God, Sanders is such a whiny fuck whenever he's challenged on, like, ANYTHNG.
Edit. And wow, that Reid/Grayson exchange. When was the last time there was an out and out fist fight between elected officials in the US? We must be getting pretty close to one.
I'm pretty sure that Reid would lay out Mr. Hedge Fund.
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
2. The issue (as I see it, without placing any personal opinion on it) appears to be that a female interviewer and respected journalist, trying to ask a series of questions pertaining to the current state of both the primaries and general election, is dismissed as "moaning" about HRC's problems. The word "moaning" is less important than the manner in which he was dismissive of not just the questions, but dismissive of the person asking the questions by attacking the act of asking the questions. Coming from a position of power and male privilege, it appears that he is disrespecting a reporter, potentially due in part to her gender as the word choice does match historical stereotypes and patterns. Regardless, it was a completely disrespectful and unprofessional way to answer a professional journalist of any background and completely unnecessary to his core point. He could have simply answered "It's up to each of us to make our case to the American people, and my focus is making my case, because I'm in this to win."
1) I am only making assumptions of the people claiming that Bernie's comments were sexist. I stand by those assumptions, those people are reaching, and I am perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion because that is what the people I am referring to said, no judgement required. The posts about other reasons why his comments may be problematic came after I started writing my post so I didn't make a distinction between those and the accusations of sexism. Moan is not a gendered term. The reporter was moaning. If the point was to ask what Bernie's thoughts on that issue were, then maybe it would be OK. But he gave his opinions and she didn't give a shit, the answer she wanted was "You're right, I've had an easy time of it" and that's why she kept hammering the issue.
2) I used y'all because I'm English and it sounds funny when I say it so it was a way of poking fun at myself. In retrospect you had no way of knowing that. Sorry.
3) On the bolded: He did. And the reporter wouldn't drop it or even acknowledge it. The reporter was repeatedly trying to make the case that Hillary was having a tougher time of the elections than him and he was simply pointing out that the Sanders campaign has had it's own set of challenges - which is completely fair and correct.
4) I believe the very nature of the line of questioning was disrespectful to Bernie to begin with, and he gave as good as he got. The journalist was basically saying "Just drop out already", so at that point framing this as some kind of productive interview is both unprofessional and disingenuous. She clearly had no interest in what Bernie had to say and was just trying to segue into a clip of Trump talking about Hillary. In an interview with Bernie Sanders.
5) For a post pre-faced with "without placing a personal opinion on it", that sure was an entire paragraph of personal opinions. For ordinary people who don't examine every comment under a microscope through a political lens, sentiments like that over a single word would make them roll their eyes so hard they'd fall out of their head, and will do more damage to HRC's campaign than good. Of the 30 or so synonyms he could have pulled out of the air, I'd say it was the second most appropriate one behind "complain".
They were bullshit questions and Bernie was calling out the journalist for them. Good for him, IMO. A little emotional maybe, but emotion is a quality I like in humans.
I still hope he loses.
I wasn't being serious about the y'all. Next time I'll put a ;-) after it.
I think the reaction here appears to boils down to whether or not you think the line of questioning was appropriate, but ultimately, it doesn't matter if you, I, or Bernie Sanders thinks the line of questioning is appropriate, because it's going to keep coming. If I might quote myself from May 5th:
The problem with this is that the primary is over. Bernie is at the height of his ability to influence policy, and is only going to lose any ability to affect the platform from here on out. The Media has decided it's over, in part due to math, and in part because the "drama" of his "refusal to concede" is the better story. It frames him into a sore loser, a dangerous ideologue that would rather burn it all down than admit defeat, and as that narrative takes hold, his sway over the public will diminish.
The "big story" is going to continue to be "why haven't you conceded" because it makes a great dramatic narrative. Questions about it are not going away, so he better find an elegant way to deal with them instead of getting flustered.
I agree that those questions are not going to stop. I guess we just disagree on how he should deal with these questions; I believe it is the role of politicians to call out the 4th Estate on their bullshit just as much as the reverse is true. Otherwise a 'free press' is a detriment that cannot be held to account. I'm glad that Bernie is willing to do it.
I disagree that he successfully "called it out", if that's what he was attempting. All I see is a defensive and frustrated retort. If he feels the line of questioning is bullshit, he needs to say that flat out: "Andrea, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm here to talk about the Sanders campaign, not the Clinton or Trump campaigns. I am still in this race to win, and I believe it's better to let every Democratic voter have their say than allow the media to pressure me into conceding prematurely and leaving them voiceless. And furthermore, Donald Trump is a loudmouth and an idiot, and why you continue to give him free airtime despite the hateful and damaging views he continues to espouse about everyone and everything is shameful. Now, do you have a question for me about my campaign you'd like to ask?"
Yeah that would have been better, and Bernie probably wishes that's what he'd said in retrospect!
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
+3
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I dunno, I'm a Sanders supporter, so I fall under this designation. And I've written thousands of words over the course of this primary on what I find attractive about Sanders' politics and why I disagree with many of the common criticisms of him and his campaign. After doing that, it FeelsBadMan to get painted with the same brush as your loud, low-information friend who is annoying you on Facebook.
I dunno, I'm a Sanders supporter. Do you understand me? I've written thousands of words over the course of this primary on what I find attractive about Sanders' politics and why I disagree with many of the common criticisms of him and his campaign. After doing that, it FeelsBadMan to get painted with the same brush as your loud, low-information friend who is annoying you on Facebook.
Hm. I apologize then. I should have clarified that with "I don't understand the subset of Bernie supporters who seek to completely demonize Hillary Clinton as a perfunctory knee-jerk response, without actually describing why Sanders is a better candidate beyond handwaving claims of 'corruption' and 'anti-establishment', given the rather close alignment of their stated platforms."
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
Am I the only one that thinks it's shady that Hilary is thinking of having Warren,the head of the DNC, as her VP. It sounds like someone made a deal
There's a few things. One, I don't think Warren is the head of the DNC? Do you mean Debbie Schultz?
Two- if we are talking about Warren, Elizabeth Warren, I thought she was someone we WANTED closer to the oval office???
I don't understand Bernie supporters
If Bernie does a thing, it is right, and pure, and good.
If Hillary does a thing, it is wrong, and dirty, and evil.
Literally the last 20 pages of this thread have pretty much demonstrated the precise reverse of this hypothesis
I suspect we are reading a different thread then.
Read the 20 posts before yours. Then read basically every post since that. I mean you've literally made that post directly in the middle of a discussion where people are being somewhat abusive about Bernie using the word 'moan', for heaven sake.
On this page: "Whiny fuck", sexist, one note stump, criticisms of Bernie supporters as a bloc. That just this page.
This is an extremely pro-Clinton forum with a few notable exceptions (Elki and a few others). To suggest otherwise is... well it's not acknowledging reality. It's not a bad thing, IMO, but if you're going to be rude about it based on a very incorrect analysis then expect to be called on it.
That does not actually demonstrate that peoplein this thread would not find similar actions inappropriate from Hillary in a similar situation.
Personally, i don't think of it as sexist, though i can see how it can come of like it might be.
I do think of it as incredibly whiny, that he proclaims that he has been attacked, when he has been treated very gently by everyone, including Hillary (for whatever reasons) during this primary.
While he has been anything but above mudslinging or negative campaigning.
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
2. The issue (as I see it, without placing any personal opinion on it) appears to be that a female interviewer and respected journalist, trying to ask a series of questions pertaining to the current state of both the primaries and general election, is dismissed as "moaning" about HRC's problems. The word "moaning" is less important than the manner in which he was dismissive of not just the questions, but dismissive of the person asking the questions by attacking the act of asking the questions. Coming from a position of power and male privilege, it appears that he is disrespecting a reporter, potentially due in part to her gender as the word choice does match historical stereotypes and patterns. Regardless, it was a completely disrespectful and unprofessional way to answer a professional journalist of any background and completely unnecessary to his core point. He could have simply answered "It's up to each of us to make our case to the American people, and my focus is making my case, because I'm in this to win."
1) I am only making assumptions of the people claiming that Bernie's comments were sexist. I stand by those assumptions, those people are reaching, and I am perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion because that is what the people I am referring to said, no judgement required. The posts about other reasons why his comments may be problematic came after I started writing my post so I didn't make a distinction between those and the accusations of sexism. Moan is not a gendered term. The reporter was moaning. If the point was to ask what Bernie's thoughts on that issue were, then maybe it would be OK. But he gave his opinions and she didn't give a shit, the answer she wanted was "You're right, I've had an easy time of it" and that's why she kept hammering the issue.
2) I used y'all because I'm English and it sounds funny when I say it so it was a way of poking fun at myself. In retrospect you had no way of knowing that. Sorry.
3) On the bolded: He did. And the reporter wouldn't drop it or even acknowledge it. The reporter was repeatedly trying to make the case that Hillary was having a tougher time of the elections than him and he was simply pointing out that the Sanders campaign has had it's own set of challenges - which is completely fair and correct.
4) I believe the very nature of the line of questioning was disrespectful to Bernie to begin with, and he gave as good as he got. The journalist was basically saying "Just drop out already", so at that point framing this as some kind of productive interview is both unprofessional and disingenuous. She clearly had no interest in what Bernie had to say and was just trying to segue into a clip of Trump talking about Hillary. In an interview with Bernie Sanders.
5) For a post pre-faced with "without placing a personal opinion on it", that sure was an entire paragraph of personal opinions. For ordinary people who don't examine every comment under a microscope through a political lens, sentiments like that over a single word would make them roll their eyes so hard they'd fall out of their head, and will do more damage to HRC's campaign than good. Of the 30 or so synonyms he could have pulled out of the air, I'd say it was the second most appropriate one behind "complain".
They were bullshit questions and Bernie was calling out the journalist for them. Good for him, IMO. A little emotional maybe, but emotion is a quality I like in humans.
I still hope he loses.
I wasn't being serious about the y'all. Next time I'll put a ;-) after it.
I think the reaction here appears to boils down to whether or not you think the line of questioning was appropriate, but ultimately, it doesn't matter if you, I, or Bernie Sanders thinks the line of questioning is appropriate, because it's going to keep coming. If I might quote myself from May 5th:
The problem with this is that the primary is over. Bernie is at the height of his ability to influence policy, and is only going to lose any ability to affect the platform from here on out. The Media has decided it's over, in part due to math, and in part because the "drama" of his "refusal to concede" is the better story. It frames him into a sore loser, a dangerous ideologue that would rather burn it all down than admit defeat, and as that narrative takes hold, his sway over the public will diminish.
The "big story" is going to continue to be "why haven't you conceded" because it makes a great dramatic narrative. Questions about it are not going away, so he better find an elegant way to deal with them instead of getting flustered.
I agree that those questions are not going to stop. I guess we just disagree on how he should deal with these questions; I believe it is the role of politicians to call out the 4th Estate on their bullshit just as much as the reverse is true. Otherwise a 'free press' is a detriment that cannot be held to account. I'm glad that Bernie is willing to do it.
I disagree that he successfully "called it out", if that's what he was attempting. All I see is a defensive and frustrated retort. If he feels the line of questioning is bullshit, he needs to say that flat out: "Andrea, I understand where you're coming from, but I'm here to talk about the Sanders campaign, not the Clinton or Trump campaigns. I am still in this race to win, and I believe it's better to let every Democratic voter have their say than allow the media to pressure me into conceding prematurely and leaving them voiceless. And furthermore, Donald Trump is a loudmouth and an idiot, and why you continue to give him free airtime despite the hateful and damaging views he continues to espouse about everyone and everything is shameful. Now, do you have a question for me about my campaign you'd like to ask?"
Yeah that would have been better, and Bernie probably wishes that's what he'd said in retrospect!
That's sort of the point, though. As the primary goes on, he seems to be getting tripped up and flustered more frequently. One of the qualities that I personally look for in an authority figure is the restraint to collect their thoughts before speaking and the tact to call out the poor behavior of others in a way that is primarily constructive. I do not envy the position he's in, but at the same time, he's choosing to be there, and staying in this primary does conflict with conventional wisdom. Right or not, the onus is on him to clearly articulate why he's still running, how it's good for the voters and the country, and assure people that it will not damage his party's chances in the General. Ideally, the job of President is the job of Ultimate Public Servant, and part of making the argument that you are qualified for that job means being able to explain why you believe your actions will ultimately serve the public in a beneficial way.
Every time he fails in one of these interactions, he comes off to some voters as unqualified, and in the race for selfish rather than selfless reasons. Which, sure, you've gotta have some ego and ambition to think you've got a shot in the first place, but you also need the humility to understand that your role is ultimately not about you, but about the responsibility for the well being of the millions of Americans you wish to represent.
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
Am I the only one that thinks it's shady that Hilary is thinking of having Warren,the head of the DNC, as her VP. It sounds like someone made a deal
There's a few things. One, I don't think Warren is the head of the DNC? Do you mean Debbie Schultz?
Two- if we are talking about Warren, Elizabeth Warren, I thought she was someone we WANTED closer to the oval office???
I don't understand Bernie supporters
If Bernie does a thing, it is right, and pure, and good.
If Hillary does a thing, it is wrong, and dirty, and evil.
Literally the last 20 pages of this thread have pretty much demonstrated the precise reverse of this hypothesis
I suspect we are reading a different thread then.
Read the 20 posts before yours. Then read basically every post since that. I mean you've literally made that post directly in the middle of a discussion where people are being somewhat abusive about Bernie using the word 'moan', for heaven sake.
On this page: "Whiny fuck", sexist, one note stump, criticisms of Bernie supporters as a bloc. That just this page.
This is an extremely pro-Clinton forum with a few notable exceptions (Elki and a few others). To suggest otherwise is... well it's not acknowledging reality. It's not a bad thing, IMO, but if you're going to be rude about it based on a very incorrect analysis then expect to be called on it.
That does not actually demonstrate that peoplein this thread would not find similar actions inappropriate from Hillary in a similar situation.
Personally, i don't think of it as sexist, though i can see how it can come of like it might be.
I do think of it as incredibly whiny, that he proclaims that he has been attacked, when he has been treated very gently by everyone, including Hillary (for whatever reasons) during this primary.
While he has been anything but above mudslinging or negative campaigning.
And the thread, and I, quite clearly agree with you. Which was my point. You're saying the thread is not critical and that's demonstrably and obviously false - criticising Bernie is probably 80% of discussion here. Whether or not he deserves it is irrelevant; the thread does not put him on some pedestal as you seem to believe.
Completely agree, y'all are reaching hard to hit Bernie on this, and this is coming from an HRC supporter.
1. I object to you claiming "y'all", both because you're making assumptions about posters personal feelings and because I grew up rural and hate that word.
2. The issue (as I see it, without placing any personal opinion on it) appears to be that a female interviewer and respected journalist, trying to ask a series of questions pertaining to the current state of both the primaries and general election, is dismissed as "moaning" about HRC's problems. The word "moaning" is less important than the manner in which he was dismissive of not just the questions, but dismissive of the person asking the questions by attacking the act of asking the questions. Coming from a position of power and male privilege, it appears that he is disrespecting a reporter, potentially due in part to her gender as the word choice does match historical stereotypes and patterns. Regardless, it was a completely disrespectful and unprofessional way to answer a professional journalist of any background and completely unnecessary to his core point. He could have simply answered "It's up to each of us to make our case to the American people, and my focus is making my case, because I'm in this to win."
1) I am only making assumptions of the people claiming that Bernie's comments were sexist. I stand by those assumptions, those people are reaching, and I am perfectly entitled to draw that conclusion because that is what the people I am referring to said, no judgement required. The posts about other reasons why his comments may be problematic came after I started writing my post so I didn't make a distinction between those and the accusations of sexism. Moan is not a gendered term. The reporter was moaning. If the point was to ask what Bernie's thoughts on that issue were, then maybe it would be OK. But he gave his opinions and she didn't give a shit, the answer she wanted was "You're right, I've had an easy time of it" and that's why she kept hammering the issue.
2) I used y'all because I'm English and it sounds funny when I say it so it was a way of poking fun at myself. In retrospect you had no way of knowing that. Sorry.
3) On the bolded: He did. And the reporter wouldn't drop it or even acknowledge it. The reporter was repeatedly trying to make the case that Hillary was having a tougher time of the elections than him and he was simply pointing out that the Sanders campaign has had it's own set of challenges - which is completely fair and correct.
4) I believe the very nature of the line of questioning was disrespectful to Bernie to begin with, and he gave as good as he got. The journalist was basically saying "Just drop out already", so at that point framing this as some kind of productive interview is both unprofessional and disingenuous. She clearly had no interest in what Bernie had to say and was just trying to segue into a clip of Trump talking about Hillary. In an interview with Bernie Sanders.
5) For a post pre-faced with "without placing a personal opinion on it", that sure was an entire paragraph of personal opinions. For ordinary people who don't examine every comment under a microscope through a political lens, sentiments like that over a single word would make them roll their eyes so hard they'd fall out of their head, and will do more damage to HRC's campaign than good. Of the 30 or so synonyms he could have pulled out of the air, I'd say it was the second most appropriate one behind "complain".
They were bullshit questions and Bernie was calling out the journalist for them. Good for him, IMO. A little emotional maybe, but emotion is a quality I like in humans.
I still hope he loses.
I wasn't being serious about the y'all. Next time I'll put a ;-) after it.
I think the reaction here appears to boils down to whether or not you think the line of questioning was appropriate, but ultimately, it doesn't matter if you, I, or Bernie Sanders thinks the line of questioning is appropriate, because it's going to keep coming. If I might quote myself from May 5th:
The problem with this is that the primary is over. Bernie is at the height of his ability to influence policy, and is only going to lose any ability to affect the platform from here on out. The Media has decided it's over, in part due to math, and in part because the "drama" of his "refusal to concede" is the better story. It frames him into a sore loser, a dangerous ideologue that would rather burn it all down than admit defeat, and as that narrative takes hold, his sway over the public will diminish.
The "big story" is going to continue to be "why haven't you conceded" because it makes a great dramatic narrative. Questions about it are not going away, so he better find an elegant way to deal with them instead of getting flustered.
I agree that those questions are not going to stop. I guess we just disagree on how he should deal with these questions; I believe it is the role of politicians to call out the 4th Estate on their bullshit just as much as the reverse is true. Otherwise a 'free press' is a detriment that cannot be held to account. I'm glad that Bernie is willing to do it.
Do you think reporters should be asking a candidate in his position why they are still running?
They know why he's still running; he's outlined why countless times.
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
Am I the only one that thinks it's shady that Hilary is thinking of having Warren,the head of the DNC, as her VP. It sounds like someone made a deal
There's a few things. One, I don't think Warren is the head of the DNC? Do you mean Debbie Schultz?
Two- if we are talking about Warren, Elizabeth Warren, I thought she was someone we WANTED closer to the oval office???
I don't understand Bernie supporters
If Bernie does a thing, it is right, and pure, and good.
If Hillary does a thing, it is wrong, and dirty, and evil.
Literally the last 20 pages of this thread have pretty much demonstrated the precise reverse of this hypothesis
I suspect we are reading a different thread then.
Read the 20 posts before yours. Then read basically every post since that. I mean you've literally made that post directly in the middle of a discussion where people are being somewhat abusive about Bernie using the word 'moan', for heaven sake.
On this page: "Whiny fuck", sexist, one note stump, criticisms of Bernie supporters as a bloc. That just this page.
This is an extremely pro-Clinton forum with a few notable exceptions (Elki and a few others). To suggest otherwise is... well it's not acknowledging reality. It's not a bad thing, IMO, but if you're going to be rude about it based on a very incorrect analysis then expect to be called on it.
The forum isn't hugely pro clinton, this thread and its ancestor threads are so pro Clinton that Clinton herself would probably distance herself from them for fear of alienating moderates
I think Clinton's alright but her views on work ethic and foreign policy are cold war old "serious people" views that bug the shit out of me
I actually have come to believe Clinton would be a better president than Sanders for most of the day to day stuff a president actually does despite this thread
God, Sanders is such a whiny fuck whenever he's challenged on, like, ANYTHNG.
Edit. And wow, that Reid/Grayson exchange. When was the last time there was an out and out fist fight between elected officials in the US? We must be getting pretty close to one.
I'm pretty sure that Reid would lay out Mr. Hedge Fund.
They know why he's still running; he's outlined why countless times.
His answer to this is nonsensical. Sometimes its to win, sometimes its to effect the convention rules or platform.
But he has no path to victory. He is not going to be the democratic nominee and its increasingly insulting to everyone's intelligence to pretend otherwise. And the nominee controls the convention so the more combative he is, the less he's going to get. Majority rules and he's not approaching a majority or a plurality.
If he wants to stop getting asked this, he should stop offering bullshit answers or he should drop out.
edit
For instance in that interview
“I’m in this race to win."
But his campaign has also admitted
“This campaign is going to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform that calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all health care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities tuition free, and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the planetary crisis of climate change,”
Do you think reporters should be asking a candidate in his position why they are still running?
They know why he's still running; he's outlined why countless times.
It's great that you know why, but that's not what I asked. I asked if you thought it was appropriate for him to be asked the question.
Yes. And once he's answered, move on and ask about everything else. It's inappropriate to ask that question, and continue asking it once answered, at the expense of questions about his platform, his politics, or any of the stuff that voters need to learn about. That is, to use a technical term, shitty journalism.
Do you think reporters should be asking a candidate in his position why they are still running?
They know why he's still running; he's outlined why countless times.
It's great that you know why, but that's not what I asked. I asked if you thought it was appropriate for him to be asked the question.
Yes. And once he's answered, move on and ask about everything else. It's inappropriate to ask that question, and continue asking it once answered, at the expense of questions about his platform, his politics, or any of the stuff that voters need to learn about. That is, to use a technical term, shitty journalism.
Personally I think its shitty journalism to accept an answer uncritically and not challenge it when it doesn't make sense.
Do you think reporters should be asking a candidate in his position why they are still running?
They know why he's still running; he's outlined why countless times.
It's great that you know why, but that's not what I asked. I asked if you thought it was appropriate for him to be asked the question.
Yes. And once he's answered, move on and ask about everything else. It's inappropriate to ask that question, and continue asking it once answered, at the expense of questions about his platform, his politics, or any of the stuff that voters need to learn about. That is, to use a technical term, shitty journalism.
Personally I think its shitty journalism to accept an answer uncritically and not challenge it when it doesn't make sense.
That's... nice? Not really relevant to the interview we're discussing, however. The journalist was given a completely fine answer and continued to hammer on the same point and then segue into a video of Trump talking about Hillary. Unless that video was going to shed light on Bernie's answer, but I don't think so.
The question, and the interview, was set-up to make Bernie look bad. If she wanted Bernie to clarify his position in the way that you've asked, then she should have asked the specific question. Instead, they danced around it with "Gee, you've had it so easy so far, how are you going to handle it when Trump comes for you?". Again... shitty journalism. It's the journalist reinforcing the horse-race narrative in this interview, not Bernie.
If he wants to stop getting asked this, he should stop offering bullshit answers or he should drop out.
For instance in that interview
“I’m in this race to win."
But his campaign has also admitted
“This campaign is going to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform that calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all health care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities tuition free, and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the planetary crisis of climate change,”
[/quote]
It's quite clearly both. That doesn't make him a liar nor is it nonsensical. "I'm in this race to win. If I don't win, we will fight for the planks of my platform that a significant number of democratic party members support to be adopted by the nominee."
ie He is fighting for a progressive party platform AT THE SAME TIME as trying to win.
I mean, not only is that super fucking reasonable, it's literally how democracy is supposed to work
*edit* ironically the sentence about nonsensical things was nonsensical
I'll leave it at this. Countless times in this thread and others we criticise non-voters and tell them if they don't vote then their voices will not and don't deserve to be heard. Bernie clearly believes the same and that his voters should get that opportunity. By continuing to run, those voters in the remaining states gain that voice.
I think it's gross that we're arguing that they should be denied that right. Bernie staying in the race is not going to cost Hillary the nomination or the Presidency, and will lead to a better (and more democratic!) Democratic Party. And I'm sure Bernie knows that. I support it even if I don't support him for nominee or some of the actions of his campaign.
Do you think reporters should be asking a candidate in his position why they are still running?
They know why he's still running; he's outlined why countless times.
It's great that you know why, but that's not what I asked. I asked if you thought it was appropriate for him to be asked the question.
Yes. And once he's answered, move on and ask about everything else. It's inappropriate to ask that question, and continue asking it once answered, at the expense of questions about his platform, his politics, or any of the stuff that voters need to learn about. That is, to use a technical term, shitty journalism.
No he didn't answer. He dodged
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I'll leave it at this. Countless times in this thread and others we criticise non-voters and tell them if they don't vote then their voices will not and don't deserve to be heard. Bernie clearly believes the same and that his voters should get that opportunity. By continuing to run, those voters in the remaining states gain that voice.
I think it's gross that we're arguing that they should be denied that right. Bernie staying in the race is not going to cost Hillary the nomination or the Presidency, and will lead to a better (and more democratic!) Democratic Party. And I'm sure Bernie knows that. I support it even if I don't support him for nominee or some of the actions of his campaign.
If Bernie stopped campaigning he'd still be on the ballot and his voters could still vote for him and make their voices heard.
I'll leave it at this. Countless times in this thread and others we criticise non-voters and tell them if they don't vote then their voices will not and don't deserve to be heard. Bernie clearly believes the same and that his voters should get that opportunity. By continuing to run, those voters in the remaining states gain that voice.
I think it's gross that we're arguing that they should be denied that right. Bernie staying in the race is not going to cost Hillary the nomination or the Presidency, and will lead to a better (and more democratic!) Democratic Party. And I'm sure Bernie knows that. I support it even if I don't support him for nominee or some of the actions of his campaign.
Much like there is a difference between constructive criticism and negativity, there is a difference between making sure all voices are heard, and an attempt at a pyric victory.
The more obvious that Bernie can no longer secure the nomination, the more grating & insulting it is to Democratic Party members, for him to keep insulting the Democratic party while running for its nomination.
Also, getting a voice on the platform without a majority or even plurality of delegates would be a reward for a clean and well run campaign, I think we know why Bernie keeps publicly complaining about committee selections.
Gnome-Interruptus on
MWO: Adamski
+2
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
I'll leave it at this. Countless times in this thread and others we criticise non-voters and tell them if they don't vote then their voices will not and don't deserve to be heard. Bernie clearly believes the same and that his voters should get that opportunity. By continuing to run, those voters in the remaining states gain that voice.
I think it's gross that we're arguing that they should be denied that right. Bernie staying in the race is not going to cost Hillary the nomination or the Presidency, and will lead to a better (and more democratic!) Democratic Party. And I'm sure Bernie knows that. I support it even if I don't support him for nominee or some of the actions of his campaign.
If Bernie stopped campaigning he'd still be on the ballot and his voters could still vote for him and make their voices heard.
which I will note nobody seemed to have any issues with in the R thread after Cruz and Kasich dropped out.
that line has always been a dodge. it's too late for Bernie to be removed from the ballots.
if one wants to argue that it would depress turnout for Bernie supporters - that may have legs. but it gets back to my complaint from two or three threads ago about a failure to understand how down ticket races matter, and how if Bernie is the only thing driving turnout we have some other issues wrt his base.
I'll leave it at this. Countless times in this thread and others we criticise non-voters and tell them if they don't vote then their voices will not and don't deserve to be heard. Bernie clearly believes the same and that his voters should get that opportunity. By continuing to run, those voters in the remaining states gain that voice.
I think it's gross that we're arguing that they should be denied that right. Bernie staying in the race is not going to cost Hillary the nomination or the Presidency, and will lead to a better (and more democratic!) Democratic Party. And I'm sure Bernie knows that. I support it even if I don't support him for nominee or some of the actions of his campaign.
If Bernie stopped campaigning he'd still be on the ballot and his voters could still vote for him and make their voices heard.
Yes but hardly anyone would turn up to vote for him if he concedes, that's just how elections work. As long as there's still a chance for him to win and he remains in the race, his voters will remain energised. He knows this. There's an element of expectation management going on,
Do you think reporters should be asking a candidate in his position why they are still running?
They know why he's still running; he's outlined why countless times.
It's great that you know why, but that's not what I asked. I asked if you thought it was appropriate for him to be asked the question.
Yes. And once he's answered, move on and ask about everything else. It's inappropriate to ask that question, and continue asking it once answered, at the expense of questions about his platform, his politics, or any of the stuff that voters need to learn about. That is, to use a technical term, shitty journalism.
No he didn't answer. He dodged
He was asked directly what if he agreed that Hillary Clinton has to fight two opponents in the election so far and he only has to fight one. He disagreed and responded that he instead has had to fight against a Democratic establishment and party apparatus. That isn't dodging the question. We might not agree with the answer, but it's as direct an answer as he could give to a question that was set-up to knock him down a peg.
You're going to pretend like you don't see the difference in dropping out and just having your name on a ballot and actively campaigning until the very end in hopes of getting out every possible vote you can to make the best case that you can about how there is a significant portion of the party that shouldn't just be swept under the rug "because Clinton" ?
Viskod on
+1
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
You're going to pretend like you don't see the difference in dropping out and just having your name on a ballot and actively campaigning until the very end in hopes of getting out every possible vote you can to make the best case that you can about how there is a significant portion of the party that shouldn't just be swept under the rug "because Clinton" ?
you could certainly take that read.
but i think you're coming from a pretty biased place, and i think you fail to understand how the convention works.
Bernie has no real power in how this will play out. this isn't a parliamentary system, and to be quite frank his best bet is to work with the party to try to shape the platform, not actively against it.
he literally, in the origin of this discussion, argued that he was fighting against "the entire Democratic establishment".
I think that there are two potential goals for Bernie at the moment.
A. Continue trying to become President.
B. Try to ensure that as much of his platform as possible becomes reality.
If A is his goal, I think that what he needs to do is show that he can play nice with his fellow Democrats, and find a way to demonstrate that he really is passionate about more than just economic issues. He needs to do a better job showing that he really deeply cares about the social issues that motivate Hillary's supporters. He needs to convince Democrats that he is going to support social rights and equity measures with the same resolve that he fights for economic values. Take the bit that Pants quoted above:
This campaign is going to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform that calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all health care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities tuition free, and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the planetary crisis of climate change
There's a lot of good stuff in that, and while Hillary supporters may quibble about specifics and/or are leery of the extent of the proposals, they'll generally not disagree with the principles. But there's nothing in there about minority rights, voting rights, religious rights, women's rights, etc. Bernie needs to assure Democrats that he will make those things priorities, rather than just assuming that a rising tide will lift all boats. If he can do that, and he can mend fences with the Democratic establishment, and the FBI investigation goes badly for Clinton, then that'll be his best chance to become President - to be selected by the Superdelagates.
If B on the other hand, he needs to be at least neutral towards Clinton, and he should focus on his own issues while supporting down ticket races. If he can show indications that he can swing red districts into blue with progressive candidates, in the short term he'll have a strong voice at the convention and in the long term he'll have a greater say and greater ability to send the President the sort of legislation that he wants to see.
In both A and B, as I see it, attacking Clinton fails to serve his purpose.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
You're going to pretend like you don't see the difference in dropping out and just having your name on a ballot and actively campaigning until the very end in hopes of getting out every possible vote you can to make the best case that you can about how there is a significant portion of the party that shouldn't just be swept under the rug "because Clinton" ?
you could certainly take that read.
but i think you're coming from a pretty biased place, and i think you fail to understand how the convention works.
Bernie has no real power in how this will play out. this isn't a parliamentary system, and to be quite frank his best bet is to work with the party to try to shape the platform, not actively against it.
he literally, in the origin of this discussion, argued that he was fighting against "the entire Democratic establishment".
good luck swaying the same establishment.
He doesn't need luck, he needs voters. The fact of the matter is that if the party makes concessions to the platform Bernie's voters want, they increase the Democrats' chance of winning the General. You don't win elections by alienating nearly half of your party. I think he will work with the Democratic party to shape the platform, and he wants to do so with a huge swathe of registered democratic party members who want the same thing to back him up.
He was asked directly what if he agreed that Hillary Clinton has to fight two opponents in the election so far and he only has to fight one. He disagreed and responded that he instead has had to fight against a Democratic establishment and party apparatus. That isn't dodging the question. We might not agree with the answer, but it's as direct an answer as he could give to a question that was set-up to knock him down a peg.
The question that was asked was:
"But isn't the bottom line about you versus Hillary Clinton and who would be a stronger candidate, that she is now fighting a war on two fronts?"
His responses were, in order, that every candidate is running for president, that he's been attacked and misinterpreted, and that everyone has to make a case for being president. After being further pressed, and the statement clarified by the interviewer, only then did he make his own statement about having to fight the Democratic establishment. Not at the start. That was the final statement made, at which point, the interviewer moved on to something else.
I am biased against saying it's an insult for the man to want to let the entire process play out, encourage voices to be heard even though they're in the minority, and make his case for changes to the platform.
There is no wrong doing at play here. He's not doing anything that he is not entitled to do.
I'll leave it at this. Countless times in this thread and others we criticise non-voters and tell them if they don't vote then their voices will not and don't deserve to be heard. Bernie clearly believes the same and that his voters should get that opportunity. By continuing to run, those voters in the remaining states gain that voice.
I think it's gross that we're arguing that they should be denied that right. Bernie staying in the race is not going to cost Hillary the nomination or the Presidency, and will lead to a better (and more democratic!) Democratic Party. And I'm sure Bernie knows that. I support it even if I don't support him for nominee or some of the actions of his campaign.
If Bernie stopped campaigning he'd still be on the ballot and his voters could still vote for him and make their voices heard.
Yes but hardly anyone would turn up to vote for him if he concedes, that's just how elections work. As long as there's still a chance for him to win and he remains in the race, his voters will remain energised. He knows this. There's an element of expectation management going on,
Do you think reporters should be asking a candidate in his position why they are still running?
They know why he's still running; he's outlined why countless times.
It's great that you know why, but that's not what I asked. I asked if you thought it was appropriate for him to be asked the question.
Yes. And once he's answered, move on and ask about everything else. It's inappropriate to ask that question, and continue asking it once answered, at the expense of questions about his platform, his politics, or any of the stuff that voters need to learn about. That is, to use a technical term, shitty journalism.
No he didn't answer. He dodged
He was asked directly what if he agreed that Hillary Clinton has to fight two opponents in the election so far and he only has to fight one. He disagreed and responded that he instead has had to fight against a Democratic establishment and party apparatus. That isn't dodging the question. We might not agree with the answer, but it's as direct an answer as he could give to a question that was set-up to knock him down a peg.
His answer only makes sense in a world where he has a reasonable path to victory. He does not.
Also, I'm personally tired of this "fight against the establishment". What establishment? The other members of the party he joined? What fight? Who's stopping him from participating? He joined the party, has appeared on every ballot, every debate. No one is stopping him, he doesn't have to "fight" anyone.
Did he enter a primary against an opponent who has 9 years of campaign momentum behind her? Is that hard to overcome? Yes. Yes it is, but it's not like anyone in the Democratic Party his denying him his due voice, and he's done phenomenal in the face of overwhelming odds. He simply went up against a political juggernaut with more campaign experience under her belt than probably any other politician in recent memory. There's no "establishment" boogeyman holding the Bernie down, the DNC isn't fucking him over. He's had every opportunity granted him to plead his case to the electorate and then some, and his repeated cries of "it's not fair" is getting a little tiresome.
It's time for him to suck it up and be graceful about his loss, whatever form he chooses to give to it. He can concede and give a speech espousing his full-throated support to Clinton, or he can stay in until the Convention while sticking to his positive messages and keeping out of the mud. I don't care how he does it, but I expect him to act like a leader, like a President.
I'll leave it at this. Countless times in this thread and others we criticise non-voters and tell them if they don't vote then their voices will not and don't deserve to be heard. Bernie clearly believes the same and that his voters should get that opportunity. By continuing to run, those voters in the remaining states gain that voice.
I think it's gross that we're arguing that they should be denied that right. Bernie staying in the race is not going to cost Hillary the nomination or the Presidency, and will lead to a better (and more democratic!) Democratic Party. And I'm sure Bernie knows that. I support it even if I don't support him for nominee or some of the actions of his campaign.
If Bernie stopped campaigning he'd still be on the ballot and his voters could still vote for him and make their voices heard.
Yes but hardly anyone would turn up to vote for him if he concedes, that's just how elections work. As long as there's still a chance for him to win and he remains in the race, his voters will remain energised. He knows this. There's an element of expectation management going on,
Do you think reporters should be asking a candidate in his position why they are still running?
They know why he's still running; he's outlined why countless times.
It's great that you know why, but that's not what I asked. I asked if you thought it was appropriate for him to be asked the question.
Yes. And once he's answered, move on and ask about everything else. It's inappropriate to ask that question, and continue asking it once answered, at the expense of questions about his platform, his politics, or any of the stuff that voters need to learn about. That is, to use a technical term, shitty journalism.
No he didn't answer. He dodged
He was asked directly what if he agreed that Hillary Clinton has to fight two opponents in the election so far and he only has to fight one. He disagreed and responded that he instead has had to fight against a Democratic establishment and party apparatus. That isn't dodging the question. We might not agree with the answer, but it's as direct an answer as he could give to a question that was set-up to knock him down a peg.
His answer only makes sense in a world where he has a reasonable path to victory. He does not.
Also, I'm personally tired of this "fight against the establishment". What establishment? The other members of the party he joined? What fight? Who's stopping him from participating? He joined the party, has appeared on every ballot, every debate. No one is stopping him, he doesn't have to "fight" anyone.
Did he enter a primary against an opponent who has 9 years of campaign momentum behind her? Is that hard to overcome? Yes. Yes it is, but it's not like anyone in the Democratic Party his denying him his due voice, and he's done phenomenal in the face of overwhelming odds. He simply went up against a political juggernaut with more campaign experience under her belt than probably any other politician in recent memory. There's no "establishment" boogeyman holding the Bernie down, the DNC isn't fucking him over. He's had every opportunity granted him to plead his case to the electorate and then some, and his repeated cries of "it's not fair" is getting a little tiresome.
It's time for him to suck it up and be graceful about his loss, whatever form he chooses to give to it. He can concede and give a speech espousing his full-throated support to Clinton, or he can stay in until the Convention while sticking to his positive messages and keeping out of the mud. I don't care how he does it, but I expect him to act like a leader, like a President.
I broadly agree. I think the best outcome is for him to remain in the race, push his platform but run a cleaner campaign.
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
+9
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
I am biased against saying it's an insult for the man to want to let the entire process play out, encourage voices to be heard even though they're in the minority, and make his case for changes to the platform.
There is no wrong doing at play here. He's not doing anything that he is not entitled to do.
i don't think anyone is disputing that he is entitled to stay in the race?
i think your entire premise for what he can accomplish while staying in the race is faulty. if Bernie Sanders wants to influence policy he needs to learn to work with the people who will make that policy. As he is actively running against those people in this primary (while fundraising off "the establishment" no less) i find it very difficult to believe that he will have any success. Furthermore, if Bernie loses by 15% or 20%, or 5% - he still lost. He does not get a proportional say in the platform based on the size of his vote, and i think the implicit (and occasional explicit) campaign statements that more votes = more influence is both dishonest and outright misleading.
I restate my position that Bernie seems to be a crappy politician when it comes to actually playing politics.
You're going to pretend like you don't see the difference in dropping out and just having your name on a ballot and actively campaigning until the very end in hopes of getting out every possible vote you can to make the best case that you can about how there is a significant portion of the party that shouldn't just be swept under the rug "because Clinton" ?
That is Bernie Sanders obvious position. That is one of his stated goals for this primary.
That there is a significant amount of democrats that support his ideals and they shouldn't be ignored.
Clinton's positions are almost uniformly within spitting distance of Sanders' - they tend to be slightly less ambitious and more nuanced. Clinton is a Democrat who supports most of the same ideals as Sanders. She's not ignoring those ideals.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Yes but hardly anyone would turn up to vote for him if he concedes, that's just how elections work. As long as there's still a chance for him to win and he remains in the race, his voters will remain energised. He knows this. There's an element of expectation management going on
Here is where this runs into a significant problem.
There is absolutely zero realistic chance that Bernie Sanders will be the nominee for the Democratic Party. Any scenario where he might hypothetically secure the nomination involves such a convoluted and unlikely series of events that it's not even worth taking seriously.
That is Bernie Sanders obvious position. That is one of his stated goals for this primary.
That there is a significant amount of democrats that support his ideals and they shouldn't be ignored.
Correction: There is a large minority of Democrats who support his platform more than Clinton's. The two platforms are not in ideological conflict, they vary primarily by extent or method, not intent or goal. Those voters' ideals will not be ignored, though as a minority, they may not have much, or perhaps any, say on the extent or methods.
Which is correct. The minority should not get to dictate the platform, otherwise what was the point of the primary in the first place?
Another thing I'm tired of is this idea that Sanders voters will not be represented under Clinton. It's bullshit. No, they don't get to dictate specifics, they lost, but both candidates are running on similar goals and ideals. Democracy is about representation and compromise, no individual will ever get their full platform enacted verbatim, because that's not Democracy, that's a Dictatorship.
Again I say, anyone complaining about their voice "not being heard" if Sanders drops out cares more about how voting feels to them than they care about the actual function of voting. They don't want to vote unless who they're voting for can win and if that person has officially dropped out then they've been "robbed" of their vote, even though they could still vote for Sanders and still have downticket races to vote for that matter orders of magnitude more than voting for the president does.
Posts
I'm pretty sure that Reid would lay out Mr. Hedge Fund.
Yeah that would have been better, and Bernie probably wishes that's what he'd said in retrospect!
Steam: adamjnet
I dunno, I'm a Sanders supporter, so I fall under this designation. And I've written thousands of words over the course of this primary on what I find attractive about Sanders' politics and why I disagree with many of the common criticisms of him and his campaign. After doing that, it FeelsBadMan to get painted with the same brush as your loud, low-information friend who is annoying you on Facebook.
Hm. I apologize then. I should have clarified that with "I don't understand the subset of Bernie supporters who seek to completely demonize Hillary Clinton as a perfunctory knee-jerk response, without actually describing why Sanders is a better candidate beyond handwaving claims of 'corruption' and 'anti-establishment', given the rather close alignment of their stated platforms."
No, and I've been trying to for years
Personally, i don't think of it as sexist, though i can see how it can come of like it might be.
I do think of it as incredibly whiny, that he proclaims that he has been attacked, when he has been treated very gently by everyone, including Hillary (for whatever reasons) during this primary.
While he has been anything but above mudslinging or negative campaigning.
It's great that you know why, but that's not what I asked. I asked if you thought it was appropriate for him to be asked the question.
That's sort of the point, though. As the primary goes on, he seems to be getting tripped up and flustered more frequently. One of the qualities that I personally look for in an authority figure is the restraint to collect their thoughts before speaking and the tact to call out the poor behavior of others in a way that is primarily constructive. I do not envy the position he's in, but at the same time, he's choosing to be there, and staying in this primary does conflict with conventional wisdom. Right or not, the onus is on him to clearly articulate why he's still running, how it's good for the voters and the country, and assure people that it will not damage his party's chances in the General. Ideally, the job of President is the job of Ultimate Public Servant, and part of making the argument that you are qualified for that job means being able to explain why you believe your actions will ultimately serve the public in a beneficial way.
Every time he fails in one of these interactions, he comes off to some voters as unqualified, and in the race for selfish rather than selfless reasons. Which, sure, you've gotta have some ego and ambition to think you've got a shot in the first place, but you also need the humility to understand that your role is ultimately not about you, but about the responsibility for the well being of the millions of Americans you wish to represent.
And the thread, and I, quite clearly agree with you. Which was my point. You're saying the thread is not critical and that's demonstrably and obviously false - criticising Bernie is probably 80% of discussion here. Whether or not he deserves it is irrelevant; the thread does not put him on some pedestal as you seem to believe.
Steam: adamjnet
Steam: adamjnet
The forum isn't hugely pro clinton, this thread and its ancestor threads are so pro Clinton that Clinton herself would probably distance herself from them for fear of alienating moderates
I think Clinton's alright but her views on work ethic and foreign policy are cold war old "serious people" views that bug the shit out of me
I actually have come to believe Clinton would be a better president than Sanders for most of the day to day stuff a president actually does despite this thread
History suggests he'd choke him actually. :P
But he has no path to victory. He is not going to be the democratic nominee and its increasingly insulting to everyone's intelligence to pretend otherwise. And the nominee controls the convention so the more combative he is, the less he's going to get. Majority rules and he's not approaching a majority or a plurality.
If he wants to stop getting asked this, he should stop offering bullshit answers or he should drop out.
edit
For instance in that interview But his campaign has also admitted
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes. And once he's answered, move on and ask about everything else. It's inappropriate to ask that question, and continue asking it once answered, at the expense of questions about his platform, his politics, or any of the stuff that voters need to learn about. That is, to use a technical term, shitty journalism.
Steam: adamjnet
Personally I think its shitty journalism to accept an answer uncritically and not challenge it when it doesn't make sense.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
That's... nice? Not really relevant to the interview we're discussing, however. The journalist was given a completely fine answer and continued to hammer on the same point and then segue into a video of Trump talking about Hillary. Unless that video was going to shed light on Bernie's answer, but I don't think so.
The question, and the interview, was set-up to make Bernie look bad. If she wanted Bernie to clarify his position in the way that you've asked, then she should have asked the specific question. Instead, they danced around it with "Gee, you've had it so easy so far, how are you going to handle it when Trump comes for you?". Again... shitty journalism. It's the journalist reinforcing the horse-race narrative in this interview, not Bernie.
[/quote]
It's quite clearly both. That doesn't make him a liar nor is it nonsensical. "I'm in this race to win. If I don't win, we will fight for the planks of my platform that a significant number of democratic party members support to be adopted by the nominee."
ie He is fighting for a progressive party platform AT THE SAME TIME as trying to win.
I mean, not only is that super fucking reasonable, it's literally how democracy is supposed to work
*edit* ironically the sentence about nonsensical things was nonsensical
Steam: adamjnet
I think it's gross that we're arguing that they should be denied that right. Bernie staying in the race is not going to cost Hillary the nomination or the Presidency, and will lead to a better (and more democratic!) Democratic Party. And I'm sure Bernie knows that. I support it even if I don't support him for nominee or some of the actions of his campaign.
Steam: adamjnet
No he didn't answer. He dodged
If Bernie stopped campaigning he'd still be on the ballot and his voters could still vote for him and make their voices heard.
Much like there is a difference between constructive criticism and negativity, there is a difference between making sure all voices are heard, and an attempt at a pyric victory.
The more obvious that Bernie can no longer secure the nomination, the more grating & insulting it is to Democratic Party members, for him to keep insulting the Democratic party while running for its nomination.
Also, getting a voice on the platform without a majority or even plurality of delegates would be a reward for a clean and well run campaign, I think we know why Bernie keeps publicly complaining about committee selections.
MWO: Adamski
which I will note nobody seemed to have any issues with in the R thread after Cruz and Kasich dropped out.
that line has always been a dodge. it's too late for Bernie to be removed from the ballots.
if one wants to argue that it would depress turnout for Bernie supporters - that may have legs. but it gets back to my complaint from two or three threads ago about a failure to understand how down ticket races matter, and how if Bernie is the only thing driving turnout we have some other issues wrt his base.
Yes but hardly anyone would turn up to vote for him if he concedes, that's just how elections work. As long as there's still a chance for him to win and he remains in the race, his voters will remain energised. He knows this. There's an element of expectation management going on,
He was asked directly what if he agreed that Hillary Clinton has to fight two opponents in the election so far and he only has to fight one. He disagreed and responded that he instead has had to fight against a Democratic establishment and party apparatus. That isn't dodging the question. We might not agree with the answer, but it's as direct an answer as he could give to a question that was set-up to knock him down a peg.
Steam: adamjnet
you could certainly take that read.
but i think you're coming from a pretty biased place, and i think you fail to understand how the convention works.
Bernie has no real power in how this will play out. this isn't a parliamentary system, and to be quite frank his best bet is to work with the party to try to shape the platform, not actively against it.
he literally, in the origin of this discussion, argued that he was fighting against "the entire Democratic establishment".
good luck swaying the same establishment.
I think that there are two potential goals for Bernie at the moment.
A. Continue trying to become President.
B. Try to ensure that as much of his platform as possible becomes reality.
If A is his goal, I think that what he needs to do is show that he can play nice with his fellow Democrats, and find a way to demonstrate that he really is passionate about more than just economic issues. He needs to do a better job showing that he really deeply cares about the social issues that motivate Hillary's supporters. He needs to convince Democrats that he is going to support social rights and equity measures with the same resolve that he fights for economic values. Take the bit that Pants quoted above: There's a lot of good stuff in that, and while Hillary supporters may quibble about specifics and/or are leery of the extent of the proposals, they'll generally not disagree with the principles. But there's nothing in there about minority rights, voting rights, religious rights, women's rights, etc. Bernie needs to assure Democrats that he will make those things priorities, rather than just assuming that a rising tide will lift all boats. If he can do that, and he can mend fences with the Democratic establishment, and the FBI investigation goes badly for Clinton, then that'll be his best chance to become President - to be selected by the Superdelagates.
If B on the other hand, he needs to be at least neutral towards Clinton, and he should focus on his own issues while supporting down ticket races. If he can show indications that he can swing red districts into blue with progressive candidates, in the short term he'll have a strong voice at the convention and in the long term he'll have a greater say and greater ability to send the President the sort of legislation that he wants to see.
In both A and B, as I see it, attacking Clinton fails to serve his purpose.
He doesn't need luck, he needs voters. The fact of the matter is that if the party makes concessions to the platform Bernie's voters want, they increase the Democrats' chance of winning the General. You don't win elections by alienating nearly half of your party. I think he will work with the Democratic party to shape the platform, and he wants to do so with a huge swathe of registered democratic party members who want the same thing to back him up.
Steam: adamjnet
The question that was asked was:
"But isn't the bottom line about you versus Hillary Clinton and who would be a stronger candidate, that she is now fighting a war on two fronts?"
His responses were, in order, that every candidate is running for president, that he's been attacked and misinterpreted, and that everyone has to make a case for being president. After being further pressed, and the statement clarified by the interviewer, only then did he make his own statement about having to fight the Democratic establishment. Not at the start. That was the final statement made, at which point, the interviewer moved on to something else.
There is no wrong doing at play here. He's not doing anything that he is not entitled to do.
His answer only makes sense in a world where he has a reasonable path to victory. He does not.
Also, I'm personally tired of this "fight against the establishment". What establishment? The other members of the party he joined? What fight? Who's stopping him from participating? He joined the party, has appeared on every ballot, every debate. No one is stopping him, he doesn't have to "fight" anyone.
Did he enter a primary against an opponent who has 9 years of campaign momentum behind her? Is that hard to overcome? Yes. Yes it is, but it's not like anyone in the Democratic Party his denying him his due voice, and he's done phenomenal in the face of overwhelming odds. He simply went up against a political juggernaut with more campaign experience under her belt than probably any other politician in recent memory. There's no "establishment" boogeyman holding the Bernie down, the DNC isn't fucking him over. He's had every opportunity granted him to plead his case to the electorate and then some, and his repeated cries of "it's not fair" is getting a little tiresome.
It's time for him to suck it up and be graceful about his loss, whatever form he chooses to give to it. He can concede and give a speech espousing his full-throated support to Clinton, or he can stay in until the Convention while sticking to his positive messages and keeping out of the mud. I don't care how he does it, but I expect him to act like a leader, like a President.
I broadly agree. I think the best outcome is for him to remain in the race, push his platform but run a cleaner campaign.
Steam: adamjnet
i don't think anyone is disputing that he is entitled to stay in the race?
i think your entire premise for what he can accomplish while staying in the race is faulty. if Bernie Sanders wants to influence policy he needs to learn to work with the people who will make that policy. As he is actively running against those people in this primary (while fundraising off "the establishment" no less) i find it very difficult to believe that he will have any success. Furthermore, if Bernie loses by 15% or 20%, or 5% - he still lost. He does not get a proportional say in the platform based on the size of his vote, and i think the implicit (and occasional explicit) campaign statements that more votes = more influence is both dishonest and outright misleading.
I restate my position that Bernie seems to be a crappy politician when it comes to actually playing politics.
I have just stated his obvious goals. I never said they'd be successful to any extent.
ok.
clarify this position then.
That there is a significant amount of democrats that support his ideals and they shouldn't be ignored.
keep moving those goalposts then.
because i fail to see how that follows an explicit attack on Hillary in your post, and on the motive of the Democratic party as a whole.
edit
"look, it's not my position. it's Bernies position"
Clinton's positions are almost uniformly within spitting distance of Sanders' - they tend to be slightly less ambitious and more nuanced. Clinton is a Democrat who supports most of the same ideals as Sanders. She's not ignoring those ideals.
Here is where this runs into a significant problem.
There is absolutely zero realistic chance that Bernie Sanders will be the nominee for the Democratic Party. Any scenario where he might hypothetically secure the nomination involves such a convoluted and unlikely series of events that it's not even worth taking seriously.
Correction: There is a large minority of Democrats who support his platform more than Clinton's. The two platforms are not in ideological conflict, they vary primarily by extent or method, not intent or goal. Those voters' ideals will not be ignored, though as a minority, they may not have much, or perhaps any, say on the extent or methods.
Which is correct. The minority should not get to dictate the platform, otherwise what was the point of the primary in the first place?
Another thing I'm tired of is this idea that Sanders voters will not be represented under Clinton. It's bullshit. No, they don't get to dictate specifics, they lost, but both candidates are running on similar goals and ideals. Democracy is about representation and compromise, no individual will ever get their full platform enacted verbatim, because that's not Democracy, that's a Dictatorship.