I think it's important to note there's a difference between voters and, I dunno, fans? Like, each candidate has plenty of both.
The problem is that while everyone has a vocal, toxic fandom, there's a perception that Sanders' is the worst, probably at least in part due to perceived Sanders/Trump voter (which may or may not exist, I don't have data).
Basically Sanders has a problem similar to the problem Biden has now and Clinton had before - history, be it real or supposed.
I believe that Sanders did tell Warren that a woman can't win. It may not have been that direct, but Sanders has very little tact and can be tone deaf at times and I can imagine him coming off that way even if he was trying to just warn Warren. But the important part here is that Warren clearly believes that's what he said, regardless of what he intended to say. And if what Bernie said wasn't intended to be, "a woman can't win", he can easily clear that up. A simple, "I didn't mean to come off that way and I'm sorry for hurting you. You're my friend and I have a lot of respect for you and I'd never want to cause you harm" But that's not what he did, he effectively "perfect call'd" the conversation and refuses to acknowledge the harm he might have caused.
And the idea that Warren confirming what he said or, to be fair, what she thought he said as somehow cheapening the sexism that female politicians face? Fuck that noise. If anything, it's an example of how even the most well intentioned friends and allies of women can unwittingly perpetuate the sexism they face. You don't have to be a card carrying red piller to say or do something sexist. And it's important for that shit to be called out for what it is and for those who are called out to reflect on why it was wrong. Or, I suppose, you can just never admit any wrongdoing ever and never grow in any meaningful way.
Do I think Bernie Sanders is sexist? No, I do not. Do I believe that he and his campaign have a problem with sexist stuff happening? Yes, because they do. His previous campaign was reported to have been rife with misogyny and sexual harassment, and the men running his campaign didn't seemingly care enough to do anything about it. That reflects on Bernie, who selected the people that ran his campaign. And maybe, just maybe, a candidate who has had problems with sexist shit happening under him might want to take a moment and reflect on what he might have said to his friend and ally that might have upset her.
Also this. I have every confidence that Bernie didn't see anything wrong with what he said and doesn't feel his comments should have been taken the way Warren seems to have taken them.
But now it's coming off as Bernie is this uncompromising jerk who doesn't care that his friend's feelings were hurt by his comments. Which means either he's not as good of a friend as she thought, or she's misrepresenting what she really feels and she's not as good a friend.
Two friends had a conversation. Friend A said "this is how I recall the conversation going." Friend B didn't say "that's not what I meant lemme clarify" Friend B said "I never said that."
And honestly? If Bernie didn't have any negative memory of the conversation, he probably doesn't remember it as well.
So where do we go? Well, hopefully they sit down soon and sort this shit out and find a way to move forward and resolve the issue - if for no other reason than for the sake of their continued friendship and working partnership.
Sanders must be doing alright to be getting this embarrassing example of a hit-job, with all this fanfare and full network coverage. I don’t anticipate seeing anything of the sort about, say, Klobuchar - who I’m told is still in the race.
Working on campaigns must warp your brain, because I’m sure whoever dropped this thought that they had a silver bullet, but instead it’s a production with all the grace of paper plane in the rain. And at every stage so farcically unbelievable and just tacky.
Sanders must be doing alright to be getting this embarrassing example of a hit-job, with all this fanfare and full network coverage. I don’t anticipate seeing anything of the sort about, say, Klobuchar - who I’m told is still in the race.
Working on campaigns must warp your brain, because I’m sure whoever dropped this thought that they had a silver bullet, but instead it’s a production with all the grace of paper plane in the rain. And at every stage so farcically unbelievable and just tacky.
I'm concerned about Bernie's behavior now and he's nowhere near the white house yet.
EDIT - Just look at Bloomberg and Steyer.
Cantido on
3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
+1
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
What a day recap just replayed the exchange, and there might be wiggle room here...
Could it be that Bernie didn't say "a woman" couldn't be president, but did say Warren couldn't be president? Perhaps specifically referring to being able to beat Trump? I admit I have the same worries.
I think it's important to note there's a difference between voters and, I dunno, fans? Like, each candidate has plenty of both.
The problem is that while everyone has a vocal, toxic fandom, there's a perception that Sanders' is the worst, probably at least in part due to perceived Sanders/Trump voter (which may or may not exist, I don't have data).
Basically Sanders has a problem similar to the problem Biden has now and Clinton had before - history, be it real or supposed.
Without getting into 2016, the current reaction on spaces like Twitter and reddit feels like plenty of justification for the perception that Sanders' supporters have the largest toxic segment.
Strictly from a horse race perspective, I think Warren is playing an effective strategy. Her polling has either plateaued or peaked. This was the final debate before Iowa. The caucus is in two-and-half weeks. She needs a bump now.
Currently there are three or four competitive front-runners. Superficially her most distinguishing feature is that she is the woman. So if she can shift the debate towards "are women electable?", that may have enough legs to last until the caucus; and if that's a question at the forefront of voters' minds on February 3, it probably is to Warren's benefit.
I think it's important to note there's a difference between voters and, I dunno, fans? Like, each candidate has plenty of both.
The problem is that while everyone has a vocal, toxic fandom, there's a perception that Sanders' is the worst, probably at least in part due to perceived Sanders/Trump voter (which may or may not exist, I don't have data).
Basically Sanders has a problem similar to the problem Biden has now and Clinton had before - history, be it real or supposed.
Without getting into 2016, the current reaction on spaces like Twitter and reddit feels like plenty of justification for the perception that Sanders' supporters have the largest toxic segment.
Twitter's a poor representative of the general electorate, though. If perceptions born from browsing Twitter were true to life Biden wouldn't be leading in the polls.
I think it's important to note there's a difference between voters and, I dunno, fans? Like, each candidate has plenty of both.
The problem is that while everyone has a vocal, toxic fandom, there's a perception that Sanders' is the worst, probably at least in part due to perceived Sanders/Trump voter (which may or may not exist, I don't have data).
Basically Sanders has a problem similar to the problem Biden has now and Clinton had before - history, be it real or supposed.
Without getting into 2016, the current reaction on spaces like Twitter and reddit feels like plenty of justification for the perception that Sanders' supporters have the largest toxic segment.
This is a small segment of voters and certainly mostly anecdotal evidence though, right? I mean we know for a fact that there are twitter and reddit bots trying to influence perception.
I think that perception is there, but I'm not sure it's borne out by fact. Twitter trends have not been kind to Warren the past few days and I can't help but think that's largely bot influenced.
I think it's important to note there's a difference between voters and, I dunno, fans? Like, each candidate has plenty of both.
The problem is that while everyone has a vocal, toxic fandom, there's a perception that Sanders' is the worst, probably at least in part due to perceived Sanders/Trump voter (which may or may not exist, I don't have data).
Basically Sanders has a problem similar to the problem Biden has now and Clinton had before - history, be it real or supposed.
Without getting into 2016, the current reaction on spaces like Twitter and reddit feels like plenty of justification for the perception that Sanders' supporters have the largest toxic segment.
Twitter's a poor representative of the general electorate, though.
That's easy to agree with. I'm friends with a lot of Sanders supporters.
Twitter may be more representative of toxicity, though.
I think it's important to note there's a difference between voters and, I dunno, fans? Like, each candidate has plenty of both.
The problem is that while everyone has a vocal, toxic fandom, there's a perception that Sanders' is the worst, probably at least in part due to perceived Sanders/Trump voter (which may or may not exist, I don't have data).
Basically Sanders has a problem similar to the problem Biden has now and Clinton had before - history, be it real or supposed.
Without getting into 2016, the current reaction on spaces like Twitter and reddit feels like plenty of justification for the perception that Sanders' supporters have the largest toxic segment.
Twitter's a poor representative of the general electorate, though.
That's easy to agree with. I'm friends with a lot of Sanders supporters.
Twitter may be more representative of toxicity, though.
Oh, definitely. It's just that it's hard to tell what proportion of a candidate's supporters are represented by toxic Twitter users. It could be a very vocal minority.
I guess I was too pithy, while speaking colloquially, which is my fault. I think the insular nature of campaigns, where everyone is a fervent supporter and there’s an enemy elsewhere (or at least some other distrusted rival) leads to people to start believing their own exaggerated caricatures of other candidate and exaggerated stories that can get them. And then those stories exit the closet to a thud.
I'm torn. I have this feeling that the attack from the Warren camp on Sanders is an effective short term strategy, but a poor long-term one. That's just a gut feeling, though. Maybe if it was on anyone else but Bernie it'd feel like a better long term plan.
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited January 2020
I don't feel as if Warren has done herself any favors as a candidate or as hypothetical nominee. Regardless of who said what two years ago and whether this was leaked by Warren's campaign or not, this was a massive clumsy botch that was disheartening and unnecessary. If this is the only way you can win, better to drop out.
The "I don't think a woman can win" is a pretty obvious play to sabotage Sander's run at the cost of making Warren unpopular. My guess is a deal was struck with Biden, because there is no way this directly benefits her.
The reaction to this shit is hilarious because it's so shockingly familiar. The real crime is that a woman accused a man of saying something sexist and it might damage his reputation. She must be lying. Nope, never seen this shit before.
I don't know, maybe when Warren says Sanders said it, we should just believe her?
The "I don't think a woman can win" is a pretty obvious play to sabotage Sander's run at the cost of making Warren unpopular. My guess is a deal was struck with Biden, because there is no way this directly benefits her.
That's....certainly a take.
Conspiracy Bizazedo loves it.
But yeah,
""We're friends. Good friends! But two years ago, he said something that hurt me, and since he's leading in the polls? Now is the time it's brought out. In public."
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
The "I don't think a woman can win" is a pretty obvious play to sabotage Sander's run at the cost of making Warren unpopular. My guess is a deal was struck with Biden, because there is no way this directly benefits her.
As upset as Warren seemingly was at Bernie over their conversation, I guarantee she hates Biden more. The idea that she set up some kind of deal with Biden, just to hurt Bernie, is preposterous.
The reaction to this shit is hilarious because it's so shockingly familiar. The real crime is that a woman accused a man of saying something sexist and it might damage his reputation. She must be lying. Nope, never seen this shit before.
I don't know, maybe when Warren says Sanders said it, we should just believe her?
The timing is suspicious and she has been lauding Sanders for a long time. I actually believe her, I just don't really think she should have brought it up because it's completely counter-effective regardless.
I believe Bernie said it, but I also don't think it's a big deal. There is a tipping point for every minority at which "America isn't likely to elect X" is going to change, and everyone isn't going to start believing it at the same time.
Sanders, at the time of the conversation, may not have believed that point had arrived re: women. It's not an attack on Warren, it's a (realistic?) indictment of America's history of sexism and misogyny.
The "I don't think a woman can win" is a pretty obvious play to sabotage Sander's run at the cost of making Warren unpopular. My guess is a deal was struck with Biden, because there is no way this directly benefits her.
It also seems to be losing relevancy as polling goes on. If I'm not mistaken, early polling has shown Warren beating Trump, if by a smaller margin than Biden or Sanders might do so.
Yes, yes, I agree that GE polling this far out is not something to hang one's hat on, but as a point about whether or not Warren or a Woman can beat Trump, there is an argument to be made that polling is suggesting it's plenty possible.
Also, I know there is a shitload at stake. That the delta between those numbers will come under intense scrutiny, and be used to justify excluding her because she doesn't 'win enough' or some other bullshit.
But Warren has handled herself with dignity, poise, fire, and compassion, where applicable. If I were American, she'd be whom I'd support, with all the caveats that I expect of everyone here; in the General I would vote for the Democrat, period, Bernie, Biden, Bloomberg, whatever. None of them might be my preferred candidate, but 'leaving this nightmare' is a higher priority than getting 19 points to the Left instead of 4 points to the Left or whatever metric we want to use. Kids in cages. Family separation. Picking fights with Iran. Flipping NATO the bird. Treating the military as mercs. Being a sexual assailant as the head of state. Grift. So much grift. Welcoming foreign interference. The list is literally endless.
People are literally dying because of this clownshoes administration. They are suffering.
Make the case for ones preferred candidate now, but dear *deity*, do the right fucking thing in November.
Love,
A Canadian Zergling
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
The reaction to this shit is hilarious because it's so shockingly familiar. The real crime is that a woman accused a man of saying something sexist and it might damage his reputation. She must be lying. Nope, never seen this shit before.
I don't know, maybe when Warren says Sanders said it, we should just believe her?
The timing is suspicious and she has been lauding Sanders for a long time. I actually believe her, I just don't really think she should have brought it up because it's completely counter-effective regardless.
She brought it up because it broke as a story and people, even in this thread, were demanding that she confirm or deny it. CNN was pushing this thing hard before she said anything because they want to generate a fight narrative. It's not like she talked about it sight unseen or something.
Basically the only way you can believe she brought it up is that she intentionally started the leaks the initial story is based on. And given what the obvious reactions to it would be, that does not seem like a likely explanation.
This had to lose her some good will with Sanders supporters.
She has good will with Sanders supporters now?
That is a good point. But no one else does either, so. Not special. Everyone is going to end up with the full lizardman workup before we make it to Super Tuesday.
Sanders is in a strong second place. But we could absolutely act like that still means all his supporters are ride or die leftists or something.
Not ride or die leftists so much as ride or die Sanders voters.
Sanders' supporters are least likely of frontrunners' supporters to say they could be persuaded to vote for someone else in the Feb. 3, 2020, caucuses. Of likely Democratic caucusgoers who say Sanders is their top choice, 57% say their mind is made up; none of other top candidates cracks 30% in that metric.
If she wins the nomination she's going to need those people to be ready and happy to vote for her. I'm not saying that's not possible, but attacking Sanders will need to be done carefully and I'm not sure tonight's method will do much more than rally her supporters.
Are Sanders supporters really that petty? Like, "fuck it, let it burn, she said mean things about my candidate"?
That kind of spiteful sitting-out pretty much never actually plays out. You probably have your finger on the pulse of the average Bernie voter more than I do, but I still think more highly of them than that.
With all the sanders supporters in my facebook feed that at least seems to be their public position of if it's not bernie then the faster we can wreck the ship the better. The number of friends who have gone full on accelerationist is very alarming. I would be okay with sanders as president but I am unsure what the long term impact of feeding that kind into some of his followers does for us in the long run. I really hope warren wins but I am more than willing to vote for anybody not in the GOP because if nothing else it slows down the freight train of garbage judges.
I believe that Sanders did tell Warren that a woman can't win. It may not have been that direct, but Sanders has very little tact and can be tone deaf at times and I can imagine him coming off that way even if he was trying to just warn Warren. But the important part here is that Warren clearly believes that's what he said, regardless of what he intended to say. And if what Bernie said wasn't intended to be, "a woman can't win", he can easily clear that up. A simple, "I didn't mean to come off that way and I'm sorry for hurting you. You're my friend and I have a lot of respect for you and I'd never want to cause you harm" But that's not what he did, he effectively "perfect call'd" the conversation and refuses to acknowledge the harm he might have caused.
And the idea that Warren confirming what he said or, to be fair, what she thought he said as somehow cheapening the sexism that female politicians face? Fuck that noise. If anything, it's an example of how even the most well intentioned friends and allies of women can unwittingly perpetuate the sexism they face. You don't have to be a card carrying red piller to say or do something sexist. And it's important for that shit to be called out for what it is and for those who are called out to reflect on why it was wrong. Or, I suppose, you can just never admit any wrongdoing ever and never grow in any meaningful way.
Do I think Bernie Sanders is sexist? No, I do not. Do I believe that he and his campaign have a problem with sexist stuff happening? Yes, because they do. His previous campaign was reported to have been rife with misogyny and sexual harassment, and the men running his campaign didn't seemingly care enough to do anything about it. That reflects on Bernie, who selected the people that ran his campaign. And maybe, just maybe, a candidate who has had problems with sexist shit happening under him might want to take a moment and reflect on what he might have said to his friend and ally that might have upset her.
It's worth remembering that his initial response to the reports of sexual harassment coming out was to state that he wasn't aware because he was too busy making the case for his candidacy.
Warren's body language post debate reads like "We need to fucking talk Bernard" moreso then "Diamond Joe sends his regards".
I fully believe Sanders said a woman couldn't win vs Trump and I fully believe it was a reflection of cynicism towards the electorate moreso then an indictment of his personal values.
Who leaked the nature of that conversation? I can believe the Biden or Buttigieg camp as well as the Warren camp but I believe it was one of the first two. Sources cited in the article are two people who were told of the conversation contemporaneously by Warren and "Two people familiar with the conversation" which reads to me as people who were told by folks who heard from Warren.
If I have two people who heard of this conversation from Warren herself (people close in her orbit) I'm not looking for people even further removed to corroborate it.
If I got two Biden staffers telling me about it I'm asking who told them and then going to get on record someone who heard about it firsthand.
If it's true, Bernie threw the media a massive bone by denying it. This thing only has legs because both candidates have now indirectly called the other a liar.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
The "I don't think a woman can win" is a pretty obvious play to sabotage Sander's run at the cost of making Warren unpopular. My guess is a deal was struck with Biden, because there is no way this directly benefits her.
It also seems to be losing relevancy as polling goes on. If I'm not mistaken, early polling has shown Warren beating Trump, if by a smaller margin than Biden or Sanders might do so.
Which suggests that it is true that a woman President is a problem for some voters. And since polling tends to be wonky in terms of overestimating Democrats' chances, I would worry that this would ultimately cause a loss for much the same reason as with Clinton. I'm already hearing a lot of people express vague "trust" issues with Warren that are very familiar from Hillary's run.
The "I don't think a woman can win" is a pretty obvious play to sabotage Sander's run at the cost of making Warren unpopular. My guess is a deal was struck with Biden, because there is no way this directly benefits her.
It also seems to be losing relevancy as polling goes on. If I'm not mistaken, early polling has shown Warren beating Trump, if by a smaller margin than Biden or Sanders might do so.
Yes, yes, I agree that GE polling this far out is not something to hang one's hat on, but as a point about whether or not Warren or a Woman can beat Trump, there is an argument to be made that polling is suggesting it's plenty possible.
Also, I know there is a shitload at stake. That the delta between those numbers will come under intense scrutiny, and be used to justify excluding her because she doesn't 'win enough' or some other bullshit.
But Warren has handled herself with dignity, poise, fire, and compassion, where applicable. If I were American, she'd be whom I'd support, with all the caveats that I expect of everyone here; in the General I would vote for the Democrat, period, Bernie, Biden, Bloomberg, whatever. None of them might be my preferred candidate, but 'leaving this nightmare' is a higher priority than getting 19 points to the Left instead of 4 points to the Left or whatever metric we want to use. Kids in cages. Family separation. Picking fights with Iran. Flipping NATO the bird. Treating the military as mercs. Being a sexual assailant as the head of state. Grift. So much grift. Welcoming foreign interference. The list is literally endless.
People are literally dying because of this clownshoes administration. They are suffering.
Make the case for ones preferred candidate now, but dear *deity*, do the right fucking thing in November.
Most Sanders supporters will "do the right thing" with their vote in November. But there's things they won't do, like volunteer or be enthusiastic on social media. And that can drag a candidate down.
There's also a small contingent of very real Sanders supporters who will absolutely not vote or vote Trump out of spite should Sanders not get the nomination. There's a deep current of paranoia running through his campaign, a lot of "The DNC is conspiring against us" and that level of discourse is not swayed by "Won't you think about the caged children?" They are convinced that nothing can change until we smash capitalism, so voting for non-socialist candidates is pointless.
The "I don't think a woman can win" is a pretty obvious play to sabotage Sander's run at the cost of making Warren unpopular. My guess is a deal was struck with Biden, because there is no way this directly benefits her.
It also seems to be losing relevancy as polling goes on. If I'm not mistaken, early polling has shown Warren beating Trump, if by a smaller margin than Biden or Sanders might do so.
Which suggests that it is true that a woman President is a problem for some voters. And since polling tends to be wonky in terms of overestimating Democrats' chances, I would worry that this would ultimately cause a loss for much the same reason as with Clinton. I'm already hearing a lot of people express vague "trust" issues with Warren that are very familiar from Hillary's run.
I hate that this is the case, but to my horror it's true. My neighbor told me she doesn't believe women should be politicians. "They are too emotional/illogical"
The reaction to this shit is hilarious because it's so shockingly familiar. The real crime is that a woman accused a man of saying something sexist and it might damage his reputation. She must be lying. Nope, never seen this shit before.
I don't know, maybe when Warren says Sanders said it, we should just believe her?
Yeah what a shock that we're immediately believing the man over the woman
The reaction to this shit is hilarious because it's so shockingly familiar. The real crime is that a woman accused a man of saying something sexist and it might damage his reputation. She must be lying. Nope, never seen this shit before.
I don't know, maybe when Warren says Sanders said it, we should just believe her?
Yeah what a shock that we're immediately believing the man over the woman
I trust both of them so I actually don't know what to make of the facts of the matter at all. And it isn't a tactic that helps Warren, so it can't be coming from her. But Sanders has never lied to my knowledge.
Posts
The problem is that while everyone has a vocal, toxic fandom, there's a perception that Sanders' is the worst, probably at least in part due to perceived Sanders/Trump voter (which may or may not exist, I don't have data).
Basically Sanders has a problem similar to the problem Biden has now and Clinton had before - history, be it real or supposed.
Also this. I have every confidence that Bernie didn't see anything wrong with what he said and doesn't feel his comments should have been taken the way Warren seems to have taken them.
But now it's coming off as Bernie is this uncompromising jerk who doesn't care that his friend's feelings were hurt by his comments. Which means either he's not as good of a friend as she thought, or she's misrepresenting what she really feels and she's not as good a friend.
Two friends had a conversation. Friend A said "this is how I recall the conversation going." Friend B didn't say "that's not what I meant lemme clarify" Friend B said "I never said that."
And honestly? If Bernie didn't have any negative memory of the conversation, he probably doesn't remember it as well.
So where do we go? Well, hopefully they sit down soon and sort this shit out and find a way to move forward and resolve the issue - if for no other reason than for the sake of their continued friendship and working partnership.
They are competing in a race. They're rivals.
It would be nice if they could have some unified discussions and lead the conversation to the left
Working on campaigns must warp your brain, because I’m sure whoever dropped this thought that they had a silver bullet, but instead it’s a production with all the grace of paper plane in the rain. And at every stage so farcically unbelievable and just tacky.
Leadership courses genuinely teach that power chemically alters the brain, sapping empathy and tact while increasing hubristic risk taking.
I'm concerned about Bernie's behavior now and he's nowhere near the white house yet.
EDIT - Just look at Bloomberg and Steyer.
Could it be that Bernie didn't say "a woman" couldn't be president, but did say Warren couldn't be president? Perhaps specifically referring to being able to beat Trump? I admit I have the same worries.
Without getting into 2016, the current reaction on spaces like Twitter and reddit feels like plenty of justification for the perception that Sanders' supporters have the largest toxic segment.
Currently there are three or four competitive front-runners. Superficially her most distinguishing feature is that she is the woman. So if she can shift the debate towards "are women electable?", that may have enough legs to last until the caucus; and if that's a question at the forefront of voters' minds on February 3, it probably is to Warren's benefit.
Twitter's a poor representative of the general electorate, though. If perceptions born from browsing Twitter were true to life Biden wouldn't be leading in the polls.
This is a small segment of voters and certainly mostly anecdotal evidence though, right? I mean we know for a fact that there are twitter and reddit bots trying to influence perception.
I think that perception is there, but I'm not sure it's borne out by fact. Twitter trends have not been kind to Warren the past few days and I can't help but think that's largely bot influenced.
That's easy to agree with. I'm friends with a lot of Sanders supporters.
Twitter may be more representative of toxicity, though.
Oh, definitely. It's just that it's hard to tell what proportion of a candidate's supporters are represented by toxic Twitter users. It could be a very vocal minority.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
What the fuck is a green highway
It's what you drive your clean coal powered vehicle on.
This is an excellent example of a post to not make because it's unproductive, snarky and generally adds to the unpleasant nature of the thread.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I don't know, maybe when Warren says Sanders said it, we should just believe her?
Conspiracy Bizazedo loves it.
But yeah,
""We're friends. Good friends! But two years ago, he said something that hurt me, and since he's leading in the polls? Now is the time it's brought out. In public."
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
As upset as Warren seemingly was at Bernie over their conversation, I guarantee she hates Biden more. The idea that she set up some kind of deal with Biden, just to hurt Bernie, is preposterous.
Hillary Clinton received millions more votes than Trump
I'm seeing a factoid Bernie asked Warren to run in 2016, is this a lie
The timing is suspicious and she has been lauding Sanders for a long time. I actually believe her, I just don't really think she should have brought it up because it's completely counter-effective regardless.
Sanders, at the time of the conversation, may not have believed that point had arrived re: women. It's not an attack on Warren, it's a (realistic?) indictment of America's history of sexism and misogyny.
It also seems to be losing relevancy as polling goes on. If I'm not mistaken, early polling has shown Warren beating Trump, if by a smaller margin than Biden or Sanders might do so.
Yes, yes, I agree that GE polling this far out is not something to hang one's hat on, but as a point about whether or not Warren or a Woman can beat Trump, there is an argument to be made that polling is suggesting it's plenty possible.
Also, I know there is a shitload at stake. That the delta between those numbers will come under intense scrutiny, and be used to justify excluding her because she doesn't 'win enough' or some other bullshit.
But Warren has handled herself with dignity, poise, fire, and compassion, where applicable. If I were American, she'd be whom I'd support, with all the caveats that I expect of everyone here; in the General I would vote for the Democrat, period, Bernie, Biden, Bloomberg, whatever. None of them might be my preferred candidate, but 'leaving this nightmare' is a higher priority than getting 19 points to the Left instead of 4 points to the Left or whatever metric we want to use. Kids in cages. Family separation. Picking fights with Iran. Flipping NATO the bird. Treating the military as mercs. Being a sexual assailant as the head of state. Grift. So much grift. Welcoming foreign interference. The list is literally endless.
People are literally dying because of this clownshoes administration. They are suffering.
Make the case for ones preferred candidate now, but dear *deity*, do the right fucking thing in November.
Love,
A Canadian Zergling
She brought it up because it broke as a story and people, even in this thread, were demanding that she confirm or deny it. CNN was pushing this thing hard before she said anything because they want to generate a fight narrative. It's not like she talked about it sight unseen or something.
Basically the only way you can believe she brought it up is that she intentionally started the leaks the initial story is based on. And given what the obvious reactions to it would be, that does not seem like a likely explanation.
With all the sanders supporters in my facebook feed that at least seems to be their public position of if it's not bernie then the faster we can wreck the ship the better. The number of friends who have gone full on accelerationist is very alarming. I would be okay with sanders as president but I am unsure what the long term impact of feeding that kind into some of his followers does for us in the long run. I really hope warren wins but I am more than willing to vote for anybody not in the GOP because if nothing else it slows down the freight train of garbage judges.
It's worth remembering that his initial response to the reports of sexual harassment coming out was to state that he wasn't aware because he was too busy making the case for his candidacy.
I fully believe Sanders said a woman couldn't win vs Trump and I fully believe it was a reflection of cynicism towards the electorate moreso then an indictment of his personal values.
Who leaked the nature of that conversation? I can believe the Biden or Buttigieg camp as well as the Warren camp but I believe it was one of the first two. Sources cited in the article are two people who were told of the conversation contemporaneously by Warren and "Two people familiar with the conversation" which reads to me as people who were told by folks who heard from Warren.
If I have two people who heard of this conversation from Warren herself (people close in her orbit) I'm not looking for people even further removed to corroborate it.
If I got two Biden staffers telling me about it I'm asking who told them and then going to get on record someone who heard about it firsthand.
If it's true, Bernie threw the media a massive bone by denying it. This thing only has legs because both candidates have now indirectly called the other a liar.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
You would have to be actual idiot to say it
And I don't think Bernie is an idiot
I cannot even see him saying a centrist woman couldn't best Trump, I don't think he would word it that way
Which suggests that it is true that a woman President is a problem for some voters. And since polling tends to be wonky in terms of overestimating Democrats' chances, I would worry that this would ultimately cause a loss for much the same reason as with Clinton. I'm already hearing a lot of people express vague "trust" issues with Warren that are very familiar from Hillary's run.
Most Sanders supporters will "do the right thing" with their vote in November. But there's things they won't do, like volunteer or be enthusiastic on social media. And that can drag a candidate down.
There's also a small contingent of very real Sanders supporters who will absolutely not vote or vote Trump out of spite should Sanders not get the nomination. There's a deep current of paranoia running through his campaign, a lot of "The DNC is conspiring against us" and that level of discourse is not swayed by "Won't you think about the caged children?" They are convinced that nothing can change until we smash capitalism, so voting for non-socialist candidates is pointless.
I hate that this is the case, but to my horror it's true. My neighbor told me she doesn't believe women should be politicians. "They are too emotional/illogical"
Yeah what a shock that we're immediately believing the man over the woman
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I trust both of them so I actually don't know what to make of the facts of the matter at all. And it isn't a tactic that helps Warren, so it can't be coming from her. But Sanders has never lied to my knowledge.
The media is biased against the working class candidate
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Wait, who's the centrist millionaire friendly candidate?