Berning down the house!

[dudalb]

It wasn't really the white male thing - the real centrist purity test is just pleasing the donor class. Nothing more, nothing less.

What total BS.

 

[dudalb]

It is certainly questionable logic, as it ignores the fact that a politician needs to appeal to voters outside the party as well, so success within a primary is no guarantee of success in a general election.

Frankly, that whole article read like a Bernie Sanders campaign ad. Some of its claims are completely bunk (like Sanders' appeal to minorities.) Some of its claims seem to apply equally to Sanders and Clinton (e.g. both believe in global warming). And much of it seems to be pretty empty rhetoric, of the "Look at Sanders! He's authentic!" type.

I also think writing off the whole idea of going after the centrist votes is insane;they decide elections.
This idea that the centrist voter is dead is just pure delusion;comvined with a devout belief in a Lost Tribe of Radical Left voters it's a recipe for disaster at the polls.

 

[Segnosaur]

Basically, while people may point to how popular Sanders was, Sanders has never been subject to the sort of widespread attacks that Hillary was subject to

.
Sure. Maybe the Republicans will invent a time machine to go back and start attacking Bernie in 1996, like they did with Hillary.

Why would they need to?

Sanders has plenty of skeletons in his closet. The republicans would have no problems dragging them out before the general election. Plenty of time to remind people how Sanders was a thief, who hung out at a rally where people were chanting "Die Yankees".

Besides, if the Republicans can just defeat anybody with "widespread attacks", then why does it matter who gets nominated?

They can't necessarily defeat "anybody", but that doesn't mean that Sander's popularity during the primaries would be maintained throughout a general election.

Any claim of "look how popular he was in "2015/early2016" is irrelevant.

 

[Segnosaur]

Sometimes attacks are effective, but other times (like the ones on AOC) they basically backfire.

I agree that the attacks on AOC have not been successful.

But with Sanders, there was a mountain of material to use against him. If the whole stealing electricity thing didn't get traction, then trot out the "Yankies die" comment.

Oh, and by the way.... you know how all the BernieBros are claiming "America is embracing socialist policies"? The problem is, people may like the idea of single payer health care, etc. (at least the vague notion of it), but they still don't like the word socialist.

From: https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...ity-of-americans-say-the-would-not-vote-for-a
In a new Hill.TV/HarrisX American Barometer poll released Tuesday, an overwhelming majority of respondents, 76 percent, said they would not vote for a “socialist” political candidate, while only 24 percent of those polled said they would vote for a socialist candidate.

Now you could complain about the logical disconnect of people liking socialist policies but not liking the word socialist, but whether you like it or not is irrelevant. That's what the politicians have to deal with.

And Sanders used the term 'socialist' to describe himself.

 

[Segnosaur]

It wasn't really the white male thing - the real centrist purity test is just pleasing the donor class. Nothing more, nothing less.

What total BS.

WE really should come up with a 'bingo' card, with all the various words and phrases that Bernie fans like to use.

Donor Class, purity test, white male, corporatist, status quo

 

[varwoche]

Sometimes attacks are effective, but other times (like the ones on AOC) they basically backfire.

The day that general election voters in MI, WI, and PA weigh in on Bernie or AOC is the day I'll give this credence.

 

[portlandatheist]

It wasn't really the white male thing - the real centrist purity test is just pleasing the donor class. Nothing more, nothing less.

How do we recognize this "donor class" and do we differentiate between them and the "authentic" citizen? These type of comments remind me of this article about populism:

here is a solid consensus among political scientists as to the general outlines of what qualifies as populism.1 Populists target a country’s corrupt elites in the name of “the people”, an authentic core of the population whose interest are no longer adequately represented by said elites. By invoking an authentic “people” as their natural constituency, populists paint those who disagree with them as illegitimate—either as hopelessly corrupted by financial interests, or as elements in some way “foreign” to society, bent on undermining its health. And by calling into question the responsiveness of elites to the concerns of these “true” people (their natural constituency), populists question the legitimacy of the institutions that constitute liberal democracies. In other words, populists claim, democratic representation itself has been corrupted by out-of-touch elites, and only someone with a direct connection to the authentic people can properly speak for them. Though sometimes populist parties persist as collectives, often a charismatic leader who most clearly communes with the will of the people emerges. This can lead to the centralization of power within the government, and the repression of dissenting views in the broader society.

It is one of the many things that rubs me the wrong way about Sanders, his references to an ephemeral and vague class of people who have different interests than the rest of us, and you seem to be painting centrists as illegitimate and corrupted by this "donor class"

 

[mgidm86]

Keep in mind that this person you labeled a "center-right corporatist":

- Wanted an increase in the federal minimum wage. (https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...s-hillary-clinton-want-15-or-12-minimum-wage/)

- Supported increased banking regulations, including enforcing rules to prevent banks from taking big risks with other people's money, better funding for regulatory agencies, and additional punishments for banking executives who break financial laws. (https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/hillary-clintons-war-on-wall-street-000175)

- Supported paid family leave, supported with taxes on the wealthy. (https://qz.com/782652/hillary-clintons-family-leave-plan-is-more-radical-than-it-needs-to-be/)

- Proposed increased taxes on the wealthy, including the removal of deductions that primarily benefit the rich, and a 4% tax surcharge on families earning more than $5 million. (https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clintons-plan-to-squeeze-the-ultra-rich)

Tell me, just how many right wing politicians are calling for higher taxes on the wealthy, and MORE banking regulations?

Just because she doesn't want to throw every rich person in jail or burn all the banks to the ground, doesn't mean that she wasn't interested in changing the "status quo". Its possible to want changes to the economy that benefits lower and middle class people without going all Bernie Sanders and burning everything to the ground.

Bullcrap. Hillary Clinton's opinions blow with the wind. That is one of her biggest problems. Go back some years and see how she really feels about corporations, and any other hot topic of the day like gay marriage, the border.

Hillary Clinton, Progressive?!?!

Up until maybe 2010 - against gay marriage.
“No.” When asked if she is for gay marriage. “I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”

Sacred! Sounds like a Republican.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I also think writing off the whole idea of going after the centrist votes is insane;they decide elections.
This idea that the centrist voter is dead is just pure delusion;comvined with a devout belief in a Lost Tribe of Radical Left voters it's a recipe for disaster at the polls.

What's confusing is that what is actually "centrist" now is what the media calls "far left".

 

[kellyb]

How do we recognize this "donor class" and do we differentiate between them and the "authentic" citizen?

They tend to be wealthier than average, and people in congress (and their staff) spend a lot of time talking to them.
See:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-members-of-congress/?utm_term=.b272484c7ef3

"Call time" is not time spent calling your family, or think tank experts, or ordinary constituents. It's time spent calling donors. Strategic outreach is, of course, also time you can spend with donors, and if your constituent visits include constituents who are donors, then all the better!

When we worry about money in politics, we tend to worry about a system that's akin to bribery. That happens, but it's rarer then you might think. Typically, politicians raise money from interests they're already relatively aligned with. Money brings the legislator and his benefactor closer into alignment, and it certainly helps concentrate a politician's attention on issues they might otherwise have ignored,...

All that would be enough to fill a completely empty schedule. But all that's impossible if you're spending four hours dialing for dollars each day and another hour or two attending fundraising breakfasts and lunches. The fact is that fundraising is squeezing everything else out.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...es-fundraising-demands-turning-lawmakers-into

The House member told “60 Minutes” he sat behind closed doors with party leadership, where he was told he had six months to raise $2 million.

“Your job, new member of Congress, is to raise $18,000 a day. Your first responsibility is to make sure you hit $18,000 a day,” he said he was told

Jolly told “60 Minutes” the schedule of Congress is arranged around fundraising — and called the setup “shameful.”

“It's beneath the dignity of the office that our voters in our communities entrust us to serve.”

Since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, he said, both parties have told new members they should spend 30 hours a week on calls — and the prospect is keeping people from running for office.

 

[theprestige]

They tend to be wealthier than average, and people in congress (and their staff) spend a lot of time talking to them.

See:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-members-of-congress/?utm_term=.b272484c7ef3











https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...es-fundraising-demands-turning-lawmakers-into

And we take The Hill and the WaPo at face value because...?

 

[kellyb]

And we take The Hill and the WaPo at face value because...?

Do you doubt any of those basic facts? I don't believe they're controversial. Google "how much time does congress spend fundraising with donors" (or anything like that) and see for yourself.

 

[Venom]

ANd that is a problem I have with Sanders...he seems unable to see evil and stupidity on the left end of the political spectrum..and I think a President needs to be able to see extremism on both ends of the political spectrum. Obama was never afraid to criticize evil on the left end of the spectrum, though he was a liberal.

Right, which is why he basically urged his followers to vote Clinton to prevent a Trump presidency? The extremists on the left damn near abandoned him after that.

Another super annoying aspect of the Cult of Bernie was the complaint that the primaries were rigged(Sanders loves that word nearly as much as Trump) and indulgence in Seth Rich conspiracy theories.

Sanders often says the system is rigged in the sense that the DNC basically crowns their favored candidate who tows the party line for whatever election every year.

And he's been criticized from the hard left for not calling the DNC out explicitly either. If anything it should be refreshing to see Sanders chugging along with his duties without slinging mud.

There's no comparison between his view and Trump's at all.

 

[kellyb]

This idea that the centrist voter is dead is just pure delusion;

It's not dead - it's just no longer advantaged.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...derates_Really_More_Electable_than_Ideologues

Man Bites Blue Dog: Are Moderates Really More Electable than Ideologues?

...while moderates have historically enjoyed an advantage over ideologically extreme candidates in Congressional elections, this gap has disappeared in recent years, where moderates and ideologically extreme candidates are equally likely to be elected. This change persists for both Democratic and Republican candidates.

 

[kellyb]

WE really should come up with a 'bingo' card, with all the various words and phrases that Bernie fans like to use.

Donor Class, purity test, white male, corporatist, status quo

"White male" is usually a slur hurled at Sanders by identity politics focused centrists, and accusations of having a "purity test" is usually an insult hurled at progressives by centrists.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

"White male" is usually a slur hurled at Sanders by identity politics focused centrists, and accusations of having a "purity test" is usually an insult hurled at progressives by centrists.

The first time I ever heard of a "purity test" was from Hillary supporters blaming the rest of us for her losing.

 

[kellyb]

The first time I ever heard of a "purity test" was from Hillary supporters blaming the rest of us for her losing.

Yeah, it's often paired with being called an "emoprog" and accusations about unrealistic "ideological purity".

Krugman, who I usually like, used the "purity test" insult just the other day when discussing M4A.

Eta: not that exact phrase, but close:
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1096882525417365504

One thing that's different: in 2008 the problem was overcoming timid centrists; this time it may mainly be about reaching an accommodation with progressive purists. If they make immediate transition to single-payer a litmus test, it will be a problem 3/

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Up until maybe 2010 - against gay marriage.
“No.” When asked if she is for gay marriage. “I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.”

Sacred! Sounds like a Republican.

That's all you got?

 

[kellyb]

That's all you got?

I'm hardly her biggest fan, but that criticism really is weaksauce. Gobs and gobs of people genuinely evolved on the marriage equality issue over the last decade.

 

[Venom]

TBH many progressives shot themselves in the foot trying to do that to Hillary all the time.

When Tulsi Gabbard's even more fervent opposition to LGBT rights was revealed, "Oh she's antiwar though and Killary would get us into a war with Russha!"

It's sometimes best to avoid the relatively petty hypocrisy/flip flopping wars; 1990s, 2000s era talking points.