Barney Frank throws shade at voters, and Bernie Sanders

I love him. How cool is it that someone with that kind of caustic wit rose so high in Congress? Oh, and he’s gay–I guess that might have been a bit of a disadvantage at one time too.

“I didn’t say slightly.” :stuck_out_tongue:

Two old cranky Jews don’t see eye to eye? Shocking.

Seriously, Barney Frank is a HRC supporter. His sister worked on HRC’s 2008 campaign. Plus, he’s peddling a book.

Another thing to keep in mind: Barney Frank was on the Financial Services Committee. From this delightful Rolling Stone article back in 2005 (long before this campaign):

In the ongoing orgy of greed that is the U.S. Congress, the Financial Services Committee is the hottest spot. Joel Barkin, a former press aide to Sanders, calls Financial Services the “job committee,” because staffers who work for members on that committee move into high-paying jobs on Wall Street or in the credit-card industry with ridiculous ease.

“It seems like once a week, I’d get an e-mail from some staffer involved with that committee,” he says, shaking his head. “They’d be announcing their new jobs with MBNA or MasterCard or whatever. I mean, to send that over an e-mail all over Congress – at least try to hide it, you know?”

So guess what Barney Frank is doing now? He’s on the board of directors at Signature Bank.

Took a lot of money from the banks too, back when he was still in congress. But he justifies that in this WSJ piece:

Yes, I Took Bank Money. And It Made Me a Better Regulator.
The liberal case for getting over our obsession with purity tests.

Funny Title, Right? Barney Frank sure is a witty guy.

I recommend the Rolling Stone article for an amusing and eye-opening account of what Sanders and other congress critters actually did back in 2005.

:eek: OMG, he is? Wow, you really sussed that out–what a scoop! Well, that changes everything. Mind blown. :rolleyes:

That’s Barney for the guillotine, then.

Indeed. Well, after all the bankers, and Hillary of course.

It’s beginning.

I think that the Democratic Establishment is increasingly concerned about the upcoming Democratic National Convention. It’s not that they fear Hillary losing the nomination – technically, that can’t happen unless the super delegates switch their allegiance in droves. And that’s not likely to happen.

The problem is that there’s a very good chance that Bernie Sanders will be entering that stretch with most or nearly all of the momentum at the ballot box. New York is the only state that is relatively safe for Clinton, but even there, if Sanders campaigns hard, he could chip away at that lead and make it respectable. Every other race after that is within Sanders’ reach if you consider the previous results. The expectation early on was that Clinton’s convincing wins in the South and in the swing states of Ohio and Florida would take the wind out of Sanders’ sails, but that hasn’t been the case at all. In fact some of his most convincing wins have come in the past few races. He’s on a five-race win streak if I recall correctly.

The problem for Hillary and for the DNC is that you can award those super delegates to her and call her the winner if you want. But with an FBI investigation swirling around her, she hardly claims the mantle of having the moral authority to lead the divided left and center left caucuses. Bernie Sanders would actually probably be able to make a more legitimate claim in that respect. But beyond that, an even bigger problem is if Bernie closes out the primary season on an election tear, we’d have a situation in which much of Hillary’s election success came earlier in the race. Sanders would in essence have a stronger case to make at the convention. Without clinching the race at the ballot box, it would be up to the super delegates to make a final decision. If they vote for Hillary, a lot of Sanders supporters will feel cheated. And they probably won’t participate in the general election. This wouldn’t be the worst thing that could happen if Donald Trump were a factor in the race in the general – even a weakened Hillary Clinton could beat Donald Trump and probably do so politically ‘blindfolded.’ But she won’t be facing Donald Trump; she’ll be facing Ted Cruz. And she will need all of that support and then some.

I like how it’s the fault of those damn disobedient voters for not selecting the establishment Democrats, and not the fault of the Democrats for not offering something the voters wanted to vote for.

It’s not at all unfair to put a lot of blame on Democratic supporters who don’t bother to vote for the election of Republicans. That’s what frustrates Frank, and a hell of a lot of others, too.

Frank said something similar months ago when Sanders didn’t have a following. He doesn’t like Sanders - and being Barney Frank, hasn’t really ever made a secret of that.

Plenty of Democrats seem to be voting for her:

Popular vote:

Hillary Clinton: 8,924,920
Bernie Sanders: 6,398,420
So far, Clinton is beating Sanders in the popular vote by 2,526,500 votes.

She has 40% more votes. I suppose we could count the black people who voted for her as 2/3rds of a person or something.

It’s absolutely valid to point that out. The failure to vote at the ballot box in midterm elections is why Barack Obama has struggled to follow through and achieve gains in his first and second terms. Bernie Sanders have passionate opinions – lots of them. But they don’t deliver the goods when it comes to elections. Votes are what matter, not opinions. They’re really not much different than the people who vote for Trump. They either don’t vote or they waste votes on impractical candidates, and then get mad when the people who ultimately get elected negatively impact their lives without factoring their own contributions.

3/5, actually. Check the Constitution.

Technically, people who don’t bother (or choose) to vote aren’t Democratic supporters. At least not that time around.

So, all* those Democrats who didn’t vote in the last election are Bernie supporters? Who knew…

*yeah, I’m sure he didn’t mean “all” but he equated the two groups without a shred of evidence.

You’re badly missing the point, John.

If they were arsed in the primaries, based on a claim to be supporting a generally Democratic agenda, that does make them Democratic supporters. If they’d rather let a Republican win than vote for their less-preferred Democrat, telling themselves there is no difference, that makes them … something unjustifiable. The ones who do so because they style themselves as purists, above it all, not getting their hands dirty like those grubby, compromised participants and achievers, need to, well, grow the fuck up. And that includes those who are easily old enough to know better.


So, the OP bolded that part accidentally?

I’m no Barney Frank but if he is talking demographic groups he is pretty much right, if a bit hyperbolic.

Sanders one area of demographic strength compared to Clinton is Millennial voters (in particular White ones). He fairly consistently loses pretty much every other group but his margins with young White voters are impressive.

And Millennial voters just have not been bothering to vote in the midterms.

It does seem like some voters think the process is all about getting excited for a fairly short period of time, voting for the one personality, and done. And yes that is very unrealistic. Change is not a sprint and is not one personality. It is an ultra-marathon and requires having a Congress that allows for change.

Sanders has definitely provided some serious motivation for the undergraduate demographic. So did Ralph Nader and John Anderson, and for largely the same reasons. The problem is if they’ll have largely the same effect.

That’s not who Frank was talking about.

He said,

He’s blaming people who did not vote in the last two mid-term elections, in which the Democratic Party lost seats. No one can say exactly what those people were all thinking, and no doubt there were many different reasons and rationales for not-voting. The one thing that’s certain is that the Democrats failed to provide them with candidates that mattered to them. Nobody owes the Democratic (or Republican) Party their support. If a party fails to inspire and lead, that’s not any set of non-voters’ fault. The fault is with the party, and the candidates.