Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.
Hillary still won the popular vote by the largest margin in US history. She had 2.8 million more votes than Trump. Second place is Bush v Gore at just over 500 thousand.
I’m not saying sexism wasn’t a factor in 2016, but I think it should be obvious that a woman can win the even in this toxic environment.
Hell, Sanders himself was beaten by a woman in 2016 primary, so I have no idea why he would say a woman can’t win 2020.
He's an old white guy they say stupid shit all the time.
He's Jewish, actually.
And here, we have a perfect example.
As I was scrolling through, catching up, this post jumped out at me and took the wind out of my lungs.
Somebody is saying that you can't be White and also be Jewish! Jews only count as White when it suits the majority! I'm no longer white, I'm "other" because I'm Jewish. The outrage! The hurt! The 'holy shit fuck you' reaction.
And then, I stopped, I thought, I paused, and I talked it over with some friends. And those friends pointed out that maybe I was misinterpreting this post in a way that was harmful to myself but wasn't really the intention of the poster/speaker.
Perhaps this post/statement was to remind others that while Sanders is in fact an old white man, he is also Jewish and so has some understanding of being a minority. This was not a statement of 'either/or', instead it was a statement of 'also is'.
But man, I was full of righteous fire and fury at what I was pretty sure that I read/heard in this tiny exchange that everybody else seems to have missed. I guess it's just a good example of how a well-meaning statement from a well-meaning ally might be said with sincerity, but heard completely different from somebody else who is a part of that minority.
I did some reading online after seeing this post and came to realize that my understanding of Jewish positions on identity was flawed. Sorry about that.
Bernie Sanders supporters are bombarding Elizabeth Warren’s social media accounts with snakes emojis, memes, and GIFs in a ramp-up of the tension that’s been brewing between the two campaigns over the past week.
The barrage of emojis, which are often used by stans of pop stars in the comment sections of someone they’re feuding with (Taylor Swift vs. Calvin Harris or Taylor Swift vs. Kim Kardashian and Kanye West), has boiled over as supporters of both Warren and Sanders have escalated a proxy battle online as the candidates have disagreed over the characterization of a private 2018 meeting where Warren claims Sanders told her a woman couldn’t win the 2020 election, which Sanders vehemently denies. Sanders supporters have called Warren a “backstabber” and a “snake” for reiterating the claim during the debate Tuesday night.
Even as the Warren and Sanders campaigns attempted to move on from the story that caused a rift between their campaigns by easing tensions in group direct messages with prominent followers and again on the debate stage, supporters of the candidates have been warring over their relationship.
The fight between Warren and Sanders supporters has always seemed inevitable. On various platforms, leftists and Sanders supporters have criticized Warren for being a capitalist and for her health care plan, which they see as her campaign backing away from a commitment to Medicare for All. Democratic Socialists of America, which launched its own independent campaign for Sanders, told BuzzFeed News in September that it wasn’t ruling out the idea of distributing materials to canvassers pointing out the differences between the two candidates.
In the hours after the Tuesday debate, Warren’s mentions on Twitter have been filled with snake emojis from Sanders supporters who also got the hashtags #WarrenIsASnake and #NeverWarren to trend on Twitter on Wednesday morning. Those moves came as a video of Warren not shaking Sanders' extended hand after the debate went viral.
“Warren lied to Bernie’s face on live TV and the man still offered a handshake which she was petty enough to refuse!” one Sanders supporter tweeted with a slow-motion clip of the moment set to Timbaland and OneRepublic’s “Apologize” that fades to black and white as Sanders walks away, along with several of the hashtags that had been used to criticize Warren.
Some Sanders supporters who’ve been engaged in the Twitter war in the last several days acknowledge that this has been brewing for months.
“The first moment was when she wavered on Medicare for All,” Jeffrey Eudley, a 20-year-old Sanders supporter who requested a refund from the Warren campaign. “That’s when I first thought she was being iffy, but I still left my donations with her because I wanted to support progressive candidates.”
Eudley said the final straw happened over the past week as tension between the Warren and Sanders campaigns reached a crescendo after Warren confirmed what Sanders had said during their private meeting.
“I think she’s actively hurting the progressive movement by causing a stir between two of the biggest progressives,” Eudley told BuzzFeed News.
The Sanders campaign is trying to do something about it:
Jane Sanders is Bernie Sanders's wife and David Sirota is Sanders's speechwriter.
(Like seriously, Sanders got Biden to drop that insulting "I didn't voted for the Iraq War" attempt of gaslighting people, but is not the biggest story).
Is it woefully paranoid or depressingly realistic that I wonder how much of that twitter gunk is bots?
+2
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
#NeverWarren is still trending. #3 as of me checking right now. I would be shocked if it wasn't at least somewhat propped up by bots. It's also seemingly propped up by people calling it stupid.
It is interesting to wonder who the anti-democrats-winning bots would be propping up to push their agenda though. I'm not sure infighting on the left would be a big goal for them.
shryke on
+2
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
Senator Warren's very public snub didn't go unnoticed. She made no attempt to de-escalate.
Except this story was already a headline before the debate and before either candidate commented on it.
But hey, blame women.
The claim made was that both Warren and Sanders tried to de-escalate. Warren failed to shake Sanders' hand afterwards in a very public snub.
So yes, I will blame Senator Warren for failing to de-escalate the situation.
Except it's only an escalation of you think it matters. Even fucking Sirota is saying it doesn't. The headlines for this story were already a thing for days before the debate, so handshake-ghazi didn't cause that either. The media was already making this fight happen.
Of course, if you want to call "not shaking his hand" am escalation anyway then "calling her a liar" is also an escalation and the most likely precipitating incident to handshake-ghazi.
For what it's worth Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and AOC are all on Bernie's side.
Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.
Hillary still won the popular vote by the largest margin in US history. She had 2.8 million more votes than Trump. Second place is Bush v Gore at just over 500 thousand.
I’m not saying sexism wasn’t a factor in 2016, but I think it should be obvious that a woman can win the even in this toxic environment.
Hell, Sanders himself was beaten by a woman in 2016 primary, so I have no idea why he would say a woman can’t win 2020.
He's an old white guy they say stupid shit all the time.
He's Jewish, actually.
And here, we have a perfect example.
As I was scrolling through, catching up, this post jumped out at me and took the wind out of my lungs.
Somebody is saying that you can't be White and also be Jewish! Jews only count as White when it suits the majority! I'm no longer white, I'm "other" because I'm Jewish. The outrage! The hurt! The 'holy shit fuck you' reaction.
And then, I stopped, I thought, I paused, and I talked it over with some friends. And those friends pointed out that maybe I was misinterpreting this post in a way that was harmful to myself but wasn't really the intention of the poster/speaker.
Perhaps this post/statement was to remind others that while Sanders is in fact an old white man, he is also Jewish and so has some understanding of being a minority. This was not a statement of 'either/or', instead it was a statement of 'also is'.
But man, I was full of righteous fire and fury at what I was pretty sure that I read/heard in this tiny exchange that everybody else seems to have missed. I guess it's just a good example of how a well-meaning statement from a well-meaning ally might be said with sincerity, but heard completely different from somebody else who is a part of that minority.
I did some reading online after seeing this post and came to realize that my understanding of Jewish positions on identity was flawed. Sorry about that.
It's not a problem, friend!
personal identities are complicated! Especially if one of those identities mixes religion and tradition and culture but is still at times also able to pass at being the 'normal'.
Man this is awesome. The President was running surveillance on a US Ambassador and the only thing anybody is talking about today is a perceived slight between two Democratic Senator friends.
Fantastic. Great work. Keep it up everyone! (and yes I am aware I was talking about it before, but I've long since given up on it because it's stupid and wasteful and just stop already)
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.
I think it's reasonable to think that Bernie was talking about the general population's ingrained sexism and the ways Trump would be looking to inflame that, and how that would lead to him winning or something along those lines.
That he didn't explicitly say it but a necessary corollary is that a woman will not win.
So everybody gets mad about being called a liar when actually nobody is.
Then it would have been helpful if he'd said that.
He could have said: "I was talking about the extra challenges a woman candidate faces in a country that has never elected a woman President. My intention was to offer support, not suggest that I opposed a woman President"
Easy.
I think that's pretty close to what he said! Bernie via CNN: "What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course!"
Warren supporters talk about US sexism and what that does for female politicians all the time. Its one of the primary reasons given for the 2016 loss. To then act like someone saying that women under that environment couldnt win the presidency is being sexist just feels like a serious stretch unless you believe Sanders was actually saying women as a class arent good enough to win due to their own failures as a class, which is beyond parody.
Saying women under that environment couldn't win the presidency actually also is sexist, just in a different way. It ahifts the blame to society, but it's still saying a woman shouldn't run with serious intent to win. By analogy, consider how you might feel about "i support socialism but I just don't think a socialist can win 2020"
No need to invent hypotheticals when earlier in the thread someone said Bernie was a "bad candidate" because of his personal religious beliefs
#NeverWarren is still trending. #3 as of me checking right now. I would be shocked if it wasn't at least somewhat propped up by bots. It's also seemingly propped up by people calling it stupid.
It is interesting to wonder who the anti-democrats-winning bots would be propping up to push their agenda though. I'm not sure infighting on the left would be a big goal for them.
That's the point they don't prop up anyone in particular. The strategy is to sow discord across the field. It doesn't matter which one wins this primary so long as there's enough discord that the other legs of the party feel put upon by whomever won, and won't coalesce around whoever gets the nomination.
The strategy is effective because, as with this current gambit, they've carved out a section of the electorate that will never vote for Warren, and more precisely will more solidly only ever vote for Sanders. I contend that most of the real folks banging this drum were already never voting for warren in a primary, but now they've been convinced to never vote for her in a general election either. I highly doubt this gambit has really changed anyone's mind other than to calcifi already existing views and ratchet them up to extremism.
Meanest interactions Ive had online or while door knocking have been with Harris supporters so you know, ymmv.
Its fashionable to bitch about Sanders supporters, thats all.
See, I completely believe you when you say that, which is why it's obnoxious when it is implied my experiences aren't true and I'm saying it because of anger over the last primary I voted for Sanders in or because it's fashionable.
I have no doubt youve met plenty of shitty Sanders supporters.
Then don't reply by telling me I'm mentioning it because it's fashionable.
I wasnt talking about you specifically in that regard. More that despite every candidate having their shitty fans and grifters its Sanders's that come up constantly. The toxic bernie bro is as much a convenient meme as it is any kind of fact.
For instance, to borrow from past experiences with Harris stans, 30 seconds on twitter will bring you plenty of her people talking about how they hope Trump wins as punishment for not supporting her. Do we talk about it? No of course not who gives a fuck, but inquisitorial questions about where Sanders's supporters' loyalties lie are so common as to be cliche.
I think you’re conflating a couple different behaviors here that probably shouldn’t be.
There’s a difference in loud, asshole supporters spouting off publicly and attacking people who don’t support their particular candidate, and then there is hounding specific people individually.
My experience may be anecdotal, but when people tell stories of being harassed via private message on whatever social media/reddit/misc. platform it’s seemingly approaching the status of a shared experience that someone will have had that kind of badgering at the hands of someone, who self identifies as a Bernie supporter. To the point where it seems statistically significant.
That is not to say it doesn’t happen from supporters of other candidates, or that all of Bernie’s supporters fall into that category. But I also think you can’t simply just hand wave it away as if it’s equally done by everyone.
Idk there doesnt seem to be a huge mystery. Black support is dividing along generational lines, like it is for every other group and its not the 90s anymore where black voters as a block represented the left wing of the party.
Sanders wont likely win older black voters jn the primary because he wont likely win any older voters, but some early wins could improve his numbers enough.
Three out of every four black voters, irrespective of age, want a candidate far less progressive than Sanders. I'm not sure where we can find the path to winning with 75% of that voting group broadly dissatisfied with the candidate's policy stance.
What you’re doing here is taking a response to a question about ideology, and you using it to infer a candidate sea of possible support. Using this assumption, we can guess that if asked who’d they possibly consider for president, the left’s candidates for president are in for a rude awakening.
True as long as the left was infatuated with Bloomberg and Buttigieg.
How voters react in the abstract to questions about ideological positioning turns out to not be very useful in figuring out how voters react to actual candidates describing their political programs.
#NeverWarren is still trending. #3 as of me checking right now. I would be shocked if it wasn't at least somewhat propped up by bots. It's also seemingly propped up by people calling it stupid.
It is interesting to wonder who the anti-democrats-winning bots would be propping up to push their agenda though. I'm not sure infighting on the left would be a big goal for them.
They did a lot of propping up of #walkaway too and see how THAT worked out for them :P
+3
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
I'm too far too the left to participate in these discussions, I guess
I see Warren as a step in the right direction for the Democratic party, bit she doesn't go far enough to save human society as we know it within my life time
She and Comrade Bernard are trying to change the party from within, and I can appreciate the cynicism of that, but neo liberalism is literally serving the world to the fascists on a platter, so I'm less than enthusiastic
Mike, Pete and Joe should primary Trump as Republicans, their records should exclude them from the current version of the Democratic party
A country where Joe Biden runs as a republican will never elect another Democrat.
I can get behind this. Joe Biden Republican Presidential Candidate means that the GOP has abandoned the racists, the anti-welfare/Obamacare/government-duty-to-protect-citizens crowd, the free market randians, the anti-education religious, the anti-choice christians, the climate deniers, the NRA, and the anti-science crowd. Probably some others, but all they'd have left is the war hawk neocons, the wall street worshipers, and probably probably some socially liberal deregulation fanatics.
So the GOP wouldn't exist, it'd just be the 90's era Democratic Party.
Not great, but perhaps not institutionally evil. So, yeah I'd be enthused
It'll come back when there's something to talk about that doesn't make people act like caustic dillholes.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
I did some reading online after seeing this post and came to realize that my understanding of Jewish positions on identity was flawed. Sorry about that.
Is it woefully paranoid or depressingly realistic that I wonder how much of that twitter gunk is bots?
We've had a few posters in the primary threads that I've quarreled with that I definitely wondered about, RE: if they were a paid shill or genuine.
It is interesting to wonder who the anti-democrats-winning bots would be propping up to push their agenda though. I'm not sure infighting on the left would be a big goal for them.
Just. Fucking. Wow.
Here's how this post reads to me
"Argument over whether Warren is Evil for not shaking Bernie's hand"
"Reply to that argument with AOC and Omar side with Bernie [that Warren is in the wrong, therefore Evil]"
"Also imply that AOC and Omar think Warren is lying and therefore Evil"
I'm guessing that is not what you were intending to communicate!
So, uh, maybe better trim your quotes and post more than two sentences that make you look like a goose
I think it's you? Is that a bad assumption?
It's not a problem, friend!
personal identities are complicated! Especially if one of those identities mixes religion and tradition and culture but is still at times also able to pass at being the 'normal'.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Fantastic. Great work. Keep it up everyone! (and yes I am aware I was talking about it before, but I've long since given up on it because it's stupid and wasteful and just stop already)
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
No need to invent hypotheticals when earlier in the thread someone said Bernie was a "bad candidate" because of his personal religious beliefs
That's the point they don't prop up anyone in particular. The strategy is to sow discord across the field. It doesn't matter which one wins this primary so long as there's enough discord that the other legs of the party feel put upon by whomever won, and won't coalesce around whoever gets the nomination.
The strategy is effective because, as with this current gambit, they've carved out a section of the electorate that will never vote for Warren, and more precisely will more solidly only ever vote for Sanders. I contend that most of the real folks banging this drum were already never voting for warren in a primary, but now they've been convinced to never vote for her in a general election either. I highly doubt this gambit has really changed anyone's mind other than to calcifi already existing views and ratchet them up to extremism.
I think you’re conflating a couple different behaviors here that probably shouldn’t be.
There’s a difference in loud, asshole supporters spouting off publicly and attacking people who don’t support their particular candidate, and then there is hounding specific people individually.
My experience may be anecdotal, but when people tell stories of being harassed via private message on whatever social media/reddit/misc. platform it’s seemingly approaching the status of a shared experience that someone will have had that kind of badgering at the hands of someone, who self identifies as a Bernie supporter. To the point where it seems statistically significant.
That is not to say it doesn’t happen from supporters of other candidates, or that all of Bernie’s supporters fall into that category. But I also think you can’t simply just hand wave it away as if it’s equally done by everyone.
What you’re doing here is taking a response to a question about ideology, and you using it to infer a candidate sea of possible support. Using this assumption, we can guess that if asked who’d they possibly consider for president, the left’s candidates for president are in for a rude awakening.
True as long as the left was infatuated with Bloomberg and Buttigieg.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3bnvw/exclusive-poll-just-as-many-african-americans-say-theyd-consider-voting-for-bernie-sanders-as-joe-biden
How voters react in the abstract to questions about ideological positioning turns out to not be very useful in figuring out how voters react to actual candidates describing their political programs.
They did a lot of propping up of #walkaway too and see how THAT worked out for them :P
I can get behind this. Joe Biden Republican Presidential Candidate means that the GOP has abandoned the racists, the anti-welfare/Obamacare/government-duty-to-protect-citizens crowd, the free market randians, the anti-education religious, the anti-choice christians, the climate deniers, the NRA, and the anti-science crowd. Probably some others, but all they'd have left is the war hawk neocons, the wall street worshipers, and probably probably some socially liberal deregulation fanatics.
So the GOP wouldn't exist, it'd just be the 90's era Democratic Party.
Not great, but perhaps not institutionally evil. So, yeah I'd be enthused
It'll come back when there's something to talk about that doesn't make people act like caustic dillholes.