I think probably campaign swag is not the best source of real insight into the minds of the people supporting any candidate.
I think it was just a simplified, albeit in my opinion misguided, attempt to simplify the appeal of Sanders vs. Warren.
Sanders says frequently that “it’s not about me (Bernie), it’s about us”. Which reflects back to his plan of creating a mass movement of individuals to get his agenda passed.
Warren, on the other hand, “has a plan” meaning that people should get on board and follow her.
There’s a slight difference in what each of them emphasize “my plan” vs. “our revolution”.
Only problem that I have with the Sanders plan for “us” is that it supposedly only works when “we” as part of this large group follow Bernie’s plans as he leads. Which doesn’t seem at all different from any other politician.
warren support seems like much more of a """cult of personality""" to me than sanders support, but also all arguments about cults of personality are goofy bullshit
This post seems much more like an "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument than anything else.
If you think that arguments about CoP are BS, why are you making that argument against Warren? It makes no sense.
It's the difference between
and
One of those is a lot more appealing to people who want to flatten hierarchy.
I'd argue that any political figure putting the words "not me" and their name as the sole text, even momentarily, on something meant to drum up support has made a bad decision.
It would be wonderful for the president to join picket lines and drive people to canadian pharmacies, it's all I want a politician to do, but Bernie hasn't really talked about doing that as president
this is true, and i think he's missed a lot of opportunities to talk about it. he should be making it the centrepiece of his campaign. a big part of the reason that people think warren and bernie are the same is that bernie himself is not establishing the difference
the reason the cult of personality stuff seems hollow to me is, i 100% think bernie sanders is a creepy old man and don't want him anywhere near the presidency
i just also think elizabeth warren is a creepy old woman and and don't want her to have any power either
and of the creepy old people we're expected to choose between, bernie has come the closest to suggesting that he might do some of the shit i think would actually work
There does seem to be an assumption that because some of us think Bernie is the clear best option in the Dem Primary we see him as the ideal politician or something. Like he has several flaws and off the top of my head I would prefer somebody like Gloria la Riva. But Bernie is for lots of leftists a compromise for somebody who has a shot in the slot of one of the major parties.
the reason the cult of personality stuff seems hollow to me is, i 100% think bernie sanders is a creepy old man and don't want him anywhere near the presidency
i just also think elizabeth warren is a creepy old woman and and don't want her to have any power either
and of the creepy old people we're expected to choose between, bernie has come the closest to suggesting that he might do some of the shit i think would actually work
if the argument is that bernie sanders supporters are unwilling to support another nominee where the other candidates' supporters are, is that not an argument for sanders being the nominee
if the argument is that bernie sanders supporters are unwilling to support another nominee where the other candidates' supporters are, is that not an argument for sanders being the nominee
I guess, if you treat the primary like a hostage negotiation.
if the argument is that bernie sanders supporters are unwilling to support another nominee where the other candidates' supporters are, is that not an argument for sanders being the nominee
Not really? It's an even more specific subset of the electability argument, which is already very silly.
-Warren is not a socialist and clapping during that speech was not her standing with Trump, it was her preventing that moment from being a ruinous and inaccurate attack on her position. If, as Robinson actually does, you acknowledge that Warren and Sanders have very similar policies ("They're both still talking about Scandinavian social democratic policies") then this moment of symbolism really shouldn't matter to you.
Robinson’s article illustrates my biggest political criticism of Bernie—that he isn’t creating a movement, but a cult of personality.
Robinson, and most Bernie supporters, admit that Warren’s policies are virtually identical. Despite the indication that Bernie met his ostensible goal—forcing the Democratic Party to the left—some of his supporters attack her at every turn. These attacks are often personal, occasionally toxic, and their thrust seems to be less “we support these policies/philosophies because [reason]” and more “only Bernie can save us.”
That’s why I think his presidency would be potentially disastrous. He built his national image on attacking other Democrats. That won’t chance just because he took office, and I could see that contributing to losing ground in the House in 2022.
Did either of you actually read the article?
Because the whole point he makes in that paragraph is that the seemingly small differences are very important. From a leftist perspective the differences are actually huge and a reason to be wary of Warren. Sure, they are advocating social democratic policies in a broad sense, but the differences are indicative of a very different view of what things should be like.
"At least some debt forgiveness for 95% of the people with student loan debt (and total for 75%)" might seem so similar to "total debt forgiveness" that they're almost identical to you, but they suggest a radically different view of the fairness of student debt. Warren clearly believes that some amount of student debt is fair, at least everything above 50k for everyone and then more/less?? for richer people, since they can obviously shoulder more of it. Sanders believes that any amount of debt for higher education is wrong. It doesn't matter how high your debt is or how rich you are, because higher education is a right.
-Warren is not a socialist and clapping during that speech was not her standing with Trump, it was her preventing that moment from being a ruinous and inaccurate attack on her position. If, as Robinson actually does, you acknowledge that Warren and Sanders have very similar policies ("They're both still talking about Scandinavian social democratic policies") then this moment of symbolism really shouldn't matter to you.
Robinson’s article illustrates my biggest political criticism of Bernie—that he isn’t creating a movement, but a cult of personality.
Robinson, and most Bernie supporters, admit that Warren’s policies are virtually identical. Despite the indication that Bernie met his ostensible goal—forcing the Democratic Party to the left—some of his supporters attack her at every turn. These attacks are often personal, occasionally toxic, and their thrust seems to be less “we support these policies/philosophies because [reason]” and more “only Bernie can save us.”
That’s why I think his presidency would be potentially disastrous. He built his national image on attacking other Democrats. That won’t chance just because he took office, and I could see that contributing to losing ground in the House in 2022.
Did either of you actually read the article?
Because the whole point he makes in that paragraph is that the seemingly small differences are very important. From a leftist perspective the differences are actually huge and a reason to be wary of Warren. Sure, they are advocating social democratic policies in a broad sense, but the differences are indicative of a very different view of what things should be like.
"At least some debt forgiveness for 95% of the people with student loan debt (and total for 75%)" might seem so similar to "total debt forgiveness" that they're almost identical to you, but they suggest a radically different view of the fairness of student debt. Warren clearly believes that some amount of student debt is fair, at least everything above 50k for everyone and then more/less?? for richer people, since they can obviously shoulder more of it. Sanders believes that any amount of debt for higher education is wrong. It doesn't matter how high your debt is or how rich you are, because higher education is a right.
It’s a classic Democratic failure to try to means test a program based on a dollar/income value that seems fair to them, then have the program progressively unravel as costs rise and inflation eats away at the value. See: the minimum wage being tied to a hard dollar value.
This is also why so many Democratic solutions end up limiting things like loan payments to 15 percent of a person’s income. Somewhere in the history of wonkdom it was decided this was a number that everyone could afford.
+6
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
if the argument is that bernie sanders supporters are unwilling to support another nominee where the other candidates' supporters are, is that not an argument for sanders being the nominee
I guess, if you treat the primary like a hostage negotiation.
I mean, that's kind of what politics is.
The political system in the US does not allow for primaries to be the kind of generally friendly and unity-targeted affair that candidate selection is in political parties in many other countries. You have to start the fight in the primary.
if the argument is that bernie sanders supporters are unwilling to support another nominee where the other candidates' supporters are, is that not an argument for sanders being the nominee
I guess, if you treat the primary like a hostage negotiation.
I mean, that's kind of what politics is.
The political system in the US does not allow for primaries to be the kind of generally friendly and unity-targeted affair that candidate selection is in political parties in many other countries. You have to start the fight in the primary.
There is a significant difference in the regular primary process and saying “you better vote for Bernie, because his supporters refuse to vote for anyone else”.
(Not that anyone is taking this position here, but that’s the hypothetical Elendil is was constructing)
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
-Warren is not a socialist and clapping during that speech was not her standing with Trump, it was her preventing that moment from being a ruinous and inaccurate attack on her position. If, as Robinson actually does, you acknowledge that Warren and Sanders have very similar policies ("They're both still talking about Scandinavian social democratic policies") then this moment of symbolism really shouldn't matter to you.
Robinson’s article illustrates my biggest political criticism of Bernie—that he isn’t creating a movement, but a cult of personality.
Robinson, and most Bernie supporters, admit that Warren’s policies are virtually identical. Despite the indication that Bernie met his ostensible goal—forcing the Democratic Party to the left—some of his supporters attack her at every turn. These attacks are often personal, occasionally toxic, and their thrust seems to be less “we support these policies/philosophies because [reason]” and more “only Bernie can save us.”
That’s why I think his presidency would be potentially disastrous. He built his national image on attacking other Democrats. That won’t chance just because he took office, and I could see that contributing to losing ground in the House in 2022.
Did either of you actually read the article?
Because the whole point he makes in that paragraph is that the seemingly small differences are very important. From a leftist perspective the differences are actually huge and a reason to be wary of Warren. Sure, they are advocating social democratic policies in a broad sense, but the differences are indicative of a very different view of what things should be like.
"At least some debt forgiveness for 95% of the people with student loan debt (and total for 75%)" might seem so similar to "total debt forgiveness" that they're almost identical to you, but they suggest a radically different view of the fairness of student debt. Warren clearly believes that some amount of student debt is fair, at least everything above 50k for everyone and then more/less?? for richer people, since they can obviously shoulder more of it. Sanders believes that any amount of debt for higher education is wrong. It doesn't matter how high your debt is or how rich you are, because higher education is a right.
It’s a classic Democratic failure to try to means test a program based on a dollar/income value that seems fair to them, then have the program progressively unravel as costs rise and inflation eats away at the value. See: the minimum wage being tied to a hard dollar value.
This is also why so many Democratic solutions end up limiting things like loan payments to 15 percent of a person’s income. Somewhere in the history of wonkdom it was decided this was a number that everyone could afford.
Yeah that's part of the reason for the Obama comparison I think. Even if you do manage to achieve a lot, it will be constantly under attack in the future in both active and passive ways. You can't count on future politicians wisely reacting to changes in society by adjusting programs that have shown to be effective.
i mean i don't think bernie voters are particularly likely to defect compared to anyone else but it's a constant refrain from a lot of people here so, if that's actually the case than i mean you gotta work around it surely?
unless the concern is that voters from other candidates would stay home in the general if their particular politics aren't reflected in the nominee, which, fucked up if true
0
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
I think there's always gonna be a small subset of wackadoodles that refuse to accept it if their preferred choice isn't the nominee (thanks for reminding me about hilaryis44, Christ), but generally the number is small enough that spending anymore time worrying about it than we already have would be a waste of thread space.
+4
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
if the argument is that bernie sanders supporters are unwilling to support another nominee where the other candidates' supporters are, is that not an argument for sanders being the nominee
I guess, if you treat the primary like a hostage negotiation.
I mean, that's kind of what politics is.
The political system in the US does not allow for primaries to be the kind of generally friendly and unity-targeted affair that candidate selection is in political parties in many other countries. You have to start the fight in the primary.
There is a significant difference in the regular primary process and saying “you better vote for Bernie, because his supporters refuse to vote for anyone else”.
(Not that anyone is taking this position here, but that’s the hypothetical Elendil is was constructing)
Oh sure, but I think the hypothetical is more an extreme than a fundamentally different thing.
Arguments that one candidate should be chosen because they will draw out the most of one demographic or another are pretty typical in the discussion. Or the reverse saying that a candidate won't draw out enough voters to win whatever. I don't see how "they won't draw college-educated whites/black people in swing states/etc." is really any different from "they won't draw people who'd vote for Sanders".
the reason the cult of personality stuff seems hollow to me is, i 100% think bernie sanders is a creepy old man and don't want him anywhere near the presidency
i just also think elizabeth warren is a creepy old woman and and don't want her to have any power either
and of the creepy old people we're expected to choose between, bernie has come the closest to suggesting that he might do some of the shit i think would actually work
And this is why ageism is a form of bigotry.
It's one of the more acceptable forms of bigotry. I know we used this sort of language to talk about Biden even though we didn't have to.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
-Warren is not a socialist and clapping during that speech was not her standing with Trump, it was her preventing that moment from being a ruinous and inaccurate attack on her position. If, as Robinson actually does, you acknowledge that Warren and Sanders have very similar policies ("They're both still talking about Scandinavian social democratic policies") then this moment of symbolism really shouldn't matter to you.
Robinson’s article illustrates my biggest political criticism of Bernie—that he isn’t creating a movement, but a cult of personality.
Robinson, and most Bernie supporters, admit that Warren’s policies are virtually identical. Despite the indication that Bernie met his ostensible goal—forcing the Democratic Party to the left—some of his supporters attack her at every turn. These attacks are often personal, occasionally toxic, and their thrust seems to be less “we support these policies/philosophies because [reason]” and more “only Bernie can save us.”
That’s why I think his presidency would be potentially disastrous. He built his national image on attacking other Democrats. That won’t chance just because he took office, and I could see that contributing to losing ground in the House in 2022.
Did either of you actually read the article?
Because the whole point he makes in that paragraph is that the seemingly small differences are very important. From a leftist perspective the differences are actually huge and a reason to be wary of Warren. Sure, they are advocating social democratic policies in a broad sense, but the differences are indicative of a very different view of what things should be like.
"At least some debt forgiveness for 95% of the people with student loan debt (and total for 75%)" might seem so similar to "total debt forgiveness" that they're almost identical to you, but they suggest a radically different view of the fairness of student debt. Warren clearly believes that some amount of student debt is fair, at least everything above 50k for everyone and then more/less?? for richer people, since they can obviously shoulder more of it. Sanders believes that any amount of debt for higher education is wrong. It doesn't matter how high your debt is or how rich you are, because higher education is a right.
I did read the article, but where Robinson says “they seem really similar but these small differences are important,” my personal opinion is that they seem really similar and those small differences are not that important.
I prefer Sanders’ policy on student debt, but I recognize Warren is probably taking a different framing for political purposes.
I did find it pretty rich that Robinson was like “Warren can’t be trusted because she was part of an elite institution like Harvard, but also because she won’t erase the $140,000 cost of my surely non-elite education”
if the argument is that bernie sanders supporters are unwilling to support another nominee where the other candidates' supporters are, is that not an argument for sanders being the nominee
I guess, if you treat the primary like a hostage negotiation.
I mean, that's kind of what politics is.
The political system in the US does not allow for primaries to be the kind of generally friendly and unity-targeted affair that candidate selection is in political parties in many other countries. You have to start the fight in the primary.
There is a significant difference in the regular primary process and saying “you better vote for Bernie, because his supporters refuse to vote for anyone else”.
(Not that anyone is taking this position here, but that’s the hypothetical Elendil is was constructing)
Oh sure, but I think the hypothetical is more an extreme than a fundamentally different thing.
Arguments that one candidate should be chosen because they will draw out the most of one demographic or another are pretty typical in the discussion. Or the reverse saying that a candidate won't draw out enough voters to win whatever. I don't see how "they won't draw college-educated whites/black people in swing states/etc." is really any different from "they won't draw people who'd vote for Sanders".
But we’re not talking about “people who’d vote for Sanders” in this case it’s “people who will only vote for Sanders”
the reason the cult of personality stuff seems hollow to me is, i 100% think bernie sanders is a creepy old man and don't want him anywhere near the presidency
i just also think elizabeth warren is a creepy old woman and and don't want her to have any power either
and of the creepy old people we're expected to choose between, bernie has come the closest to suggesting that he might do some of the shit i think would actually work
And this is why ageism is a form of bigotry.
It's one of the more acceptable forms of bigotry. I know we used this sort of language to talk about Biden even though we didn't have to.
There are legitimate discussions to be had about age, health, and mental faculties. That post, though, just felt like a string of slurs.
the reason the cult of personality stuff seems hollow to me is, i 100% think bernie sanders is a creepy old man and don't want him anywhere near the presidency
i just also think elizabeth warren is a creepy old woman and and don't want her to have any power either
and of the creepy old people we're expected to choose between, bernie has come the closest to suggesting that he might do some of the shit i think would actually work
And this is why ageism is a form of bigotry.
It's one of the more acceptable forms of bigotry. I know we used this sort of language to talk about Biden even though we didn't have to.
There are legitimate discussions to be had about age, health, and mental faculties. That post, though, just felt like a string of slurs.
To me, it felt like it came from a similar level of misunderstanding.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
the reason the cult of personality stuff seems hollow to me is, i 100% think bernie sanders is a creepy old man and don't want him anywhere near the presidency
i just also think elizabeth warren is a creepy old woman and and don't want her to have any power either
and of the creepy old people we're expected to choose between, bernie has come the closest to suggesting that he might do some of the shit i think would actually work
And this is why ageism is a form of bigotry.
It's one of the more acceptable forms of bigotry. I know we used this sort of language to talk about Biden even though we didn't have to.
Someone tell Biden to stop argle bargling about Millennials then
But the left’s ideological clout far outstrips its material strength. American socialism is heavy on superstructure, light on base. The current trade-union movement is weak by historic standards, representing a piddling 10.5 percent of the U.S. workforce. Independent leftist organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have grown since 2016 but still lack the scale and mass working-class membership that made such entities formidable agents of social change in earlier eras of American history. In the electoral realm, progressive challengers scored a couple notable victories in the 2018 primaries but failed to foment a “tea party of the left.” Outside of low-turnout elections in deep-blue districts, organizations like Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, and DSA gave Democratic incumbents little cause for fearing their wrath. And where left insurgents did win open primaries in purple territory, they failed to affirm their theory of change: Nominating economic populists unencumbered by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s allergy to class-warfare rhetoric and radical reforms like Medicare for All did not fix what’s the matter with Kansas. Sanders-backed ironworker Randy Bryce did worse in Wisconsin’s 1st District last year than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. Single-payer supporter Kara Eastman failed to flip Nebraska’s 2nd. The 2018 elections did not prove the electoral necessity of moderation — Warren acolyte Katie Porter pulled out a tough win in a historically Republican California district; Senator Tammy Baldwin’s calls for abolishing private insurance and putting workers on corporate boards proved compatible with winning reelection in a Trump state — but nor did they prove that Sanders-ism an electoral panacea.
...
Given how far the left is from possessing the power it will need to turn its wildest “green dreams” into reality, however, the most worthwhile Bernie-versus-Warren arguments may concern tactics, not policy. Whether Sanders’s approach to expropriating the billionaire class is preferable to Warren’s isn’t a question that’s likely to be of much practical consequence in the medium-term future. But whether his approach to winning elections — and using his power to build up the left’s — is more viable than Warren’s absolutely is.
...
All this may read as an elaborate endorsement of Warren. But I do not intend it as such. That Sanders evinces more interest in radically revising American foreign policy is no small thing. Further, as Kilpatrick and Sunkara note, in a context where the left is materially weak, the personal ideological commitments of elected leaders take on a heightened importance. And there is no question that Bernie Sanders has a more deeply rooted ideological commitment to radical politics than does Elizabeth Warren.
It's a pretty long article but I think there are a lot of solid points made.
if the argument is that bernie sanders supporters are unwilling to support another nominee where the other candidates' supporters are, is that not an argument for sanders being the nominee
I guess, if you treat the primary like a hostage negotiation.
I mean, that's kind of what politics is.
The political system in the US does not allow for primaries to be the kind of generally friendly and unity-targeted affair that candidate selection is in political parties in many other countries. You have to start the fight in the primary.
There is a significant difference in the regular primary process and saying “you better vote for Bernie, because his supporters refuse to vote for anyone else”.
(Not that anyone is taking this position here, but that’s the hypothetical Elendil is was constructing)
Oh sure, but I think the hypothetical is more an extreme than a fundamentally different thing.
Arguments that one candidate should be chosen because they will draw out the most of one demographic or another are pretty typical in the discussion. Or the reverse saying that a candidate won't draw out enough voters to win whatever. I don't see how "they won't draw college-educated whites/black people in swing states/etc." is really any different from "they won't draw people who'd vote for Sanders".
But we’re not talking about “people who’d vote for Sanders” in this case it’s “people who will only vote for Sanders”
I don't think it makes much of a difference if they'd vote for Sanders and like Buttigieg or whomever. The point is they're people who'd stay home if it was one of the preferred other candidates.
like, someone could argue that Biden could draw enough of the black vote to win, whereas Sanders and Warren couldn't. But that is functionally identical to the argument that some black people would only vote if the nominee was Biden. Issues with the truth of the argument aside, we don't really have a problem with accepting the idea that any group might stay home unless their preferred candidate is selected. We know that is true for all candidates.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
-Warren is not a socialist and clapping during that speech was not her standing with Trump, it was her preventing that moment from being a ruinous and inaccurate attack on her position. If, as Robinson actually does, you acknowledge that Warren and Sanders have very similar policies ("They're both still talking about Scandinavian social democratic policies") then this moment of symbolism really shouldn't matter to you.
Robinson’s article illustrates my biggest political criticism of Bernie—that he isn’t creating a movement, but a cult of personality.
Robinson, and most Bernie supporters, admit that Warren’s policies are virtually identical. Despite the indication that Bernie met his ostensible goal—forcing the Democratic Party to the left—some of his supporters attack her at every turn. These attacks are often personal, occasionally toxic, and their thrust seems to be less “we support these policies/philosophies because [reason]” and more “only Bernie can save us.”
That’s why I think his presidency would be potentially disastrous. He built his national image on attacking other Democrats. That won’t chance just because he took office, and I could see that contributing to losing ground in the House in 2022.
Did either of you actually read the article?
Because the whole point he makes in that paragraph is that the seemingly small differences are very important. From a leftist perspective the differences are actually huge and a reason to be wary of Warren. Sure, they are advocating social democratic policies in a broad sense, but the differences are indicative of a very different view of what things should be like.
"At least some debt forgiveness for 95% of the people with student loan debt (and total for 75%)" might seem so similar to "total debt forgiveness" that they're almost identical to you, but they suggest a radically different view of the fairness of student debt. Warren clearly believes that some amount of student debt is fair, at least everything above 50k for everyone and then more/less?? for richer people, since they can obviously shoulder more of it. Sanders believes that any amount of debt for higher education is wrong. It doesn't matter how high your debt is or how rich you are, because higher education is a right.
I did read the article, but where Robinson says “they seem really similar but these small differences are important,” my personal opinion is that they seem really similar and those small differences are not that important.
Okay but that doesn't mean he agrees with your personal opinion. You're saying that he acknowledges a thing that he actually doesn't. Agreeing that policies are similar and agreeing that the differences don't matter are very different things.
I prefer Sanders’ policy on student debt, but I recognize Warren is probably taking a different framing for political purposes.
I did find it pretty rich that Robinson was like “Warren can’t be trusted because she was part of an elite institution like Harvard, but also because she won’t erase the $140,000 cost of my surely non-elite education”
Nathan J. Robinson (born in 1988), a PhD student in sociology and social policy at Harvard University
I mean, come on
I think there is an obvious difference between being a student and being a professor for decades, but that isn't actually his point. The point is that Sanders spent decades being an activist, and she spent that time training the children of the elite. Which is an issue if you think activism is important and training the elite as lawyers isn't. The same argument applies if Warren had been a PhD student in sociology for those decades, but Robinson isn't running for president.
Calling old people "creepy" isn't nice, but electing candidates at the end of the average human lifespan, at the age that dementia becomes worryingly possible, isn't sensible. It's like calling someone "anti-youth" for not wanting a teenage president.
warren support seems like much more of a """cult of personality""" to me than sanders support, but also all arguments about cults of personality are goofy bullshit
This post seems much more like an "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument than anything else.
If you think that arguments about CoP are BS, why are you making that argument against Warren? It makes no sense.
It's the difference between
and
One of those is a lot more appealing to people who want to flatten hierarchy.
It's pretty clever what you've done here. You've got this artwork of Sanders in front of crowd and, yeah, it looks inspiring. But then for Warren you've put... a plain t-shirt. Secondly, that's not Warren's official campaign slogan, it's an unofficial slogan. Her officials slogans are "Persist" and "Dream Big Fight Hard", both better encapsulate her campaign. It's pretty transparent what you're doing and, quite frankly, it's insulting.
Also, you'll have to forgive me if I don't find "Us, not me" very compelling from someone whose other well known slogan, "Feel the Bern", literally contains their own name. It's a clever pun, but selfless it is not.
Also, you'll have to forgive me if I don't find "Us, not me" very compelling from someone whose other well known slogan, "Feel the Bern", literally contains their own name. It's a clever pun, but selfless it is not.
Werent you just complaining about people taking nonofficial slogans too seriously in like....the same post?
i can see levitz' point here. and it's nice to have an intelligent, critical response that actually takes sanders seriously and doesn't rely on bizarre accusations of cultism
the elephant in the room, though, is that all the polls we have suggest that bernie is better suited to win a general election against trump than warren is. so while i think he makes some pretty solid criticisms of bernie's campaign - and i made the same criticisms earlier in the thread, i think it's a pretty mediocre campaign - i'm in no way convinced that warren is actually going to do better, outside the primary
all his arguments for warren's electability rest on her strength among democrats. i want to know how he thinks she's going to pick up votes or build power anywhere else
i can see levitz' point here. and it's nice to have an intelligent, critical response that actually takes sanders seriously and doesn't rely on bizarre accusations of cultism
the elephant in the room, though, is that all the polls we have suggest that bernie is better suited to win a general election against trump than warren is. so while i think he makes some pretty solid criticisms of bernie's campaign - and i made the same criticisms earlier in the thread, i think it's a pretty mediocre campaign - i'm in no way convinced that warren is actually going to do better, outside the primary
all his arguments for warren's electability rest on her strength among democrats. i want to know how he thinks she's going to pick up votes or build power anywhere else
I'm skeptical of this in lieu of the massive shifts we've seen in recent weeks.
i can see levitz' point here. and it's nice to have an intelligent, critical response that actually takes sanders seriously and doesn't rely on bizarre accusations of cultism
the elephant in the room, though, is that all the polls we have suggest that bernie is better suited to win a general election against trump than warren is. so while i think he makes some pretty solid criticisms of bernie's campaign - and i made the same criticisms earlier in the thread, i think it's a pretty mediocre campaign - i'm in no way convinced that warren is actually going to do better, outside the primary
all his arguments for warren's electability rest on her strength among democrats. i want to know how he thinks she's going to pick up votes or build power anywhere else
I'm skeptical of this in lieu of the massive shifts we've seen in recent weeks.
Eh maybe? The polls have been almost entirely "among democratic voters" which isn't exactly the risky demo for any Dem who wins the primary.
Posts
I think it was just a simplified, albeit in my opinion misguided, attempt to simplify the appeal of Sanders vs. Warren.
Sanders says frequently that “it’s not about me (Bernie), it’s about us”. Which reflects back to his plan of creating a mass movement of individuals to get his agenda passed.
Warren, on the other hand, “has a plan” meaning that people should get on board and follow her.
There’s a slight difference in what each of them emphasize “my plan” vs. “our revolution”.
Only problem that I have with the Sanders plan for “us” is that it supposedly only works when “we” as part of this large group follow Bernie’s plans as he leads. Which doesn’t seem at all different from any other politician.
I'd argue that any political figure putting the words "not me" and their name as the sole text, even momentarily, on something meant to drum up support has made a bad decision.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
this is true, and i think he's missed a lot of opportunities to talk about it. he should be making it the centrepiece of his campaign. a big part of the reason that people think warren and bernie are the same is that bernie himself is not establishing the difference
i just also think elizabeth warren is a creepy old woman and and don't want her to have any power either
and of the creepy old people we're expected to choose between, bernie has come the closest to suggesting that he might do some of the shit i think would actually work
And this is why ageism is a form of bigotry.
I guess, if you treat the primary like a hostage negotiation.
The same way that the same pattern of uncompromising fascists and gutless non-fascists gave the right a party full of fascists and sycophants.
Not really? It's an even more specific subset of the electability argument, which is already very silly.
Did either of you actually read the article?
Because the whole point he makes in that paragraph is that the seemingly small differences are very important. From a leftist perspective the differences are actually huge and a reason to be wary of Warren. Sure, they are advocating social democratic policies in a broad sense, but the differences are indicative of a very different view of what things should be like.
"At least some debt forgiveness for 95% of the people with student loan debt (and total for 75%)" might seem so similar to "total debt forgiveness" that they're almost identical to you, but they suggest a radically different view of the fairness of student debt. Warren clearly believes that some amount of student debt is fair, at least everything above 50k for everyone and then more/less?? for richer people, since they can obviously shoulder more of it. Sanders believes that any amount of debt for higher education is wrong. It doesn't matter how high your debt is or how rich you are, because higher education is a right.
It’s a classic Democratic failure to try to means test a program based on a dollar/income value that seems fair to them, then have the program progressively unravel as costs rise and inflation eats away at the value. See: the minimum wage being tied to a hard dollar value.
This is also why so many Democratic solutions end up limiting things like loan payments to 15 percent of a person’s income. Somewhere in the history of wonkdom it was decided this was a number that everyone could afford.
I mean, that's kind of what politics is.
The political system in the US does not allow for primaries to be the kind of generally friendly and unity-targeted affair that candidate selection is in political parties in many other countries. You have to start the fight in the primary.
There is a significant difference in the regular primary process and saying “you better vote for Bernie, because his supporters refuse to vote for anyone else”.
(Not that anyone is taking this position here, but that’s the hypothetical Elendil is was constructing)
Yeah that's part of the reason for the Obama comparison I think. Even if you do manage to achieve a lot, it will be constantly under attack in the future in both active and passive ways. You can't count on future politicians wisely reacting to changes in society by adjusting programs that have shown to be effective.
unless the concern is that voters from other candidates would stay home in the general if their particular politics aren't reflected in the nominee, which, fucked up if true
Oh sure, but I think the hypothetical is more an extreme than a fundamentally different thing.
Arguments that one candidate should be chosen because they will draw out the most of one demographic or another are pretty typical in the discussion. Or the reverse saying that a candidate won't draw out enough voters to win whatever. I don't see how "they won't draw college-educated whites/black people in swing states/etc." is really any different from "they won't draw people who'd vote for Sanders".
It's one of the more acceptable forms of bigotry. I know we used this sort of language to talk about Biden even though we didn't have to.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I did read the article, but where Robinson says “they seem really similar but these small differences are important,” my personal opinion is that they seem really similar and those small differences are not that important.
I prefer Sanders’ policy on student debt, but I recognize Warren is probably taking a different framing for political purposes.
I did find it pretty rich that Robinson was like “Warren can’t be trusted because she was part of an elite institution like Harvard, but also because she won’t erase the $140,000 cost of my surely non-elite education”
Wait, where did Robinson acquire such debt?
I mean, come on
But we’re not talking about “people who’d vote for Sanders” in this case it’s “people who will only vote for Sanders”
There are legitimate discussions to be had about age, health, and mental faculties. That post, though, just felt like a string of slurs.
To me, it felt like it came from a similar level of misunderstanding.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Someone tell Biden to stop argle bargling about Millennials then
... ...
It's a pretty long article but I think there are a lot of solid points made.
I don't think it makes much of a difference if they'd vote for Sanders and like Buttigieg or whomever. The point is they're people who'd stay home if it was one of the preferred other candidates.
like, someone could argue that Biden could draw enough of the black vote to win, whereas Sanders and Warren couldn't. But that is functionally identical to the argument that some black people would only vote if the nominee was Biden. Issues with the truth of the argument aside, we don't really have a problem with accepting the idea that any group might stay home unless their preferred candidate is selected. We know that is true for all candidates.
Okay but that doesn't mean he agrees with your personal opinion. You're saying that he acknowledges a thing that he actually doesn't. Agreeing that policies are similar and agreeing that the differences don't matter are very different things.
I think there is an obvious difference between being a student and being a professor for decades, but that isn't actually his point. The point is that Sanders spent decades being an activist, and she spent that time training the children of the elite. Which is an issue if you think activism is important and training the elite as lawyers isn't. The same argument applies if Warren had been a PhD student in sociology for those decades, but Robinson isn't running for president.
It's pretty clever what you've done here. You've got this artwork of Sanders in front of crowd and, yeah, it looks inspiring. But then for Warren you've put... a plain t-shirt. Secondly, that's not Warren's official campaign slogan, it's an unofficial slogan. Her officials slogans are "Persist" and "Dream Big Fight Hard", both better encapsulate her campaign. It's pretty transparent what you're doing and, quite frankly, it's insulting.
Also, you'll have to forgive me if I don't find "Us, not me" very compelling from someone whose other well known slogan, "Feel the Bern", literally contains their own name. It's a clever pun, but selfless it is not.
They're social welfare capitalists at most
Werent you just complaining about people taking nonofficial slogans too seriously in like....the same post?
Warren would agree, Sanders wouldn't.
i can see levitz' point here. and it's nice to have an intelligent, critical response that actually takes sanders seriously and doesn't rely on bizarre accusations of cultism
the elephant in the room, though, is that all the polls we have suggest that bernie is better suited to win a general election against trump than warren is. so while i think he makes some pretty solid criticisms of bernie's campaign - and i made the same criticisms earlier in the thread, i think it's a pretty mediocre campaign - i'm in no way convinced that warren is actually going to do better, outside the primary
all his arguments for warren's electability rest on her strength among democrats. i want to know how he thinks she's going to pick up votes or build power anywhere else
I'm skeptical of this in lieu of the massive shifts we've seen in recent weeks.
Eh maybe? The polls have been almost entirely "among democratic voters" which isn't exactly the risky demo for any Dem who wins the primary.