Warren the reformer v. Sanders the revolutionary

[Uncle Joe]

The media largely have portrayed the dynamic between the Sanders and Warren campaigns as a zero sum game. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) rises, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) must fall. In this imaginary scenario, there is a set pool of progressive voters to be divided between the two true progressive candidates, so that every point gained by one is lost by the other.

This analysis stems from the two candidates’ surface-level similarities. Both are progressive, believe in big change, and have no qualms about taking on wealthy special interests. But polls show something very different from the Beltway wisdom. According to the Real Clear Politics average, Sanders started June with a polling average of 16.5 percent and he stands today, after Warren’s significant polling uptick, at a virtually unchanged 16.9 percent. In fact, if you wanted to see whose loss was Warren’s gain, you might look towards former Vice President Joe Biden, who lost 3 points over the course of the month in which Warren gained 4 points.

How is this possible? How could Warren gain without Sanders taking a hit in the polls? Well, when you dig into the data, it turns out that Warren and Sanders have very different coalitions. A recent Monmouth University poll found that Warren beats Sanders among white, college-educated and liberal voters. Sanders outperformed Warren among high school-educated voters, those who identify as moderate or conservative, and voters of color.

Other polls, such as this one from Economist/YouGov, identify similar coalitions of support. It’s the classic wine track versus beer track divide — and it’s kind of fascinating. In spite of all the hand-wringing about how socialism will doom Sanders to the left-wing fringe, he actually does better among moderate and conservative voters than any candidate except Biden. But, more to the point, while the media have struggled to identify significant differences between Sanders and Warren, the fact that they appeal to divergent coalitions implies that the voting public has no trouble recognizing major differences in their appeal.

(snip)


https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/450547-warren-the-reformer-v-sanders-the-revolutionary

[katmondoo]

1. Bernie has said he will not support the nominee

I guess it has to be him or nothing. I was surprised.

[Uncle Joe]

2. That's false, Bernie never said that, in fact

he has stated unequivocally that he would support the Democratic nominee if he didn't win the nomination.

[emulatorloo]

4. Which of Senator Sanders policies are "revolutionary?"

From what I can tell, they are progressive policies that left-liberal Democrats have promoted for years. Rooted in FDR.

I do not see a lot of daylight between Warren and Sanders policy positions. I will note that The Hill likes to stir the pot.

——

BTW, Here’s the article the poster was referring to, in which Senator Sanders claimed 2016 was rigged and would not commit to support the eventual nominee:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/bernie-sanders-2016-rigged-wont-pledge-support-winner.html

I am sure Bernie will change his mind should he not get the nomination, as he is too much of a patriot to not support the Democrat over Trump.

[Uncle Joe]

5. That's also false, Bernie never said 2016 was rigged.

That tweet was highly edited to take Bernie's quote out of context.

I viewed that sad excuse for an interview.

[emulatorloo]

7. He used the "some people say" construction. Back to the topic: what policies are "revolutionary"

Here’s the quote:

“Sanders would not make any such commitment. Instead, he said, “some people say that maybe if the system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination.”

——————-

I like Bernie a lot.

Now I would love to know which of Senator Sanders policy positions are “revolutionary”. I supported him in 2016 and have followed him a long time. I see left liberal policy but nothing revolutionary. Those policies are good but they aren’t “Revolutionary”

Please let me know how I am wrong and which one of Bernie’s positions are revolutionary.

Thanks in advance

[Uncle Joe]

10. He used that construction as a reply because it was the construction used against him by

a hostile interviewer.

As for "Revolutionary" to my knowledge no other major candidate in modern history has openly advocated that except for elective coverage, the for profit "health" insurance industry should cease to exist.

That health care should be a right meaning more than some long term aspiration but in the here and now.

That combined with Bernie's other bold proposals make the entire package revolutionary certainly for modern times.

But more to the point it' his entire approach to how the people see government and that government should serve the peoples' best interest on a universal basis.

We are family.

Thank you emulatorloo.

[emulatorloo]

14. Thanks Joe appreciate the reply on Sanders policy proposals

[ehrnst]

18. Here's the interchange...

Link to tweet

Not seeing the hostility or it being a "construction used against him by a hostile interviewer," unless you view any interviewer who asks a followup question, or doesn't simply take notation as "hostile."

Could you point it out to us?

[Uncle Joe]

20. That tweet was highly edited, it totally omitted this part.

(snip)

"If it's clear that you are not going to be the Democratic nominee, will you leave the race before the convention?" Hunt asked Sanders.

The 2020 candidate paused silently for a few moments before firmly declaring, "I intend to be the Democratic nominee."

"But if you're not, you stayed in last time, and some people say that you hurt Hillary Clinton's candidacy --" Hunt said, before Sanders interjected.

"No, wait, 'some people say' that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump," Sanders replied. "That's what some people say. So I think we're going to play it out, I think I am excited..."

(snip)


https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-defeat-donald-trump-2016-rigged-primary-dnc-nbc-kasie-hunt-1446116

That was the final question and I believe any objective viewer should be able to tell that the interviewer was hostile in her negative frame of questions throughout that interview and not just from your clip.

I viewed the entire episode.

The interviewer knew or should have known the answers to her own questions from Bernie's previous statements and commitments but was just intent on trying create division and antagonism from the start, not actually shed any enlightenment on the issues or the candidate.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. The original tweeter even corrected the record to include the "some people" after he was pilloried

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">To be clear Bernie repeated “some people say” after it was first said by the MSNBC interviewer, so he shouldn’t be criticized for using that phrase. <a href="https://t.co/Ki5GmrvkFG">pic.twitter.com/Ki5GmrvkFG</a></p>— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) <a href="

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Uncle Joe]

24. Thanks for the addition Hassin Bin Sober

[ehrnst]

26. Not what I got from that at all. I saw that he was getting prickly about being reminded

of what he had done before after he avoided answering the question the first time it was asked. Then he tried to mock her followup question wording while bringing up a debunked conspiracy theory that many of his supporters were promoting through the General Election.. He didn't just own up and say, "That's not true, and I will/will not stay in the race if I am not elected by the people."

Kelleyanne Conway has a particular habit of doing that in interviews that are making her uncomfortable.

https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/2/13/14597968/kellyanne-conway-tricks

[BeyondGeography]

34. Yup

He was quick to anger and gave a shitty answer, thus creating a bad headline. One of those Mike Tyson everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth deals.

[ehrnst]

23. There was video in the tweet. And lets break this down...

It was only "hostile" to anyone who doesn't think that certain candidates should be asked followup questions, and reporters should simply function as stenographers or admirers when interviewing said candidates.

It was absolutely relevant to her original question, which he tried to avoid answering..

"If it's clear that you are not going to be the Democratic nominee, will you leave the race before the convention?"

"I intend to be the Democratic nominee."

She didn't let him off the hook for answering her question. Is that why she's "hostile?"

"But if you're not, you stayed in last time, and some people say that you hurt Hillary Clinton's candidacy --" Hunt said, before Sanders interjected.

And he interrupted her, as he does when he's irritated with interviewers, with another non-answer, which showed hostility on his part about being pressed to answer.

"No, wait, 'some people say' that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump," Sanders replied. "That's what some people say. So I think we're going to play it out, I think I am excited..."

Kelleyanne Conway is known for taking what an interviewer says and uses it to redirect and deflect from the premise of an uncomfortable interview.

https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/2/13/14597968/kellyanne-conway-tricks

[LanternWaste]

8. I really dig how you allow for the context and nuance to Sanders' statements

I really dig how you allow for the context and nuance to Sanders' statements you so vociferously deny in others.

[SouthernProgressive]

9. He absolutely did imply that the primary was rigged against him.

Claiming otherwise is completely dishonest. The Trump tactic of "someone says" does not absolve him of his statement. That might work on certain people, not the people here.

[ehrnst]

15. "Some people say... (conspiracy theory)" is promoting a conspiracy theory, albeit passively

Trump frequently couches his most controversial comments this way, which allows him to share a controversial idea, piece of tabloid gossip or conspiracy theory without technically embracing it. If the comment turns out to be popular, Trump will often drop the distancing qualifier — “people think” or “some say.” If the opposite happens, Trump can claim that he never said the thing he is accused of saying, equating it to retweeting someone else’s thoughts on Twitter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-lot-of-people-are-saying-how-trump-spreads-conspiracies-and-innuendo/2016/06/13/b21e59de-317e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

[Uncle Joe]

17. Bernie didn't promote it, a hostile interviewer did and Bernie responded in kind

as a rebuke.

(snip)

"If it's clear that you are not going to be the Democratic nominee, will you leave the race before the convention?" Hunt asked Sanders.

The 2020 candidate paused silently for a few moments before firmly declaring, "I intend to be the Democratic nominee."

"But if you're not, you stayed in last time, and some people say that you hurt Hillary Clinton's candidacy --" Hunt said, before Sanders interjected.

"No, wait, 'some people say' that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump," Sanders replied. "That's what some people say. So I think we're going to play it out, I think I am excited..."

(snip)


https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-defeat-donald-trump-2016-rigged-primary-dnc-nbc-kasie-hunt-1446116

[ehrnst]

19. So replying with a conspiracy theory is an appropriate response to an interviewer who

was "hostile" because she she stated that "he's not the Democratic candidate" and "that he stayed in last time," instead of nodding and smiling and simply taking dictation?

That sounds like Sanders views the observation that his continued opposition to the Democratic Candidate who had won the nomination did not have a positive impact on the winner's campaign, with a debunked conspiracy theory about the DNC that was perpetrated by many of his supporters during the General Election.

Do you?

[Uncle Joe]

22. That was the shooting down of "some people" as any basis

for a quality interview or question.

The belief that Bernie's strategy or tactics in running his campaign is to just disrupt or weaken the Democratic Party is a conspiracy theory, in this case promoted by a corporate media conglomerate mouthpiece.

I'm focused as is Bernie on 2020, aren't you?

[ehrnst]

25. Where was the "shootdown?"

When "the mouthpiece," as you so respectfully and calmly described this journalist, didn't just move on when he tried to redirect instead of answering her direct question?

The belief that Bernie's strategy or tactics in running his campaign is to just disrupt or weaken the Democratic Party is a conspiracy theory, in this case promoted by a corporate media conglomerate mouthpiece.

So why would Bernie even bother with talking to a "corporate media conglomerate mouthpiece?" It's certainly not necessary. Why do you think he would even bother to sully himself with "corporatists" - which is what he's doing if indeed you are correct about her? Any ideas? He certainly took her seriously enough to get prickly with her.

And who has stated that "Bernie's strategy or tactics in running his campaign is to just disrupt or weaken the Democratic Party" here other than you?

Seems like you're hostile one now, attacking a straw man like that.

The interviewer knew or should have known the answers to her own questions from Bernie's previous statements and commitments but was just intent on trying create division and antagonism from the start, not actually shed any enlightenment on the issues or the candidate.

You mean, she didn't just act like a stenographer and smile and nod and fawn and feed him leading questions like a Jacobin "journalist" would have? And all Bernie had to do was say, "Yes I will," or "No, I won't" and not gotten evasive, then testy about her getting all corporate media mouthpiece journalistic-like and following up.

[Uncle Joe]

27. The interviewer for one with her "some people" question

it wasn't an obvious implication.

"And who has stated that "Bernie's strategy or tactics in running his campaign is to just disrupt or weaken the Democratic Party" here other than you? "

Bernie is focused on winning the nomination and G.E. in 2020 but the hostile interviewer didn't want to entertain that possibility, that's hostile.

I would wager you didn't view the ENTIRE interview.

[ehrnst]

40. That's reaching pretty darn far to find that strawman...

Almost twisting oneself into a pretzel to find it.

But let's break your own logical path to that conclusion here:

If, as you say, that when the hostile lady "corporate mouthpiece" says "Some people say that it hurt HRC's campaign when you didn't concede" she is actually implying that "Bernie's strategy or tactics in running his campaign is to just disrupt or weaken the Democratic Party.." and it's not actually simply a good journalistic followup question, using his past actions related to the original question that he didn't answer...

....Doesn't that also mean when Bernie's says "'Some people say' that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump," that he is actually implying that "The DNC conspired to defeat me, and put Donald Trump in the White House?" and not actually simply Bernie being "focused on winning the nomination" despite the nefarious mechanations of a hostile lady corporate conglomerate mouthpiece to smear his very motives for running as a Democrat?"

Because you certainly wouldn't want to be promoting some kind of double standard.

And simply copying and pasting "Bernie is focused on winning the nomination and G.E. in 2020" continuing to avoiding answering what seems to be a difficult needle for you to thread...

If she is indeed simply a "hostile corporate conglomerate mouthpiece," why did Bernie even consider speaking with her?

Any thoughts?

And why are you sharing an article from a 'corporate conglomerate media mouthpiece' like "the Hill?"



I won't hold my breath...

[Uncle Joe]

51. Why are you posting a highly edited tweet as in post # 18 missing key text and context?

No doubt the tweeter was hoping someone wouldn't actually view the video or miss the part with the interviewer bringing "some people" and conspiracy theory into the mix.

You asked about how did Bernie shoot it down, that tweet is prima facie evidence as to how effective it was, Mr. Rupar didn't even have the guts or integrity to include the entire exchange in his tweet.

Any thoughts?

As for the six corporate media conglomerates that own 90% of all U.S. media television, radio and print.

http://fortune.com/longform/media-company-ownership-consolidation/

[Over time the amount of media merging has increased and the number of media outlets has increased. As a result, fewer companies now own more media outlets, increasing the concentration of ownership.[7] In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies; as of 2011, 90% was controlled by just 6 companies and in 2017 the number was 5.[94]

(snip)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership(snip)

Any thoughts on that or do believe we don't have monpolistic corporate media conglomerates here in the good old U.S.A.?

[ehrnst]

52. So tell us why you posted an article from a corporate media conglomerate mouthpiece

"The Hill."

[Uncle Joe]

55. This was a good article by The Hill, why not post it?

You never answered my question regarding that tweet on post# 18

[ehrnst]

58. So it's possible for a "corporate conglomerate media mouthpiece" to actually come up with

a good article?

But only if it it meets your standard of praise for Senator Bernie Sanders. Then it's TOTALLY valid journalism, no matter the source.

Otherwise, it's to be shunned from any source whatsoever as "monpolistic corporate media conglomerates here in the good old U.S.A."

Got it.

No double standard or confirmation bias whatsoever there.



Nice try at a deflection from that, BTW - the reliable attack of a strawman that you then tell me to defend, and then complain when I don't. I've come to expect that when I make an uncomfortable point about your post.

[Uncle Joe]

59. I never said they couldn't but that doesn't just change the dysfunctionality

of having incestuous, monopolistic six corporate media conglomerates of owning 90% of U.S. Media in all forms.

They have by their very nature and self-evident to the conscious among us inherent conflicts of interest, I know you can't deny this but from your posts so far, you don't seem to have a problem or objection to it.

[ehrnst]

60. Nice try. You dismissed the lady reporter as hostile outright because...

the "corporate media conglomerate" had some reason to take Bernie down with "conspiracy theory" - simply because she stated a fact about him and didn't just shut her "mouthpiece" (as you so respectfully referred to her) when he gave her a non-answer to that question he didn't like.



That is you, right?

They have by their very nature and self-evident to the conscious among us inherent conflicts of interest, I know you can't deny this but from your posts so far, you don't seem to have a problem or objection to it.

And you can keep on attacking those ever growing legions of straw men of your making, but I'm not silly enough to defend them...no matter how frantically and repeatedly you keep insistting that I do - shrug emojis don't hide that. You should have learned that by now with all the times that we've "discussed" things that I don't derail very easily.



They are however now morphing into false dillemas. Your attempts at derailing the topic of your inconsistency on why you wave certain "corporate conglomerate media mouthpieces" as fabulous journalism, while dismissing the content of others as hostile and promoting wild conspiracy theories against poor Bernie (which don't confirm your bias) for being the goal of "corporate conglomerate media mouthpieces," when simply following up on a question that Bernie was trying to avoid, shows reveal some real frustration at being called out.

Much like Senator Sanders tried to avoid the very valid question from that lady reporter, and revealed some hostility in doing so. Cutting her off mid sentence... that was a rebuke for not accepting his deflection.

Like a real journalist, and not a fawning fan.

You dismiss those "inherent conflicts of interests" with a wave of the hand - even to the point of promoting them on DU in OPs, so long as the "mouthpieces" say whatever brings happiness.

[Uncle Joe]

61. So you believe the six corporate media conglomerate monopolies are "strawmen"

Thanks for answering my question.

What precisely do you disagree with in the article of the OP by The Hill?

[ehrnst]

62. Same straw man as before...

And you keep on thinking that I'm going to defend it, no matter how many times you demand that I do?

Argument from Silence, anyone?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/57/Argument-from-Silence

Description: Drawing a conclusion based on the silence of the opponent, when the opponent is refusing to give evidence for any reason.

Logical Form:

Person 1 claims X is true, then remains silent.

Person 2 then concludes that X must be true.

Example #1:

Jay: Dude, where are my car keys?

Bob: (says nothing)

Jay: I KNEW you took them!

You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again, expecting the same outcome, right? Still haven't learned that I don't derail easily, have you?



The thing that you want so badly to deflect from is that you will ignore or dismiss any and all "inherent conflicts of interests" of those very monopolies you rant about with a wave of the hand - even promoting them on DU in OPs - so long as their "mouthpieces" say what confirms your bias.

[Uncle Joe]

63. What did you disagree with about the article by The Hill in the OP?

[ehrnst]

64. You know what they say about trying the same thing over and over again

while expecting a different outcome, don't you?



Red Herring:

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring

In your flurry of attempted deflections, I guess you didn't bother to read my response to the OP concerning other differences I observed between Sanders and Warren. It was the 11th post...

[Uncle Joe]

68. I have already given my piece on the issue of the hostile interviewer,

your posting of a tweet missing critical text and context, along with my belief in regards to the corporate media conglomerates.

I don't believe you even viewed the entire interview, just that little snippet.

The argument that one shouldn't use source articles from the corporate media conglomerates which own 90% of all media when it's deemed sound, newsworthy or supporting one's beliefs precludes one from criticizing the overall system or any individual in said system is ludicrous on its' face.

[ehrnst]

69. Some "corporate conglomerate media mouthpieces" are

"more equal than others" seems to be your argument, despite all your attempts to derail any post that pointing out the evidence in this very thread.



Remember this exchange where you simply went silent after you yourself deployed an Argument from Silence fallacy, then when I called you out on it, you frantically deployed an identical straw man to the one in this thread in an attempt to derail?

[Uncle Joe]

70. "Went silent?" Did you read your own link to the thread?

I made the last post with a question and you never posted again, just like now it was regarding the corporate media conglomeration.

[ehrnst]

74. Yes I did. Did you?

[Uncle Joe]

77. Yes, I made post #8, last post

then "you went silent."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287109910#post5

[ehrnst]

79. Then you "went silent." Which is what I was commenting on...

Seriously, does this work on other people?

[ehrnst]

76. You've given us that and so much more....

Does this work for you other places than DU?

You seem very surprised when people who don't agree with you aren't falling for the fallacies, or the straw men, or are too smart to go down some tangent that you frantically try to create. Maybe you're used to people just giving up, and assuming that means they were overwhelmed with how wrong they were shown to be?

Just trying to figure out why you keep attacking straw men, asserting argument from silence fallacies, and thowing out red herrings.

[Uncle Joe]

78. Peace to you ehrnst

[ehrnst]

81. Right back at you.

With all the same intentions that you assign that phrase.

[Gothmog]

50. For this thread

Really? http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/bernie-sanders-2016-rigged-wont-pledge-support-winner.html

Sanders withheld his endorsement of Clinton until the middle of July, and his delegates to the convention devoted much of their energy to vigorously protesting the proceedings. The booing from the audience was so loud that speakers either struggled through their remarks or stopped to plead with the delegates.

Sanders clearly resents being asked hypothetical questions that force him to entertain the prospect he might lose. But he faces these questions for the same reason Donald Trump was frequently asked if he would accept an unfavorable outcome: because he has a record of challenging the legitimacy of the outcome when he loses. Only Sanders gets asked this question because only Sanders has ever claimed to have been the victim of Democratic Party rigging, and only Sanders selected a slate of delegates who tried to disrupt their party’s convention.

[Gothmog]

49. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday did not commit to conceding the primary even if it became clear he would not be the nominee, a move that traces back to 2016 when the senator was facing down then-Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

In an afternoon interview, MSNBC's Kasie Hunt asked Sanders if he would leave the race before the national convention. His response? "I intend to be the Democratic nominee."

After a back-and-forth — "Are you asking that of every candidate?" — and further pressing, Sanders said he was proud of his grassroots campaigns, particularly in the key states of New Hampshire and Iowa, and his million volunteers. The Vermont senator is polling just behind frontrunner and former Vice President Joe Biden, with 19 percent of the expected vote as of June 23.

"Our goal right now is to win it. And by the way, as you you may know, poll after poll shows what against Trump? Shows me beating Trump by 8, 9 or 10 points. We're going to beat Trump, we're going to win the Democratic nomination."

[ehrnst]

28. He avoided answering the question, and got testy when she didn't just nod and smile at

his "I intend to be the nominee" and then simply follow his lead and say, "Please tell us why you're so sure that you are the very best possible nominee, and will win?" then simply shut her "corporate mouthpiece" (as you put it) and let him repeat his stump speech like a nice, non-corporate journalist, and stop bothering him with questions.

A direct answer to her question would have been, "I have signed the Unity Pledge, and I will honor that."

Why do you think that he avoided saying that, even when given another chance to do so?

[Uncle Joe]

31. Because Bernie's focus is on winning the primaries and G.E. whether

the corporate media conglomerate mouthpieces wish it to be so or not.

[ehrnst]

35. So again... why was he even talking to a "corporate media conglomerate mouthpiece?"

Why "lower" himself to even do that, if indeed what you say is true about that rude lady reporter?

Why not just stick with Jacobin, RT and Young Turks, where no one would dare ask a question he didn't like?

Any thoughts?

[TexasTowelie]

47. How many people read Jacobin, or watch RT or The Young Turks?

[hedda_foil]

6. That's NOT TRUE. He signed the pledge to work for the Dem candidate and says he will.

And he's not even in my top 3 this time around. Please delete your post.

[ehrnst]

12. Perhaps you haven't heard the latest:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=167107

[aikoaiko]

33. again, it was about the presumptive nominee before the convention.

[ehrnst]

67. But still after he would have lost. (nt)

[aikoaiko]

72. Sure.

I was happy to see Bernie go to the end last year trying to push his agenda.

Supporters don't like to see their candidates quit unless they have to. I liked seeing Bernie fight to the end because he showed us that lefties can be tough -- tougher than centrists and moderates are comfortable with.

And when Bernie ultimately endorses the nominee, it means something to his supporters.

[aikoaiko]

32. "before the convention"

The issue was framed as supporting the presumptive nominee before the convention when we actually have a nominee.

And he didn't say he wouldn't -- he said he wouldn't commit at this point to supporting someone else before the convention.

[MrsCoffee]

43. Not good enough. We don't need him dragging the party and the nominee down again.

And the perpetual whining of victimhood about how it was rigged against him. That's always a real uniter.

And that's exactly what will happen.

[aikoaiko]

45. I'm good with Sanders sticking around. We need him.

[MrsCoffee]

46. I'm good with him sticking around the Senate. We don't need his brand of negativity once a nominee

is apparent.

[Cha]

56. NO We Do NOT "need" that.

[ehrnst]

65. Perhaps in the Senate, doing the work of representing his state. (nt)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. So.Not.True... but hey, it's Bernie, so make up whatever you want I guess.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[SouthernProgressive]

3. Warren is getting it done.

Spot on about Warren being a reformer. Problem is that Sanders isn't "revolutionary." That joke is simply being mocked at this point. He just likes to think of himself as a revolutionary. That is clear. Self-branding. Nothing more. Warren has so much more depth in every area.

Warren is winning Democrats, not the very limited group of third party voters Sanders is going after. Sanders was even forced to staff up with third party supporters as fewer and fewer coalition builders want to be associated with him. They aren't really going for the same voters. Sanders is hoping to drive enough third party voters to take part in our primaries to sway it to him. That group is too small to make an impact. Warren is working to build a winning coalition within the party and is doing a great job at it. From the start, her pool of potential voters is exponentially larger than that which Sanders can pull from. Warren is teaching Sanders how it's done. How to actually make change from within. Sanders is not just trying to hold his Stein voters together. Not a good look for him.

[ehrnst]

13. +1000. (nt)

[ehrnst]

11. Some other observations about other differences:

She has the respect and admiration of her peers, and influenced some of Obama's legislative pushes, even before becoming a Senator.

from 2015:

Warren's real power lies in her outsized influence, not just for a freshman senator, but for virtually any elected official in Washington. Her pen may not have touched many pieces of legislation that made their way to Obama's desk since her election in 2012, but her fingerprints are all over them.

Warren would be a strong spokeswoman for the party in Congress or outside of it; she spurred creation of a federal agency—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau— without the title of "senator" in front of her name. But allies say Warren's best tool is her seat at the committee table in the Senate. Through hearings on the Senate Banking Committee in particular, Warren's questioning and persistence has lead to rules changes at various federal agencies without needing to get legislation through a Republican-controlled Congress. Most notably, Warren successfully pushed the SEC to require banks to admit wrongdoing in negotiating many settlements.

Even critics acknowledge that Warren's influence, particularly over federal agencies and her Democratic colleagues, goes beyond her fairly brief record of legislative accomplishment.

"She's both at the same time highly ineffective and influential—and I know that sounds inconsistent but it's not," one senior financial services executive, a Warren critic, said. "She has no legislative accomplishment other than to derail a few [nominees], which is easy to do. But to her credit, she is highly influential. Members of the House Democratic Caucus and Senate Democratic Caucus "¦ are really looking over their shoulders."
....................................................

But perhaps more significantly, Warren displayed a restraint that has kept her, largely, in the good graces of her colleagues. Unlike Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee, to whom she often is compared, Warren made her opinion known and then allowed her colleagues to vote as they saw fit. Cruz and Lee, meanwhile, threatened to tank the whole funding package and kept their colleagues in Washington for a few late-night and weekend sessions ahead of their holiday recess.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/is-elizabeth-warren-an-effective-senator/449349/

She's an educator, and makes sure that her message is being understood, and takes care to modulate the language to the group that she is talking to, not at. She's as comfortable, clear and effective in a one-on-one interview as she is speaking from a podium.

Warren listens to people. She doesn't brush them off when they ask for details of her plans.

You will never hear, "Well, I'm not going to speculate on that," or "Well, that's an issue. That's definitely an issue. It's certainly a real concern and we should deal with it, but just let me say...(changes topic)" from Warren.

She has pushed the conversation about economics, and income inequality further than any other candidate, and most other politicians:

Also from 2015:

"We have seen a race to the top on Elizabeth Warren's ideas, including debt-free college, expanding Social Security, and holding Wall Street banks accountable," said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/politics/elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-elections-2016/index.html

[Politicub]

16. The gulf between them widens daily.

Bernie seems like a utopian. Warren is pragmatic.

As Warren lays out the steps to achieve her vision, Bernie will still be talking about his revolutionary ideas at a high level. The problem with staying at an abstract, high level is that it makes it difficult to see how to get from here to there.

[Apple Fritter]

29. I agree with op

Nothing is taken away from either of them. There is no gulf "widening". Again, I don't like how people are framing it. In contrast, Biden did take away voters from Bernie when he entered. But to say that Warren is "replacing" Bernie is a narrative being sold. Warren is bringing out the more cautious people and new potential voters who are starting to notice her. Has she been dipping into his base, yeah, but every dem has been dipping into each other bases like it's a buffet.

She's been a maybe for EVERYONE since 2018.

[Uncle Joe]

36. The frame being pushed by the corporate media conglomerates

is just a divide and conquer strategy to reign in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Peace to you Apple Fritter.

[ehrnst]

44. But isn't The Hill a "corporate media conglomerate"... for whom you are pushing an article?

I guess your definition of who is and isn't a "corporate media conglomerate mouthpiece" is rather 'flexible,' depending on how happy they make you that day concerning what they say about Junior Senator from Vermont, isn't it

Peace to you Uncle Joe!

[Politicub]

39. You don't get to control how people frame an issue or a candidate's pitch

So there's no use trying. About the only thing you can do is try to influence someone's thinking; causing someone to change their point of view because you don't like the frame is possible, but extremely difficult. Some would call that level of changing behavior a waste of time, and I would agree with them, since time is a finite resource.

Warren is peeling away from Bernie. I don't think she was a clone of Bernie to begin with, actually. That's patriarchal thinking. She has been considering these issues for her entire adult life and has come to her own conclusions. That shines through. A copycat is devoid of passion. And passion is something that Warren exudes more than any candidate, in my opinion.

While you conflate Sanders and Warren, many people do not. The media narrative is changing about them. Sanders is losing support to Warren. I think this is a good thing. Sanders may make a good Vice President, but I don't see him considering something like that.

[Apple Fritter]

41. yep

So there's no use trying. About the only thing you can do is try to influence someone's thinking; causing someone to change their point of view because you don't like the frame is possible.

I agree I can't stop people from selling a story but I just wanted to clarify that "Warren replacing Bernie exclusively" was in fact a narrative. Just pointing it out and making aware of this claim is the best thing to do.

Warren is peeling away from Bernie. I don't think she was a clone of Bernie to begin with, actually. That's patriarchal thinking. She has been considering these issues for her entire adult life and has come to her own conclusions. That shines through. A copycat is devoid of passion. And passion is something that Warren exudes more than any candidate, in my opinion.

I don't disagree with any of this.

While you conflate Sanders and Warren, many people do not.

I do not conflate them. Warren is definitely different. I see her as gaining momentum after fumbling at the beginning, that's something no one in the race has done (maybe Castro has) but I think people WANT her to replace Bernie as THE progressive so they come up with this story to replace him. She can't replace Biden or Bernie.

The media narrative is changing about them. Sanders is losing support to Warren.

Again, this isn't really based in evidence. That's the whole point of this thread. You're helping a speculative narrative. Warren is doing well against everyone.

[ehrnst]

30. Pragmatic is a dirty word to many people. It smacks of "establishment" politics

and not someone who will TAKE A SLEDGEHAMMER TO THE WHOLE SYSTEM!!!

Like we have now.

[Politicub]

37. You can't please all of the people all the time

We all see things through the lens of our own experience.

Compared to Sanders, Warren's approach is more realistic, which I call pragmatic, because she has a plan and strategy. That's what Sanders lacks.

[Apple Fritter]

38. But she is pragmatic.... "I have a plan" should be her slogan. n/t

[ehrnst]

42. Isn't 'The Hill' a corporate conglomerate media mouthpiece?

Seems odd that you'd give such an entity any credit, let alone share it as a reliable source of information on Bernie.

But if it in any way says something that you consider flattering about a particular candidate, suddenly it's "progressive" I suppose.

[Princetonian]

48. Yes. It is conservative-friendly and is owned by a Republican, I believe.

Way to divide and conquer.

I love both these candidates and would happily vote for them in any combination.

[ehrnst]

57. Interesting that the author of the OP states that conglomerate corporate media mouthpieces are

Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2019, 10:41 PM - Edit history (1)

completely unreliable as journalistic sources, yet shares this one with no negative commentary to that effect whatsoever.

[Princetonian]

83. Indeed.

Beware the oh-so-innocent.

[Uncle Joe]

54. I post from virtually all sources including the corporate media conglomerates,

why would you want to ignore 90% of all U.S. media televised, radio and print?

(snip)

[Over time the amount of media merging has increased and the number of media outlets has increased. As a result, fewer companies now own more media outlets, increasing the concentration of ownership.[7] In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies; as of 2011, 90% was controlled by just 6 companies and in 2017 the number was 5.[94]

(snip)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership(snip)

You might want to read up on "The Art of War."

[ehrnst]

66. So you want to ignore the the "dysfunctionality

of having incestuous, monopolistic six corporate media conglomerates of owning 90% of U.S. Media in all forms?"

See what I did there?



Now, which part of the Art of War do you think that came from?

I recall you claimed that your personal sources were mostly "from the internet."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287109910#post5

And when I asked you for more information that might be uncomfortable... you deflected and avoided answering with a straw man nearly exactly like the one you tried to deploy yet again in this thread.



Now can you tell me what rule from the Art of War THAT was based on?

[Uncle Joe]

71. To the contrary, you are ignoring it.

I have followed the news as a "news junkie" in all forms print, T.V. and then Internet for 40 years.

That helped shape my opinion of it today.

[ehrnst]

73. "I know you are but what am I?"

[Uncle Joe]

75. ...

[ehrnst]

80. ....