Bernie Sanders town hall feat. Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore

[Venom]

...Drew over 1.7 million views.

Link.

Three co-hosts aided Sanders in his efforts: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), New School economist Darrick Hamilton and filmmaker Michael Moore.

Together they interviewed three guests with specialized knowledge of the economic and political structures suppressing economic mobility and funneling wealth upward. Catherine Coleman Flowers, a founder of the anti-poverty Alabama Center for Rural Enterprise Community Development Corp., spoke about the destitute poverty of the rural black community in Lowndes County, Alabama, where exposure to untreated sewage prompted a rare outbreak of hookworm.

Cindy Estrada, a vice president of the United Auto Workers, addressed the role of organized labor in raising living standards ― and how its decline has lowered them. And Gordon Lafer, a political scientist from the University of Oregon, explained how corporate interests neutralized public opposition through campaign donations and massive lobbying efforts.

You can watch the video here:




What's interesting is Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, if they run again, may be better served supporting each other in light of these cooperative events. I don't think they will run against each other.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

...Drew over 1.7 million views.

Link.


You can watch the video here:




What's interesting is Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, if they run again, may be better served supporting each other in light of these cooperative events. I don't think they will run against each other.

I think their best play is to rally around <insert fictitious Generation X democrat here> but the party is rather light on emerging luminary figures in that age range. They can lend their significant grass-roots networks to a primary candidate and catapult them into the spotlight. General election might require them to fade from the stage and continue behind the scenes (they are distracting targets for the right to harp on about).

This is where the tapatalk signature that annoys people used to be

 

[kellyb]

Most millennials and Gen Xers would prefer to vote for an older candidate with a pristine, long-established voting record, I think.

 

[ahhell]

If generations matter, gen Xers are largely irrelevant, similar to the silent generation, they are just out numbered by the generations before and after. The Boomers will hand power over to the millenials.

Most millennials and Gen Xers would prefer to vote for an older candidate with a pristine, long-established voting record, I think.

Why do you think this? Recent elections seem to indicate a voting record is more of a handicap. It probably helped both Obama and definitely helped Trump.

Or were you being sarcastic?


Also, I don't think either Warren or Bernie are particularly viable in the general, probably not even in the primary. If they want to advance a progressive agenda, likely better off using the primary to gain credibility within the Dems. Seems like Warren is on board with working within the Dem party, I'm not sure about Bernie. I mostly think Moore is a self aggrandizing show boat.

 

[kellyb]

Also, I don't think either Warren or Bernie are particularly viable in the general, probably not even in the primary.

The polls during the primaries showed Sanders beating Trump and Clinton losing to Trump, for whatever those polls are worth.

 

[ahhell]

The polls during the primaries showed Sanders beating Trump and Clinton losing to Trump, for whatever those polls are worth.

I should say, I didn't think Trump was viable in the primary or general either, so there's that .

 

[3point14]

I should say, I didn't think Trump was viable in the primary or general either, so there's that .

You were hardly alone in that.

 

[Segnosaur]

The polls during the primaries showed Sanders beating Trump and Clinton losing to Trump, for whatever those polls are worth.

Probably not much. Remember, during the primaries the republicans did little to attack Sanders, saving all their smear tactics for Clinton. And during the primaries Clinton treated Sanders fairly gently (as political campaigns go). Its easy to look unbeatable if you've never really been challenged.

Had Sanders won the primaries, the Republicans would immediately start dredging up all sorts of crap from his past... his self-labeling as a "socialist" (still a dirty word to many in the U.S.), his attendance at a rally where people chanted "death to America", his honeymoon in Moscow.

 

[kellyb]

Had Sanders won the primaries, the Republicans would immediately start dredging up all sorts of crap from his past... his self-labeling as a "socialist" (still a dirty word to many in the U.S.), his attendance at a rally where people chanted "death to America", his honeymoon in Moscow.

They would have tried, but it looks like the demonization of socialism kind of played itself out during the Obama years. Frank Luntz ran a Fox focus group after the first Clinton/Sanders debate, and was shocked by the group favoring Sanders and warming up to socialism after seeing his version of it. LOL

eta:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mgw67Ubho4

 

[Segnosaur]

Had Sanders won the primaries, the Republicans would immediately start dredging up all sorts of crap from his past... his self-labeling as a "socialist" (still a dirty word to many in the U.S.), his attendance at a rally where people chanted "death to America", his honeymoon in Moscow.

They would have tried, but it looks like the demonization of socialism kind of played itself out during the Obama years. Frank Luntz ran a Fox focus group after the first Clinton/Sanders debate, and was shocked by the group favoring Sanders and warming up to socialism after seeing his version of it. LOL

First of all, keep in mind that Fox News and Luntz both have a strong right-wing pro-republican and/or Trump bias. Doing whatever they can to play up Hillary's opposition would make sense. (Best case: They actually help Berny to win, and the republicans get an opponent they can easily defeat. Worst case, they cause dissent within the democrats, which still helps the republican cause.)

Secondly, I pointed out more than just his use of the word 'socialist'.

Lastly, while the republicans may have attempted to smear Obama with that word "socialist", I think it makes a difference when a candidate uses the word to describe himself as compared to when others attempt to apply the label.

 

[kellyb]

If it was a fraudulent focus group, Fox never did anything to help Sanders after that, to my knowledge. I think it's far more likely than not that it was legit and he really was as shocked as he seems.

I pointed out more than just his use of the word 'socialist'.

..and those things were easily dismissed during the primary. Hillary won the primary on name recognition, not the effective marketing of the "Moscow honeymoon." Nobody was actually swayed by that stuff.

 

[Segnosaur]

If it was a fraudulent focus group, Fox never did anything to help Sanders after that, to my knowledge.

Fox didn't need to actively "help" Sanders. All they had to do was not attack him, and concentrate all their attacks on Clinton.

re: issues with Sanders...

..and those things were easily dismissed during the primary.

But they WEREN'T really dismissed during the primary. There may have been a few old news article from years ago, but it wasn't really brought up at the time... Hillary certainly wasn't attacking Sanders over personal issues, and the Republicans were remaining silent.

You can't say something is "dismissed" if its never really brought up or discussed in any significant way.

Did YOU know about Sanders' participation in anti-American rallies? Did YOU know about him supporting a plan to send toxic waste to a poor Hispanic community? Did you know he voted against the Amber alert system? Because I suspect that most voters did not know about these during the primaries. But I can guarantee you that those issues would be dredged up repeatedly on Fox news had Sanders become the Democratic Candidate.

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Hillary won the primary on name recognition, not the effective marketing of the "Moscow honeymoon." Nobody was actually swayed by that stuff.

Once again, people weren't swayed by Sander's Moscow Honeymoon or his Death to America rally participation because it was never really discussed during the primaries. Clinton didn't want to engage in such petty attacks (likely because it would make her look bad) and the Republicans didn't want to attack Sanders over it because they preferred Sanders as an opponent and wanted to save those attacks for a general election.

 

[The_Animus]

Regarding Sanders in 2016 and the potential for him or a similar candidate in 2020 I'll repeat a comment from the 2020 candidate thread.

Is there anyone on these forums who voted for Clinton in the general election that wouldn't have voted for Sanders had it been him vs Trump in the general instead?

I have a really hard time buying the argument that people who voted for Clinton would have suddenly stayed home or voted Trump/3rd party instead of for Sanders.

Meanwhile he would have picked up some of the votes from people who stayed home, voted Trump, or voted 3rd party because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton because they thought she was corrupt or republican lite or an out of touch elite, or whatever their reason was. (FYI I'm not arguing she was those things).

 

[ahhell]

On FOX attacking Hillary over Bernie, that's just standard politics/war. Weaken the stronger of your potential opponents.

The more mainstream GOP candidates have accused the likes of CNN of giving Trump free air time during the primary in order to weaken the GOP. Hah, jokes on.....somebody.....

Sanders commie honeymoon and socialism are also much less of a weakness in the primary. Clinton didn't want to alienate the left wing of her party.

Basically, I agree, Bernie didn't see nearly the scrutiny in the primary that he would have gotten in the general. Sure, its a counter factual so we will never know, but I don't think he would have been nearly as strong as polling suggested. On the other hand, anti-establishmentism was a big factor in Trumps success, Bernie might have been more successful at siphoning that off than HRC.

 

[Segnosaur]

Regarding Sanders in 2016 and the potential for him or a similar candidate in 2020 I'll repeat a comment from the 2020 candidate thread.

Is there anyone on these forums who voted for Clinton in the general election that wouldn't have voted for Sanders had it been him vs Trump in the general instead?

I have a really hard time buying the argument that people who voted for Clinton would have suddenly stayed home or voted Trump/3rd party instead of for Sanders.

Meanwhile he would have picked up some of the votes from people who stayed home, voted Trump, or voted 3rd party because they couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton because they thought she was corrupt or republican lite or an out of touch elite, or whatever their reason was. (FYI I'm not arguing she was those things).

Clinton supporters on THIS forum would probably vote for Sanders had he won the nomination. But then, members of this forum probably don't fit the same demographics as the 'average' American.

Sanders would probably have lost votes in the following groups:

- Minorities. While Clinton did worse with many minority racial groups than Obama did in the general election, Sanders probably would have done an even worse job. https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...y-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948

- Moderate Democrats. Sanders held positions that were to the far left of the American political spectrum, and for better or worse those positions are not always politically popular. (Yes, I'm sure people will drag up all sorts of polls showing that "Hey people love single payer health care and a high minimum wage", but its different dealing with a question asked by some pollster than when you are dealing with an election and get told how "single payer will drive up your taxes".) https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/bernie-sanders-would-have-lost-election-landslide/

 

[kellyb]

Did YOU know about Sanders' participation in anti-American rallies? Did YOU know about him supporting a plan to send toxic waste to a poor Hispanic community? Did you know he voted against the Amber alert system?

Can I get a link on the "death to America" rallies? I did know about the other ones. Team Clinton was quite evangelical about them.

 

[kellyb]

- Moderate Democrats. Sanders held positions that were to the far left of the American political spectrum, and for better or worse those positions are not always politically popular. (Yes, I'm sure people will drag up all sorts of polls showing that "Hey people love single payer health care and a high minimum wage", but its different dealing with a question asked by some pollster than when you are dealing with an election and get told how "single payer will drive up your taxes".) https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ion-landslide/

You think the moderates would have voted for Trump over that?

 

[Venom]

Regarding Sanders in 2016 and the potential for him or a similar candidate in 2020 I'll repeat a comment from the 2020 candidate thread.

It seems to me people had already made up their minds early based on what they saw on TV. Clinton had name recognition, she was the "safe" choice; Trump had the anti-establishment fury behind him. I cannot picture the vast majority of Democrats not voting for Sanders over Trump had he made it that far.

I'd say Clinton mostly won the primary on the strength of name recognition. Policy-wise Sanders is a peg to the left of her.

 

[kellyb]

Also worth noting, there's still this factor, too:

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-655315

Senator Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America, according to a new Harvard-Harris poll. In fact, the Vermont senator and former presidential candidate is the only politician in the U.S. who a majority of voters like.

The poll, which drew responses from 2,263 voters across the political spectrum August 17 to 22, found 54 percent have a favorable view of Sanders, while 36 percent view him unfavorably.

 

[Venom]

Sanders would probably have lost votes in the following groups:..........

- Moderate Democrats. Sanders held positions that were to the far left of the American political spectrum, and for better or worse those positions are not always politically popular. (Yes, I'm sure people will drag up all sorts of polls showing that "Hey people love single payer health care and a high minimum wage", but its different dealing with a question asked by some pollster than when you are dealing with an election and get told how "single payer will drive up your taxes".)

You think the moderates would have voted for Trump over that?