2020 Democratic Nominee

[Dbeasy 15532]

I am genuinely interested in your reasoning. The only thing I find curious about your picks are Bloomberg.

And yet you’ve still chosen to not put your own view out there. Should we all assume you are yes on all?

[henrygandorf 29223]

i think most everyone on that list would win the popular vote vs trump.

he got 63mm votes in 2016.  maybe that number goes up, but i don't really see how.  hillary got 66mm votes, and people fucking hated her.  i don't see nearly as many "vote against" types in this group.  regardless, everyone who went through the trouble of voting for hillary likely hates trump, and should show up.  about half of america voted in 2016.  that number should go up.

michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin, arizona, north carolina, florida.  there's your election.

[Dbeasy 15532]

And so are you saying all of those beat Trump?

[henrygandorf 29223]

7 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

And so are you saying all of those beat Trump?

in the popular vote?  sure.

[Rougarou 594]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I fully support democratic revolutions and would be happy to see a genuine mass uprising against Maduro's shitty government.

That's cool and I agree. I didn't see the distinction initially why you would say what you said.

I am for any and all genuine mass uprisings, revolutions and rebellions. Maybe it's just the Ole Miss in me showing.

[bad_teammate 13483]

20 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

And yet you’ve still chosen to not put your own view out there. Should we all assume you are yes on all?

 

Jesus, dude, I post like 5,000 words every minute on here, I'm not hard to pin down. Just curious about your logic.

[Dbeasy 15532]

in the popular vote?  sure.

Is there some reason you aren’t answering the question? It’s a simple question. Do they beat Trump or not. The popular vote is irrelevant.

[Dbeasy 15532]

Jesus, dude, I post like 5,000 words every minute on here, I'm not hard to pin down. Just curious about your logic.

Then it should be easy for you to just say yes or no for each. Is it yes for all? Yes or no? Why is there so much reluctance to state a view?

[bad_teammate 13483]

Because I wanted to hear you out and not just make it about me.

But OK...

Biden - 70/30
Sanders - 70/30
Klobuchar - 60/40
Warren - 50/50
Yang - 40/60
Buttigieg - 30/70
Steyer - 10/90
Bloomberg - 10/90

[burntorangebongos 10809]

Klobuchar is doing pretty good so far.

[henrygandorf 29223]

26 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Is there some reason you aren’t answering the question? It’s a simple question. Do they beat Trump or not. The popular vote is irrelevant.

 

because i don't have a crystal ball?

in fair and balanced elections, the top 4 beat trump by 6-7 points and in the electoral college.

can you guarantee me the gop won't fuck with the elections in those states?  anyone who isn't nervous as fuck about that situation is kidding themselves.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Let the record show I agree with both BT (his numbers) and Henry (his fear/uneasiness) on this question.

Now everyone get the fuck out of here because this thread will now self destruct.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Is Team Bloomberg high??

[GSU&UT 1799]

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Is Team Bloomberg high??

 

Since he didn't qualify for tonight's debate he's apparently let his "social media team" (i.e. his nephew or niece) tweet weird crap.

[BradInATX 9208]

Biden and Sanders maybe.

Bloomberg no idea, I know nothing about him nor do I care to.

Everyone else no.

 

[bad_teammate 13483]

We are messy bitches and we love the drama

[Bama Chick 28596]

I know we’ve discussed Pete’s dumb “No free college for ‘rich’ kids” but this is something I’ve never considered.

Or super religious families who won’t support their kids who don’t want to go to the university their parents want.

I never thought about financially abusive parents using educational support as a weapon. In those situations the kids can’t declare themselves financially independent until 24 years old and if their parents are “rich” the kids are basically fucked out of financial aid.

Just another reason why means testing is shitty shitty shit.

[washparkhorn 9968]

The state of the race - January 15, 2020 - Bernie becomes the frontrunner and . . . the Empire Strikes Back.

 

[bad_teammate 13483]

Hahaha this fucking guy.

[thrillhammer 686]

13 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

I know there are polls, but I would appreciate everyone’s guess on whether a particular democratic candidate would beat Trump. I know this could be controversial but I’m interested to know what everyone thinks.

Here’s my guesses which go against polling quit a bit. Also some of these people would probably not get the Democratic nomination to eventually go against Trump.

Biden - yes
sanders - no
Streyer- no
Warren - no
Klobuchar - no
Bloomberg - yes
Buttigeig - no

I know many won’t like this prediction.

i think all of those people could beat trump, but my fear is none of them will.   trump fights low - his nicknames, his smirks, his lies, his disinformation, his insecure and immature braggadocio.  the crooked hillary and lock her up chants caught on and stuck with the low iq voters, and he'll do the same thing this time.  none of the democrats listed will play as dirty as he does, are strong enough to call him out on his bullshit, and stand up to his bullying.   i hope i'm wrong but if i had to wager now i'd say trump wins re-election.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

After watching as much of the debate as I could, I wasn't overwhelmed really. I've been a fan of Warren, but some of her plans are still a little meh. However, I maintain, no matter who it is, I will support them. Was it Bernie? I got called away during part of the debate, but it might have been Sanders that was talking about throwing support behind whomever gets the nod. I agree. No sitting this one out, no sore losing; actually actively campaigning to elect a NEW President.

 

It does appear that they need a bulldog for a VP, because yes, they don't seem as quick to stand up to Trump's sneers and smears. But another four years of Trump in office and you know it isn't just Hawley that will be running, or the Trump Family Syndicate, it's probably going to be somebody like Jim Jordan. Imagine him up there on the debate stage for a minute. That ought to get people out to vote pronto.

[Hank Kingsley 21615]

Can't get over how tame all of these debates have been. I guess with the rise of Twitter there are other ways to create "viral" moments in a primary. 

Or maybe in the Trump era they are overly cautious not to look nasty. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

SHOCKING 

[henrygandorf 29223]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Can't get over how tame all of these debates have been. I guess with the rise of Twitter there are other ways to create "viral" moments in a primary. 

Or maybe in the Trump era they are overly cautious not to look nasty. 

 

with iowa so close, it seemed to be an overall low-energy night with nobody really wanting to take chances. 

was definitely the lamest debate. 

[wildcat09 29569]

2 hours ago, thrillhammer said:

i think all of those people could beat trump, but my fear is none of them will.   trump fights low - his nicknames, his smirks, his lies, his disinformation, his insecure and immature braggadocio.  the crooked hillary and lock her up chants caught on and stuck with the low iq voters, and he'll do the same thing this time.  none of the democrats listed will play as dirty as he does, are strong enough to call him out on his bullshit, and stand up to his bullying.   i hope i'm wrong but if i had to wager now i'd say trump wins re-election.

This. Trump has many weaknesses, but would any of the candidates be able to effectively exploit them? I'd like to think Bernie would have a good shot at winning over disaffected white working class voters in the midwest, but after a year of attacks from Trump and being presented by CNN chyrons as the next Stalin, would he really actually win many of them over or would they fall for the racist "That (((Bernie))) wants to bring in more immigrants and give them your jobs!" shit?

Biden has the best odds of beating Trump, yet paradoxically may be the best opponent for Trump to run against. To beat an incumbent you typically need to draw a significant distinction between yourself and the incumbent and Biden doesn't really do that. And there's the problem that he doesn't excite anyone. How'd that work out for when Kerry ran against W?  And I like Warren a lot but I think her campaign is faltering badly on the politics right now with what should be a very minor story, so I'm not exactly encouraged about what her campaign will look like against Trump, the GOP, and a hostile media (if she's the nominee, they'll be just as hostile to her as they'd be to Bernie). 

I think Klobuchar as the nominee would actually stand a good chance against Trump, but she's not remotely close to getting the nomination so it doesn't matter. Buttigieg would lose, Yang would get demolished. It doesn't seem like anybody else in the field would stand a chance, but maybe I'm underestimating the impact having a limitless amount of money can have on Steyer and Bloomberg's campaigns. 

It was probably inevitable that things would end up looking bleaker later in the primary season after all the Dems took each other apart and we'll have reason to be more optimistic come November regardless of who the nominee is, but shit things sure are depressing as hell right now.

 

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2649]

This #neverwarren thing is crazy. 
 

Are there that many Chapo incels out there?  

[Biff Tannen 46069]

18 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

If I were Warren I would attack Bernie for taking money from so many problematic people: 

 

 

 

+rep to whoever used The Scoleri Brothers

[DDD Dad 14587]

14 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Jesus, dude, I post like 5,000 words every minute on here, I'm not hard to pin down. Just curious about your logic.

Saving this.

[Hank Kingsley 21615]

3 minutes ago, Xian said:

This #neverwarren thing is crazy. 
 

Are there that many Chapo incels out there?  

The loudest Beto supporters on Twitter still to this day are #NeverPete. They write it in their bios. Beto dropped out 75 days ago. 

Twitter and Trump have broken people's brains. 

 

[BurdineBandit 823]

20 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Bernie will have a satisfactory answer to any moderator question about this ridiculous controversy. The only way it lingers is if Warren makes more out of it on stage, which would be a stupid move on her part. 

They kiss and make up, but the bickering/hard feelings won't go away online. 

 

Well, well, well, look where we are. I saw the video of her brushing off a handshake after the debate and it really chapped my ass. Not sure if that's making more out of it, but it sure seems like it, and she might be losing a supporter over it.

This thread isn't very good, but I wanted to see what people thought about this. I had Warren at the top of my list with Bernie a solid 2, but definitely 2, and now I'm rolling my eyes hard at both Warren and her campaign. Apparently he said this shit over a year ago but now she's pissed off enough about it to leak it and make it this awkward deal that she can't even shake his hand now? Fuck that. Weak ass coordinated attack plan. I understand that Trump can call your wife fat and talk about your father, your intellect or whatever he wants over on the other side, but I'm not down with the weak ass tactics weeks before a big primary. Maybe that's why we're losers though.

[Skipper 6406]

2 minutes ago, BurdineBandit said:

Well, well, well, look where we are. I saw the video of her brushing off a handshake after the debate and it really chapped my ass. Not sure if that's making more out of it, but it sure seems like it, and she might be losing a supporter over it.

This thread isn't very good, but I wanted to see what people thought about this. I had Warren at the top of my list with Bernie a solid 2, but definitely 2, and now I'm rolling my eyes hard at both Warren and her campaign. Apparently he said this shit over a year ago but now she's pissed off enough about it to leak it and make it this awkward deal that she can't even shake his hand now? Fuck that. Weak ass coordinated attack plan. I understand that Trump can call your wife fat and talk about your father, your intellect or whatever he wants over on the other side, but I'm not down with the weak ass tactics weeks before a big primary. Maybe that's why we're losers though.

As someone that has both Warren and Bernie far at the bottom of my list from a policy perspective, this 'feud' is absolutely idiotic from a strategic standpoint and it was ridiculous of Warren to seemingly escalate it rather than quashing it last night.  I don't think either have a chance at beating Trump if they get the nomination, but if they do, they sure as hell need every single vote and general support (financial, volunteering, etc.) from the current supporters of the one that loses.  Obviously if one of them wins I'm sure the candidates make up and the loser actively campaigns for the other so it's probably not important in the long run but it's still pretty stupid to risk any animosity from the other base when you are on the same team.

 

[GSU&UT 1799]

11 minutes ago, BurdineBandit said:

Well, well, well, look where we are. I saw the video of her brushing off a handshake after the debate and it really chapped my ass. Not sure if that's making more out of it, but it sure seems like it, and she might be losing a supporter over it.

This thread isn't very good, but I wanted to see what people thought about this. I had Warren at the top of my list with Bernie a solid 2, but definitely 2, and now I'm rolling my eyes hard at both Warren and her campaign. Apparently he said this shit over a year ago but now she's pissed off enough about it to leak it and make it this awkward deal that she can't even shake his hand now? Fuck that. Weak ass coordinated attack plan. I understand that Trump can call your wife fat and talk about your father, your intellect or whatever he wants over on the other side, but I'm not down with the weak ass tactics weeks before a big primary. Maybe that's why we're losers though.

I've tried to refrain from crapping on her that much throughout this whole ordeal because I'm committed to voting for Bernie in the primary and I have bias. I thought she completely screwed up by answering that reporters question about the supposed phone-bank candidate "smear" flyer and then going on record saying that Bernie specifically said "A women cannot win the presidency."

Whatever, okay, it's a primary and she's attacking him now and Bernie goes on record denying that he said such a phrase, at least in some blatant manner. Her not trying to squash that crap last night at the debate was ugly, it made me lose a lot of respect for her even though she's still my second pick (just a much more distance pick now). Bernie didn't handle it the best either because he wanted to rehash the details, him trying to make a point that he beat an incumbent technically less than 30 years ago seemed dumb too, but she somehow came out looking more untrustworthy in that exchange (especially because CNN seemed hellbent on smearing Bernie).

Edited January 15, 2020 by GSU&UT

[Hank Kingsley 21615]

My order had been 1.Pete 2. Warren 3. Bernie for a long time, but I moved Bernie up to #2 a couple of months ago. 

 

[hayden_horn 11402]

38 minutes ago, BurdineBandit said:

Well, well, well, look where we are. I saw the video of her brushing off a handshake after the debate and it really chapped my ass. Not sure if that's making more out of it, but it sure seems like it, and she might be losing a supporter over it.

This thread isn't very good, but I wanted to see what people thought about this. I had Warren at the top of my list with Bernie a solid 2, but definitely 2, and now I'm rolling my eyes hard at both Warren and her campaign. Apparently he said this shit over a year ago but now she's pissed off enough about it to leak it and make it this awkward deal that she can't even shake his hand now? Fuck that. Weak ass coordinated attack plan. I understand that Trump can call your wife fat and talk about your father, your intellect or whatever he wants over on the other side, but I'm not down with the weak ass tactics weeks before a big primary. Maybe that's why we're losers though.

 

30 minutes ago, Skipper said:

As someone that has both Warren and Bernie far at the bottom of my list from a policy perspective, this 'feud' is absolutely idiotic from a strategic standpoint and it was ridiculous of Warren to seemingly escalate it rather than quashing it last night.  I don't think either have a chance at beating Trump if they get the nomination, but if they do, they sure as hell need every single vote and general support (financial, volunteering, etc.) from the current supporters of the one that loses.  Obviously if one of them wins I'm sure the candidates make up and the loser actively campaigns for the other so it's probably not important in the long run but it's still pretty stupid to risk any animosity from the other base when you are on the same team.

 

 

28 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I've tried to refrain from crapping on her that much throughout this whole ordeal because I'm committed to voting for Bernie in the primary and I have bias. I thought she completely screwed up by answering that reporters question about the supposed phone-bank candidate "smear" flyer and then going on record saying that Bernie specifically said "A women cannot win the presidency."

Whatever, okay, it's a primary and she's attacking him now and Bernie goes on record denying that he said such a phrase, at least in some blatant manner. Her not trying to squash that crap last night at the debate was ugly, it made me lose a lot of respect for her even though she's still my second pick (just a much more distance pick now). Bernie didn't handle it the best either because he wanted to rehash the details, him trying to make a point that he beat an incumbent technically less than 30 years ago seemed dumb too, but she somehow came out looking more untrustworthy in that exchange (especially because CNN seemed hellbent on smearing Bernie).

the whole thing makes both look petty. i think bernie said something. i think warren heard something else. this happens all the fucking time. i'm not necessarily going to speculate, but if bernie said "a woman beat him in the popular vote last time and still lost" and warren took that to mean "a woman cannot win in 2020," that's perfectly understandable. how each camp is treating this stupid controversy is why the democrats have an uphill climb against trump. how can bernie outright deny saying anything? how can warren not leave an opening for misunderstanding his comments? it's fucking stupid all around, and the big winner in this is donald fucking trump.

goddammit.

[wildcat09 29569]

47 minutes ago, Xian said:

This #neverwarren thing is crazy. 
 

Are there that many Chapo incels out there?  

It's probably half bot-generated bullshit but there are a bunch of more well-known Bernie supporters pushing it and it's so fucking annoying. I'd happily vote for Bernie in the general but the sheer amount of vitriol coming from them may kneecap them even if it helps Bernie get the nomination. 

34 minutes ago, BurdineBandit said:

Well, well, well, look where we are. I saw the video of her brushing off a handshake after the debate and it really chapped my ass. Not sure if that's making more out of it, but it sure seems like it, and she might be losing a supporter over it.

This thread isn't very good, but I wanted to see what people thought about this. I had Warren at the top of my list with Bernie a solid 2, but definitely 2, and now I'm rolling my eyes hard at both Warren and her campaign. Apparently he said this shit over a year ago but now she's pissed off enough about it to leak it and make it this awkward deal that she can't even shake his hand now? Fuck that. Weak ass coordinated attack plan. I understand that Trump can call your wife fat and talk about your father, your intellect or whatever he wants over on the other side, but I'm not down with the weak ass tactics weeks before a big primary. Maybe that's why we're losers though.

I'm hoping that some of her campaign staff leaked it on their own (or at least pressured her into doing it) as a desperation play, but I can't for the life of me understand how even in their most optimistic predictions they thought it would play well for them. What the fuck were they hoping to accomplish? Snag some women votes from Bernie? That would be a dumb fucking goal. She needs to take votes from Biden and Buttigieg. She may be closer to Bernie in ideology, but nobody is getting his core voters.

Unfortunately, Warren isn't as good of a political candidate as she is an actual public official. I still think she'd be a damned good President, but I'm less optimistic today than I was a few months ago that she could beat Trump. 

[bad_teammate 13483]

28 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I've tried to refrain from crapping on her that much throughout this whole ordeal because I'm committed to voting for Bernie in the primary and I have bias.

Yeah...

HUGO DON'T READ THE SPOILER

NO HUGOS ALLOWED

The smart play now is to keep bashing Biden and trying to maintain as much good will as possible with her followers so they come over to the BERN DAWG side when the voting comes. If we are open and welcoming to them and don't harp on her pathetic displays too much, there's still a shot we can convince some of the post-grads who are masquerading as progressives to switch over to the working class side. Bashing her campaign openly is pointless, because her absolutely abysmal political instincts are sinking that ship without having to use any of our torpedoes. I had hoped for a two-boat fleet, but it's the USS BERN DAWG alone at this point. 

The bros are mad on Twitter because Warren snubbed Bernie live on TV, but they'll get bored in a day or so with that and we can refocus them on Joe.

NO HUGO NO

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

SHOCKING 

 

Yes Hugo. He's trying to sow division amongst the stupid, emotional voters on the Democrat side.

You're not stupid and emotional are you?

[bad_teammate 13483]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

It's probably half bot-generated bullshit but there are a bunch of more well-known Bernie supporters pushing it and it's so fucking annoying. I'd happily vote for Bernie in the general but the sheer amount of vitriol coming from them may kneecap them even if it helps Bernie get the nomination. 

She just tried to humiliate their boy live on TV, calm down.

If Bernie had snubbed Warren like that do you really think her Twitter army would be all understanding and chill?

[BurdineBandit 823]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

 

 

the whole thing makes both look petty. i think bernie said something. i think warren heard something else. this happens all the fucking time. i'm not necessarily going to speculate, but if bernie said "a woman beat him in the popular vote last time and still lost" and warren took that to mean "a woman cannot win in 2020," that's perfectly understandable. how each camp is treating this stupid controversy is why the democrats have an uphill climb against trump. how can bernie outright deny saying anything? how can warren not leave an opening for misunderstanding his comments? it's fucking stupid all around, and the big winner in this is donald fucking trump.

goddammit.

I agree with all of y'all pretty much. I can definitely see it being a mischaracterization or misunderstanding. I refuse to believe that he'd be dumb enough to say that outright.

The parts that bothers me most is 1. Why is Warren so hurt by it now? It's not like coming forward after sexual assault or something where maybe victims have a hard time being believed, but even then they're still usually extremely reactive to the perpetrator. Why would Liz go through the entire year being cool, but now can't even shake his hand, like she's triggered now? (I only bring up assault bc I've seen it already being compared to other "instances" where women aren't believed, like assault...... stupid)... 2. I see these little instances of the media trying little grenades at the more progressive candidates and it irks me. I'm not sure if I'm just paranoid, but damn it seems like they really don't want Bernie, and obvs really want Joe.

[hayden_horn 11402]

10 minutes ago, BurdineBandit said:

I agree with all of y'all pretty much. I can definitely see it being a mischaracterization or misunderstanding. I refuse to believe that he'd be dumb enough to say that outright.

The parts that bothers me most is 1. Why is Warren so hurt by it now? It's not like coming forward after sexual assault or something where maybe victims have a hard time being believed, but even then they're still usually extremely reactive to the perpetrator. Why would Liz go through the entire year being cool, but now can't even shake his hand, like she's triggered now? (I only bring up assault bc I've seen it already being compared to other "instances" where women aren't believed, like assault...... stupid)... 2. I see these little instances of the media trying little grenades at the more progressive candidates and it irks me. I'm not sure if I'm just paranoid, but damn it seems like they really don't want Bernie, and obvs really want Joe.

i think liz was pissed at bernie's characterization of "ludicrous" and outright denial of saying anything at all.

again, we've all been privy to conversations where something is said, and something else completely is taken away. i have no doubt that this happened here. "you have the most clearly misogynist president in the world, and a woman couldn't beat him" is something that could have easily been said.

why both sides are so goddamn inflexible about it is the maddening part. again, this fits the democratic oeuvre perfectly, though, and again, that's the bananas part. you'll never beat trump with shit like this. 

Edited January 15, 2020 by hayden_horn

[bad_teammate 13483]

It's possible that that Warren walked out of the meeting with a different understanding of what was said than Bernie's understanding. It happens. We've all had conversations that went sideways for reasons we don't understand. We've lost friends for stupid reasons. We've miscommunicated either as the speaker or listener. It happens.

The meeting itself is a nothing. I don't think anyone genuinely believes something explosive or terrible was actually said at the dinner. I haven't even seen someone attempt to lay out a case of something Bernie could've actually said that would be considered over the line or profoundly objectionable.

Why wait in that case? That's hard to put my head around, but I'm not a woman so I don't know their struggle when wrestling with those things.

--

I also think it's possible that Warren didn't like the meeting (I bet that both of them didn't want the other to run) and embellished the offense to confidantes, not really thinking that they would spread her embellished version around without her permission. We all talk shit to our friends and our friends operate with the understanding that we're talking shit and it's Vegas rules.

Her confidantes get pissed so they go to CNN, Warren is blindsided because now the embellishment is in the headlines and she's got really tough choices to make.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’m totally going to believe the person that has NEVER taken responsibility for a mistake in his life and blames everything that’s gone wrong for him on someone else.  That’s how you know you have a strong leader.  Very Presidential. 

[GSU&UT 1799]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m totally going to believe the person that has NEVER taken responsibility for a mistake in his life and blames everything that’s gone wrong for him on someone else.  That’s how you know you have a strong leader.  Very Presidential. 

Dude literally said at the beginning of this campaign that his 2016 campaign was not focused enough on people of color and was too white and took steps to address that, this was probably his biggest criticism he took last time. You're like three posts out from saying "I'll vote third party if Bernie is the nominee."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, GSU&UT said:

Dude literally said at the beginning of this campaign that his 2016 campaign was not focused enough on people of color and was too white and took steps to address that, this was probably his biggest criticism he took last time. You're like three posts out from saying "I'll vote third party if Bernie is the nominee."

You call that admitting a mistake?  

[GSU&UT 1799]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You call that admitting a mistake?  

Yes, he took responsibility for it the fuck is wrong with your brain?

“This time, we’re starting from a different position,” Sanders said on the show. “We were criticized for being too white, that was a correct criticism. We were criticized for being too male, that was a correct criticism. That’s going to change.”

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/03/bernie-sanders-admits-2016-presidential-campaign-was-too-white.html

Edited January 15, 2020 by GSU&UT

[bad_teammate 13483]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

why both sides are so goddamn inflexible about it is the maddening part.

To be fair, Bernie offered an alternative view in the initial CNN article that Liz could have accepted and run with. The lack of nuance and context in the initial accusation gave Bernie no room to wiggle.

"What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could."

Just go with that. Unite against the common enemy. If she still hates Bernie, that's fine, smile, shake hands, beat Trump, and hate Bernie forever. That's what we do. You might hate your bitch ex-wife but you smile and hug her on Christmas for the kids. You hate your dumbass ex-husband's new GF but you smile and tell the kids to be nice about her.

I think the "FRIENDS!" aspect is dumb. They're politicians. They're in a high stakes game with a lot in the balance and I don't care if they really like each other or not.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Yes, he took responsibility for it the fuck is wrong with your brain?

“This time, we’re starting from a different position,” Sanders said on the show. “We were criticized for being too white, that was a correct criticism. We were criticized for being too male, that was a correct criticism. That’s going to change.”

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2019/03/bernie-sanders-admits-2016-presidential-campaign-was-too-white.html

Whatever dude.  Everything Bernie does is to serve Bernie’s interest, including that.  Admitting a mistake is saying, “I was wrong to do X, I apologize for the harm I caused because of my mistake.”  Bernie has never been humble enough to do that. 

[henrygandorf 29223]

i said it on the debate thread, but bernie fucked up by denying the claim (basically by calling liz a liar).  the question up to then was never "is bernie a sexist" so it would've been so much easier for him to reject the question, and make a strong statement about his actual beliefs.

but denying it the way he did, set up cnn's ridiculous gotcha moment, and something for the warren-heads on twitter to rally behind.

considering how much bro's point out cnn's distaste for bernie, you'd think he'd avoid the obvious trap that was set last night.

all that said, warren's camp has handled this with absolute incompetence, and it reeks of desperation over recent stagnant polls.

[wildcat09 29569]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's possible that that Warren walked out of the meeting with a different understanding of what was said than Bernie's understanding. It happens. We've all had conversations that went sideways for reasons we don't understand. We've lost friends for stupid reasons. We've miscommunicated either as the speaker or listener. It happens.

The meeting itself is a nothing. I don't think anyone genuinely believes something explosive or terrible was actually said at the dinner. I haven't even seen someone attempt to lay out a case of something Bernie could've actually said that would be considered over the line or profoundly objectionable.

Why wait in that case? That's hard to put my head around, but I'm not a woman so I don't know their struggle when wrestling with those things.

--

I also think it's possible that Warren didn't like the meeting (I bet that both of them didn't want the other to run) and embellished the offense to confidantes, not really thinking that they would spread her embellished version around without her permission. We all talk shit to our friends and our friends operate with the understanding that we're talking shit and it's Vegas rules.

Her confidantes get pissed so they go to CNN, Warren is blindsided because now the embellishment is in the headlines and she's got really tough choices to make.

I think this is basically what happened, though I think it didn't even require her being upset about anything. It could be as simple as Bernie having said he was worried a woman would have a tougher time beating Trump than a man would, she relayed basically that to a number of people around her, and one of those confidants spun it to a reporter.

Given that this whole thing helps neither campaign, I can't imagine either candidate actively approving of leaking it in the first place. CNN wanted to stir up some shit between them for standard campaign drama right before their debate (with the added bonus of deflecting attention from Biden) and I'm guessing they found someone in the Warren campaign to spin some rumor everyone in the media had probably known about for months. 

This is how the media will kneecap the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is. It's insane that Dems aren't better at responding to shit like this, but Democratic campaign consultants are generally some of the absolute dumbest people on earth. 

[bad_teammate 13483]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

but denying it the way he did, set up cnn's ridiculous gotcha moment, and something for the warren-heads on twitter to rally behind.

What was the better play, in your mind?