Ready The Clown Car: The First Batch of Democrats Are Ready To Announce Their 2020 Bids

I see the conspiracy theories from Trump supporters in this forum. But where do you encounter these hand-wringing Bernie supporters? I've heard some lamenting, but I guess I don't know the conspiracy theorists. Should I get out more?

 

Bernie himself has said it. He claims the establishment put tremendous pressure on Pete and Amy to drop out and that if not for that he would have done better on Super Tuesday. He then says that billionaires and establishment are all uniting to try to stop him and his revolution.

1) The establishment part is a conspiracy theory that has been denied by both Pete and Amy.
2) His core argument there is that he shouldn't have to run 1 v 1 with Biden.

 

1) Do you have a link to them saying this?
2) That's certainly the impression Bernie is giving off. If he believes he can win then why worry about a 1-on-1 race.

 

Random question of the day: pretend the #MeToo thing never happened and he was still in the Senate, how would Al Franken have fared in this Democratic primary?

Assuming, of course, he would have wanted to run. Which I think he would have strongly considered.

Any thoughts on how he would have fared? What sort of ceiling would he have had as a candidate?

 

He's referring to this, I think: https://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-...-pressure-on-buttigieg-klobuchar-to-drop-out/

Whether its a conspiracy theory depends a little on how you take him to mean it. I don't think Pete bowed to the establishment - he's part of the establishment. And in his speech, Pete says overtly that part of the reason for the timing of his concession was to make sure that Sanders did not win the nomination (“We have a responsibility to consider the effect of remaining in this race any further."). Sanders' analysis of why Biden kicked his butt is nearly spot on -- the other moderates (part of the "establishment", aka the actual Democratic party) dropped out to make sure Biden got more votes than him. And the rest of the establishment piled on, with endorsement after endorsement. He's obviously right on this point.

Now, he insinuates some other stuff, that there was pressure put on Pete and Klobuchar and that their are corporate interests driving the action, that can be interpreted as conspiracy stuff. If he's bitter about anything, it would seem like it's the monied interests driving the action, not that he'd have to challenge Biden 1 on 1. But, it's probably irresponsible to suggest that there are self-interested power brokers pulling strings behind the scenes without having some evidence. It is pretty plausible that there are people with money and political power who were getting very nervous that Sanders really would win who started to use their money and connections to change the tone of the discourse to create fear, uncertainty and doubt about his candidacy. Of course, it is also plausible that people without money and power were also getting nervous about it all on their own. It's hard to say how much is one and how much the other. In any case, I don't have a real problem with it. That's part of the whole dirty political game that Sanders signed up for, and he just got out-maneuvered.

 

This is a very nuanced view but it fails to explain the fact that the voters overwhelmingly voted for Biden when he had weeks of negative reporting and had little money.

And even in this explanation it does not explain the fact that the Amy and Pete voters went to Biden instead of Sanders, how is that the fault of the establishment?

And why is that dirty?

How did the power and money affect the super tuesday vote in 3 days?

I am not finding the logic in that?

 

I'd humbly suggest:

1. Southern democrats are more moderate than the coastal democrats but had felt like Sanders had the momentum. With Biden's South Carolina win, the concessions, and the long list of nominations, it suddenly felt safe to them to vote for Biden.

2. Concurrently, Sanders has been assailed by influencers for being too extreme, unAmerican, etc, to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt about supporting him. That effort had been going on much longer than the few days between South Carolina and Super Tuesday. The work wasn't orchestrated to support Biden, but it was aimed at undermining Sanders. Whether it was the influence of talking heads or people coming to such conclusions on their own, we have seen many people justify their support of Biden on Super Tuesday because the fear, uncertainty, and doubt they have about Bernie Sanders.

3. That's not the 'fault' of the establishment, that's the work of the establishment. The job of the party is to find a nominee that they think they can get most of the country behind in the general election. It looks like they managed to do that.

4. All politics is dirty. Don't get your panties in a bunch about it.

 

My panties are not in a bunch, i don't know where you got that from.

Influencers? That a very nebulous term.

Who do think influenced the AA vote?

Pete? Amy?

So this about influencers and people can't have doubts about Sanders on their own?

Why would the influencers and the party let Biden be on his death bed before SC and most of the media was reporting he would be dropping out after SC.

So what about the Assault on Biden leading up to SC?

How about those influencers and the constant reporting that Biden was running on fumes?

I have no doubt the "establishment" wants a particular candidate but they did a piss poor job in pushing Biden until his win in SC and that's where the whole theory of the case falls apart IMO.

 

So where do you think he has not been vetted?

What questions does he need to answer?

 

All of those things have been vetted, they have been talked about since he entered the race.

Nobody has stuck there head in the sand about anything, he has run in how many elections and just had 2 as VP do you the republicans had their head in the sand when he ran with Obama?

A Sanders supporter went public with the creepy Joe behavior when he announced.

Maybe you have your head in the sand.

 

The idea that these issues haven't been vetted is laughable.

-Senility: Gets talked about non-stop. His doctor has weighed in and disputed. We see him daily. What more can anyone do to make a decision on it?
-Corruption: This has also been vetted. His son took a job using his last name. The world shouldn't work that way but it does. Not much else to focus on.
-Creepy behavior: Again, this has been out there and people basically don't care about it because he's not being sexual he's just too touchy feely.

 

Because your tone is aggressive.

But, by your questions, you seem to want to reduce what I'm saying to an illuminati conspiracy. I'm not saying that at all. I am saying there were many channels that carried the same kind of narrative about Sanders -- too extreme, too rigid and ideological, will bankrupt the country, etc. They all wanted to sow doubt about Sanders. (We saw similar stuff about Biden being dead in the water, though honestly I think that was mostly just honest reporting.)

I used to work in corporate external communications. If we were, say, involved in some consequential legislation, we might find an eminent person -- a professor, a think tank, a retired politician -- an ally, and have him write an article advocating our position. And we'd shop it to the newspapers and we could get it placed even in prominent papers. When you read that article, you see it as a plea from a subject matter expert who just wants his government to make the best possible decision. And it is his genuine position, more or less. But, he got paid by a corporation for writing it, and he wouldn't have been paid (at least, not by us) if he had the wrong position. And he wouldn't have gotten placed in a prominent newspaper if he had the wrong position. We wouldn't arrange an interview for him if he had the wrong position. If he's persuasive to readers in his op-ed or letter to the editor, would you say that's just people getting educated and coming to conclusions all on their own?

 

My tone is aggressive?

Ok/

I never said anything about an Illuminati conspiracy, I just think you ignore a lot of the facts to equate his wins with the establishment getting behind him.

I understand what you are trying to say in your last paragraph but it ignores the fact that the media was killing Biden the previous 2 weeks and where saying Sanders would probably have this wrapped up after ST .

In this scenario who was the professor and what was his report leaked to change opinions.

The Media was killing Biden before SC and who do you think prevented Sanders from gaining any voters when Amy and Pete dropped out?

Yes I think a persuasive op-ed can sway people I just don't see the op-ed swaying anybody for Biden the op-eds where mainly saying his campaign was toast.

I did not see all of this doubt sowing about Sanders and definitely not some all out effort, a lot of it was telling Trump to be careful what you ask for and touting his electibility.

 

We should probably define what we mean about establishment. I think Clyburn, Pete, Klobuchar, McAuliffe, Tim Kaine, Beto, Tammy Duckworth, Harry Reid are all part of the establishment however you want to define it. They all endorsed him for Super Tuesday, along with some lesser lights.

That said, I don't think they can just dictate to the electorate who to vote for. But, Biden did a masterful job assembling all of these endorsements to leverage the SC win into Super Tuesday domination. It gave him a ton of momentum. And that was really important in a race where people are very concerned about electability.

Because the media didn't anticipate the massive coup Biden was about to pull. They were killing him because he looked like a loser -- bad at debates, little ground game, no money, and disappointing in the early states. They even misjudged how he'd far in South Carolina because he significantly outperformed the polling there. Some of the criticism, I'm sure, were people who'd rather Trump didn't have to face Biden in the general. But probably it was mostly genuine -- what do you think would have happened if Clyburn hadn't endorsed Biden?

One, Amy and Pete endorsed Biden. They told their supporters they should vote for Biden now. That's pretty persuasive. Two, Biden's main weakness has been that he has not looked electable. With a big SC win, clearing the moderate lane, and a gazillion endorsements, he suddenly does look electable. Three, conversely, Sanders had momentum and looked more electable because he owned the progressive lane and part of his support came from people who didn't love him but thought he had the best shot -- but once they saw the moderates consolidate, that rationale evaporated. Four, much of Super Tuesday was in the South where Democrats are more moderate. Five, fear, uncertainty and doubt about how "angry" and "rigid" and "ideological" and "crazy" Bernie is (and Bernie Bros!) that they got from cable news, twitter, Facebook friends, trusted celebrities, trolls, etc. And six, Biden did such a masterful job (or was incredibly lucky) of putting this all together in the couple of days before Super Tuesday that the Sanders' campaign did not have the time to get a read and mount a counter.