Approximately thirteen million people voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries. About 1.4 million voted for Jill Stein in the general election. It is mathematically impossible for more than a small percentage of Sanders supporters to have voted third party in the general election. In addition, exit polling data indicates that 85-90% of Sanders voters supported Clinton in the general election, which is in line with the usual historical trend for supporters of the losing candidate.
This board really needs to find some way of dealing with posters who continue to repeat false statements, even after such statements have been repeatedly rebutted.
It’s certainly possible that the field may contain a twit or two. But at least they’re currently employed in a government capacity and are plausibly qualified to be President. So they’re not *just *a twit; they’re Senator Twit.
ISTM (and a lot of folks I’m following online, like Nate Silver) there could be 3 main “lanes” for the Democratic nomination – the economic left lane (i.e. the Green New Deal or GND lane); the moderate-ish/rust belt lane; and the racial/social justice lane. There’s probably overlap between all three, but I think most of the candidates could be slotted into these three lanes. I’d say the most prominent in each, at this time, are Bernie for the GND lane, Biden (assuming he runs) for the mod/rust-belt lane, and Harris for the justice lane. Warren probably slots in after Bernie, with Klobuchar, Brown, and a few governors slotting in after Biden, and Booker and Castro (and maybe Gillibrand) after Harris. Beto might fit into any of them – perhaps most cleanly in the GND lane.
With this in mind, I think it’s very possible that it will only take a few primaries and caucuses to figure out which candidates are strongest in each lane – Iowa might go to Biden, for example, with NH going to Bernie, and SC going to Harris – and most of the other candidates will start to drop out and endorse after that. So an interesting way to look at it from now up until the contests start is to consider who are the strongest candidates in each “lane”, and which of these will have the best chance to win in the general.
Kamala Harris is getting slammed pretty hard for her record as a prosecutor. If those characterizations stickI’m not convinced they’re deserved, but they may stick anywayI don’t think she can dominate the social justice lane.
I think they meant more in an identity politics sense, but yeah.
I was really, really impressed with Corey Booker’s rollout video. That’s a good sign for the strength of his political team and his/their vision for the campaign.
They are already starting the attacks:'Operation Divide the Left': Analysis Shows 2020 Online Disinformation Campaign Already Well Underway
*As the pool of candidates vying for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president continues to grow, so does a “sustained and ongoing” push to spread lies about them on social media—with one key aim being to sow division among progressive voters—according to an alarming Politico report published Wednesday.
Citing analyses by and conversations with data scientists and digital campaign strategists, the outlet reported:
Researchers and others interviewed for this story say they cannot conclusively point to the actors behind the coordinated activity. It’s unclear if they are rogue hackers, political activists or, as some contend, foreign state actors such as Russia, since it bears the hallmarks of past foreign attacks. One of the objectives of the activity, they say, is to divide the left by making the Democratic presidential primary as chaotic and toxic as possible.
Research by the pro-democracy tech firm Guardians.ai found that Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as well as former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas)—who has not formally announced his candidacy for president—appear to be the top targets.*
So your argument is “outrageous lies have been told about Clinton…therefore, Bernie is responsible for all of them”? I think you skipped over some steps in the logic there.
I did click on several of those links, and all of the lies debunked therein were originated by right-wing websites.
I also searched on “Bernie Sanders” and guess what: people make shit up about him, too! Some say he owns a $500K luxury car. Others say he proposed a bill to require Christians to wear scarlet crosses on their clothing.
So why are you moderates spreading these lies about Bernie???
Yes, don’t engage in online campaigns of distortion and slander aimed at undermining the candidacy of Bernie Sanders (or Harris, Warren, or Beto). Damn good advice.
When you can support such a claim, please do so, instead of crying “Lies!” and “Fake news!” all over the forum. Meanwhile, you’re doing what your hero himself did to the Democrats in 2016, by being a dividing influence.
Yes, I agreed and I have taken the pledge. It’s Ok to say you dont like a candidate’s stance. But let’s lay off the sniping like Bernie and his Bros past issues, Warrens Indian peccadillos, how old biden or Sanders or anyone is and the like.
I hope there aren’t *so *many solid candidates entering this one race that it thins out the field for other ones. We need responsible adults as Senators, Governors, and Representatives too, and it won’t do to leave too many good ones out in the cold after the filing dates but before the Presidential nomination is decided.
Also, there are so many things we need to fix and improve that covering the gamut in the primary campaigns creates the risk of making the party appear unfocused and agenda-less - it might be more effective in the general for most of the top contenders to agree to pick some popular and accomplishable things they will all talk about, that the Republicans will of course reflexively oppose and lie and fearmonger about.