Sanders supporters call for blacklisting of Bloomberg's campaign staff (and not just professionally)

[wyldwolf]

[RandySF]

1. Good grief it never ends.

[Kurt V.]

2. this is a really bad idea :(

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. What do they mean by "blacklisting"?

Not hiring them is one thing, and would probably be expected, but it's pretty damn chilling to say that "they have no future, ever, and not just professionally." McCarthyism isn't the exclusive property of the right wing.

[wyldwolf]

5. McCarthyism is putting it mildly

[SCantiGOP]

62. Maybe call it

democratic fascism?

[wyldwolf]

65. or we could call it - and them - what Harry Truman called it / them

"Crackpots."

[leftieNanner]

76. Or as Joe might say...

Malarkey!

[True Blue American]

101. Thank you!

That is the word I was looking for,Crackpots!

[MH1]

49. "and not just professionally" - what are they, the fucking mob? Geez, I like these people less and

less every day.

[radius777]

114. Typical white bros who feel entitled and angry

that the Dem party and the world no longer revolves around them as much as it used to.

IRL they're usually the biggest cowards when confronted.

[George II]

4. Holy crap. Will Sanders say anything about this?

[wyldwolf]

8. He'll say there are some very bad people on both sides... LOL.

[Sloumeau]

25. Perhaps he'll just say that Matt Bruenig and Ian Samuel are Russian bots. :) nt

[Cha]

9. Hmmm..

Link to tweet

[Maven]

19. No, it's how his game is run

Stochastic demonization.

He knows exactly what he's doing.

[Codeine]

108. He'll say the blacklisting by all campaigns

needs to stop.

[krissey]

6. Tell us how there is not a difference between Sanders campaign and ALL the other Democratic

candidates?

[democratisphere]

7. When you keep looking over your shoulder, the next step is to get down and dirty.

Black list? Really??

[Fresh_Start]

10. this is Bernie's fault

this is his campaign strategy showing
demonize everyone who is not in bernie's court.
demonize the elite
demonize the media
demoralize voters supporting other candidates

when you tell your supporters that the world is out to get them and cheat them of what is their's, you get this gross behavior.

Populism 101

[lapucelle]

11. ...

Link to tweet

[Cha]

34. rogan is for BS.. Bloomberg is not..

See the difference?

Thanks for the tweet, lapucelle.

[lapucelle]

48. Not only is Ian odious, he also has a glaring error

in the French name of his "boutique" law service.

[Cha]

50. Yeah.. he sounds desperate, too.. wyldwolf posted this below aobut ian samuels..

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/05/13/professor-accused-misconduct-admits-it-and-resigns

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=526249

[lapucelle]

56. He sounds like a real sweet heart.

http://www.wbiw.com/2019/05/13/indiana_law_prof_ian_samuel_resigns_after_misconduct_probe/

[Cha]

75. Yeah.. that cannot be denied.

[calguy]

81. Only the "best" people

[squirecam]

68. Wow

Unbelievable....

[Happy Hoosier]

12. Despicable little creeps...

... another reason I can’t support Sanders unless he acts now to stop this bullshit.

[DanTex]

13. This is a response to the DCCC's blacklisting of progressive groups.

It's just to make a point, because unlike the DCCC, random people on twitter don't have any power to blacklist anyone.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dccc-promises-to-blacklist-firms-that-work-with-candidates-challenging-incumbents_n_5c95126ae4b01ebeef0ec3ae

[George II]

18. No it's not. It has noting to do with that. What do incumbent Democrats have to do with Bloomberg?

[empedocles]

21. BS is BS is BS

[DanTex]

27. Yes, it's explicitly in response to that. See the tweet thread.

The point is that if the DCCC is using blacklisting to prevent people from working to help progressives mounting primary challenges, why would it not be acceptable to blacklist people supporting a conservative ex-Republican trying to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

I don't agree with the blacklisting in either case, but I understand the point he's making (he has no power to actually blacklist anyone, it's just making a point). The fact that there was outrage about this tweet but not about the actual blacklisting by the DCCC illustrates his point.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[George II]

30. I ask again, what does Bloomberg have to do with the DCCC? Do you know what DCCC is?

[DanTex]

35. If you insist on not understanding the point, then you won't.

But if you read the twitter thread, then you will.

[George II]

38. I did. Breunig talks about the DCCC, yes, but that doesn't make the connection valid.

[DanTex]

41. Like I said, I disagree with blacklisting in both cases.

Whether the point he's making is "valid" I guess depends on one's perspective.

[George II]

43. The point isn't valid. Why doesn't he call for blacklisting staffers of EVERY other candidate....

....instead of singling out Bloomberg who, by the way, happens to be the only practicing, devout Jewish candidate.

Surely you know the historic significance of "blacklisting" and Jewish Americans.

[DanTex]

44. I understand that you don't think it's valid.

Seems pretty clear to me: the DCCC blacklists people who work for progressive challengers, but objects to blacklisting of people who work for conservative challengers. But nobody is saying that you have to agree. I'm just pointing out the context.

Oh, and there are two Jewish candidates in the field: Bloomberg and Sanders.

[krissey]

33. More excuses for bad behavior instead of addressing the bad behavior. And THAT is why we have had 5

years of this bad behavior.

[DanTex]

36. An explanation more than an excuse.

[OilemFirchen]

45. That was resolved a month ago.

Top progressives, DCCC reach ceasefire over 'blacklist'

Top liberals have reached a détente with the House Democratic campaign arm in a dispute over a policy that inhibits primary challengers to incumbents — a move intended to unify Democrats in this year’s battle to protect their majority and defeat President Donald Trump.

Some of the House’s most influential progressives, including Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), said they will contribute tens of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, despite a contentious new rule that blacklists campaign consultants who work for candidates taking on sitting Democratic members.

<snip>

The group — Bustos and about two dozen progressive Democrats — sat down privately last week to discuss the 2020 cycle, during which she thanked liberals in the room who have agreed to pay their dues, according to people familiar with the meeting.

“I intend to pay the full dues. I have a view that, in 2020, we have to come together to ensure the defeat of Donald Trump and the retaining of our majority,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), another sharp critic of the DCCC policy who began paying dues in January.

Next excuse, please.

[DanTex]

46. Looks like some people on twitter are still unhappy about the DCCC's blacklisting.

[OilemFirchen]

47. Looks like you keep making excuses for them. (n/t)

[calguy]

83. They act and operate as one would expect paid trolls

to act and operate. Not accusing anyone of actually being a paid troll. Just pointing out the behavior, in MY opinion, is similar to how an army of paid trolls would operate.

[redstateblues]

55. Sad to see you resorting to whataboutism to defend this heinous behavior

[Cha]

103. So? The DCCC didn't say.. ".. And, Not Just Professionally"..

[DanTex]

104. What do you mean "so"? You think professional blacklisting is OK?

[Cha]

105. The DCCC did Not Say.. "And, Not Just Professionally"..

[DanTex]

107. So that makes it OK. That's what you're saying. Right?

[Cha]

110. the DCCC is Not Threatening to Ruin their Future like

ian Samuel.

[DanTex]

111. Well, threatening the financial future, yes.

And unlike that rando on the internet who isn't going to actually do anything, the DCCC actually has influence.

[Cha]

113. That's a disgusting threat from ian samuels

[Kurt V.]

52. ah, i get it now. thanks

[democrattotheend]

54. They didn't "blacklist progressive groups"

They removed vendors from the preferred vendor list who work for primary challengers to Democratic incumbents of any ideological stripe.

I don't doubt this may have been done in response to progressives like AOC and Pressley knocking off Democratic incumbents, but now that they are incumbents, vendors who work for them would not be blacklisted and in fact, vendors who worked for a more conservative Democratic challenger to them would be. So at least in theory it seems the policy applies across the board, not just to progressives.

Also, the article said candidates are still free to hire those vendors, they just won't be on the preferred list. I don't know if candidates will face unwritten consequences for working with such vendors, but I would doubt it. A vendor is much more likely to get actually blacklisted in the Democratic Party for bad labor or environmental practices or work for disgraced politicians than for working for a primary challenger.

I'm not saying I agree with the policy, but to say the DCCC is "blacklisting progressive groups" is just silly. This isn't even about progressive groups - it's about for-profit vendors who sell services to campaigns. And it doesn't seem like anyone is actually being blacklisted.

[Quixote1818]

88. Wow. Thanks for the link. Here is more about this.

HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP WARNS IT WILL CUT OFF ANY FIRMS THAT CHALLENGE INCUMBENTS

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/22/house-democratic-leadership-warns-it-will-cut-off-any-firms-who-challenge-incumbents/

[Sloumeau]

14. ...and some people wonder why some Sanders supporters get a bad reputation.

Sheesh!

[HarlanPepper]

15. Why are they so terrified of Bloomberg?

I thought he was just another oligarch and the ideology would win people over.

[wyldwolf]

22. Hasn't there been an invisible "progressive" majority for decades waiting for their savior?

[eilen]

115. Apparently his grassroots are scorched earth. nt

[greatauntoftriplets]

16. Blacklists?

[Lulu KC]

17. Don't they have anything better to do?

Seriously--
Must go take a walk and eat some green leafy vegetables.

[relayerbob]

20. Oh fuck this

Maybe these two losers should be "blacklisted" for even proposing such anti-American, ant-freedom of speech bullshit

[BlueIdaho]

23. How very Un-Democratic of them. nt.

[sheshe2]

24. Aaaah, they're just kids.

Dontcha know that kids say the darndest things!

[chillfactor]

26. Good god....

some sander's supporters have completely lost their minds!

[evertonfc]

28. these people are despicable

They will set our party back 30 years.

[Zolorp]

29. So people who despise the Democratic Party are threatening other people they'll...

never work for the Democratic Party again???

[wyldwolf]

32. that's not the scariest part, though. "Not just professionally."

How do you blacklist someone unless it's professionally? The phrase "not just professionally" sounds nefarious. We've already seen them doxing union members in NV. They're suggesting going after people's personal lives.

[Cha]

40. Sounds like they wanted to make it ohhh so Ominous..

[Autumn]

31. Why would a Sanders supporter want Trump to slip in another nominee to enable more court packing?

Link to tweet

[lapucelle]

78. Why A Fringe Idea About The Supreme Court Is Taking Over The Left

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-a-fringe-idea-about-the-supreme-court-is-taking-over-the-left/

Court-packing, Democrats’ nuclear option for the Supreme Court, explained

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/2/17513520/court-packing-explained-fdr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court

[Autumn]

79. That reads like a bunch of troll horse shit to me. nt

[lapucelle]

80. It's 538 and Vox. Here's what Ian Samuel himself wrote for The Guardian.

Kavanaugh will be on the US supreme court for life. Here's how we fight back
Ian Samuel

The ray of hope, if there is one, lies in contradiction of the first of those premises. Nothing in the constitution fixes the number of supreme court seats at nine. The size of the court is set by legislation, and has varied over time. We started with six. We’ve gone as high as 10 (when Abraham Lincoln was president, and Congress worried about a reactionary supreme court invalidating his wartime measures). Only recently, Republicans held the court to eight members for a year in the wake of Antonin Scalia’s death.

So, then, the next time the left has some political power, why not just expand the size of the supreme court and add another handful of justices? Make Brett Kavanaugh a gifted and energetic member of a 10-to-5 minority. Don’t get mad, in other words: get even.

This is called “court-packing”.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/09/kavanaugh-us-supreme-court-fight-back-court-packing

[Autumn]

82. It will never happen. The Supreme Court should be term limited. At one time intelligent people to

be qualified enough to be on a court were rare so a lifetime appointment made some sense. Now they are a dime a dozen.

[lapucelle]

84. Indeed. Why is BS supporter Ian Samuel pushing for court packing?

It's a fringe idea.

[Autumn]

85. I don't know. Why don't you sign up for twitter and ask him if you want to know. I don't speak

for other people and their actions or thoughts.

[Codeine]

109. Berning the village in order to save it.

I’m growing increasingly weary of these assholes, and it’s only February.

[liberal N proud]

37. Out of control

[Mersky]

39. They need to check themselves

Their putins are showing. Imo, these kind of tactics are unacceptable in a free society that values democratic principles.

[wyldwolf]

42. Ian Samuel was a prominent 'Bernie or Bust"er who was fired for sexual harassment

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/05/13/professor-accused-misconduct-admits-it-and-resigns

[Fresh_Start]

51. IanSamuels also says that Pete wasn't found guilty of killing dogs

suggesting that he killed dogs but wasn't caught.

[applegrove]

53. Sick.

[NurseJackie]

57. Is this what a BS administration would be like?

So petty. So vindictive.

[calguy]

86. In a Sanders administrative we'd have Nina "KellyAnn" Turner dishing out the alternative facts.

[LiberalFighter]

58. Has Sanders denounced these people personally?

[Me.]

59. Commie Talk

[dalton99a]

60. The religious-like fervor and blind devotion to the venerated saint are disturbing

[Zorro]

61. 'Tis very MAGAlike

[ellie]

63. What is wrong with

these people?

[CanonRay]

64. Sanders needs to fire these morons

Today.

[Bengus81]

70. Where does it say they work for Sanders?

[CanonRay]

73. They are discussing hurting these people professionally

who could do that except other professionals.

[betsuni]

66. Naming names, blacklisting, threats of "no future."

How dramatic! Do they wear costumes when they play Revolution?

[mzmolly]

67. WTF?

[Bengus81]

69. Eh...not part of the campaign,just mouthy idiots on Twitter

[Perseus]

71. They are supporters or they work in Sanders campaign with his approval?

Ian Samuel:
In an unusual move that's drawn praise and criticism, legal scholar and alleged sexual harasser Ian Samuel publicly resigned from his faculty

Matt Bruenig:
Founder of the left-wing think tank People's Policy

They seem to be supporters, and yes Sanders should disavow those comments from these two, but lets face it, its not Sanders saying it, you cannot control fanatics from any camp, fanatics are people who perform actions guided by their passions, and some do it because they feel it helps them in the spotlight and their agenda.

[TheRickles]

72. Who are these two?

Is there any proof that Samuel and Bruenig are actually employed by the Sanders campaign? Maybe I'm not up on who's who, but these sound like intentional troll posts.

[Scurrilous]

74. Here:

https://twitter.com/MattBruenig?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

https://twitter.com/isamuel?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

I don't think they're employed by Sanders, but neither are they trolls.

[TheRickles]

97. Thanks

I knew they were active on Twitter, but their connection to the Sanders campaign is tenuous at best. Feels like guilt by association.

[David__77]

77. Somewhere, "supporters" of [X] commit action [Y].

Alright.

[honest.abe]

87. Good grief.. what's next.. a dead fish on their doorsteps?

[xmas74]

89. A friend of my daughter just got a job on the

Bloomberg campaign. Political jobs, especially those that actually pay (and well!) aren't all that common. Blacklisting is bullshit.

[highplainsdem]

90. Disgusting.

[Mike 03]

91. The deserves to be kicked.

Some people are amazed the Bloomberg campaign responded.

Imagine that!

[Mike 03]

92. Gee, the Bloomberg campaign finally went negative on one of

our candidates' supporters. Why on earth might that be the case?

[we can do it]

94. This shit is why I can't stomach BS.

He refuses to call out these divisive idiots.

[dbolski]

95. How is this any different from Nancy Pelosi's blacklist..

of people that work on the campaigns of primary contenders for incumbent democrats? None at all that I can see, except in Sanders case there is actually something wrong with billionaires buying elections.

[Autumn]

96. It's really not, but that pot won't stir itself. And... Bernie

[Mersky]

98. Yeah, whatabout that policy where the DCCC doesn't want to shoot themselves in the foot financially?

It’s as though they recognize that incumbents tend to do well with re-election, and don’t want to pay for multiple sides in primaries because funds aren’t infinite. And once an upstart, perhaps more progressive candidate wins against an incumbent, they too will be protected by that rule. The transparent policy is so rational, it’s frightening. Oh, and the blacklisting is very severe: they remove the DCCC endorsement from the vendor. Yikes.

Is totally fair for two goons on twitter to threaten campaign staffers with way worse than losing their esteemed endorsement in retaliation for a funding policy that doesn’t effect the presidential candidate they’re targeting.




___
Aside from my snarking back at your loaded question, I want you to know that I have liked Bernie Sanders for years. I have chosen Biden as my lead candidate, as I have an easier time selling him in my wider sphere of influence. I do better with Warren than Bernie, because she is less extreme and doesn’t have the word, ...socialist, spot-welded to her name. In an ideal world, it would be easier for me to explain such to folks with less exposure to different people and outlooks, but sadly, little is ideal as evidenced by the occupant of the WH and fox spews telling busy people that liberals, etc. are the reason they are struggling. This is viewpoint I am working from.

If Sanders gets the nomination, I will do my best to support him, but would rather not feel I’m selling my soul on an ends-justify-the-means bandwagon. Is why I must pushback now — I am not trying to make your chosen candidate weaker. I am listening for what his supporters really want, and am glad that he is getting people engaged. Too, I am no fan of big money in our elections, but currently, Bloomberg is being more intellectually honest in his fight against tRump compared to the stunts from what seemed to be Bernie supporters over the weekend.

Oh, and welcome to DU

[Cha]

106. Because No other list says.. "And, Not Just Professionally"..

[tishaLA]

99. Ian Samuel was forced to resign from his appointment as a law professor

because of inappropriate behavior. He is not someone I would take seriously when it comes to questions of ethics and who should or shouldn't have a future.

[aikoaiko]

100. These guys don't have to hire anyone or invite them to parties.

What's the big deal?

[Gothmog]

112. Who cares what sanders supporters think?

No one is going to pay attention to this blacklist in the real world

[Renew Deal]

116. How would this work?

Campaigns are desperate for talent every four years. And shouldn’t those working for a non-Democrat be on that list?