalkerBragman) January 17, 2020
— Jacob 🌹 (@JacobSKeller) January 16, 2020
michael sayman is, too.
Like lawyers, professors and health workers, today the forensic scientists threw away the symbols of their function to claim the same status as their colleagues.
— 🇫🇷Amreen Nazanin Rajavi(Amy) (@Amreen__Rizvi) January 15, 2020
✔️ 11 dead
✔️ 76 seriously injured
✔️ 2500 injured
✔️ 23 protesters lost an eye
✔️ 5 protesters lost a hand
✔️ thousands arrested
✔️ 44 weeks of protests
✔️ no mainstream media coverage
It would be a shame if this tweet went viral pic.twitter.com/bg8gEefkev
— 🇫🇷Amreen Nazanin Rajavi(Amy) (@Amreen__Rizvi) September 14, 2019
bannon talking about a global right wing group taking down corbyn and sanders
We all hate losing things.
Keys, phones, clips of Johnson's right-wing allies Farage and Bannon colluding to fund a multinational organisation, established specifically to "beat Corbyn and Sanders"!👀
So here's a reminder, just in case it gets lost again.
Feel free to share.📢 pic.twitter.com/s4iBT7WOF9
— The Labour Leftie 🌹 (@TheLabourLeftie) January 15, 2020
- Load More