How to control the narrative on electability: collude with the Biden campaign

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

For those of us who were around in 2015/2016, one of the most frustrating parts of the election season was the electability argument. We witnessed poll after poll confirming that Bernie stood a much greater chance against Trump than Hillary did, and then poll after poll noting that the voters believed Hillary was more electable than Bernie. Thus, one of his greatest strengths became one of his biggest weaknesses, because it was perceived as such.

Why was this the case? In my opinion, there were a couple of main reasons:

1) Regular Americans don't read all of the polls like we do. Not even two percent. Never assume that people know as much as we do, because they don't.

2) The mainstream media kept repeating the lie that Hillary was more electable, even when their own polls showed the opposite. They wanted, and probably really believed, Hillary to be more electable.

3) Bernie didn't force the media's hand, because he was not forceful enough in making his point. Yes, he said he would fare better against Trump. But every candidate would say that. If he had said what some of us knew to be the case, that he was the only one who could beat Trump, he would have forced the media to debate his argument on the merits.

Especially now that Trump is in office, the argument of electability is highly important. This is why the Bernie campaign should be strategizing how to drive his argument home. They need to do a better job than last time. This is where my suggestion comes in: collude with the Biden campaign.

Before the first debate, Bernie's campaign should contact Biden's campaign behind the scenes. Bernie's campaign should propose a collaboration on the electability argument. Both candidates should argue on the debate stage that the two of them are the only electable candidates around. We need both of them to make this argument.

If Bernie makes this argument on his own, the media will laugh him out of the room. They will show polls with Biden leading Trump with bigger margins than Bernie. But if their beloved corporate candidate agrees with Bernie, and they both cite the same polls, the media will have to debate their argument on the merits, and come to the conclusion that, yes: Bernie and Biden are more electable. Almost every poll shows Bernie and Biden beating Trump by large margins, while candidates like Warren, Harris and Buttigieg fare worse.

Why would Biden go for this? I'm not sure he would, but it's definitely worth a try. If their combined argument sticks, it could essentially create a two-person race that both could benifit from. Biden is playing hide and seek right now, but with the debates coming around his campaign knows that it's not a viable strategy, especially since he's already slipping in the polls. He could use some positive reinforcement; he could use supporters of other candidates migrating to him.

Why would Bernie do this? Besides the reasons I have mentioned, he would have a better shot in this primary if he and Biden were perceived as the only two serious candidates. Driving their electability argument home would kneecap Warren in a polite way. We need to kneecap her.

submitted by /u/thisoneisntottaken
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – bernie

Warren’s Refusal to Support Bernie’s Campaign in 2016—Did it Matter Then and Does it Matter Now?

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

Elizabeth Warren is surging in the polls and is riding a tidal wave of favorable corporate media/NPR coverage, the likes of which Bernie has never come remotely close to getting. By almost all accounts she is a progressive in the same vein as Bernie Sanders, and on the lion’s share of issues their approach and solutions are compatible. Bernie is emphatic in his respect for Warren and endorses her progressive credentials unequivocally.

I have tended to view Warren’s growth as a positive sign: she is not necessarily taking voters away from Bernie as much as she is getting corporate Democrats who might be considering Beto, Biden, Buttigieg or Harris and who also are actually sympathetic enough to progressive policies to come over to the progressive side. In that sense, she is a “gateway drug” to loosen people up to support Bernie down the road. And if Bernie won the nomination with Warren finishing a clear and strong second or third overall, it would send a powerful message that Democratic voters want a strongly progressive party. That would be the best possible outcome in 2020 coming out of the convention. As far as I am concerned, she could be the VP on a ticket with Bernie at the top.

But there are concerns that Warren will start cutting into Bernie’s existing and potential support, a process already being cheered on cynically by the corporate media, led by Biden goombah Chris Matthews at MSDNC.

There are also concerns about just how progressive Warren is. I think there are real differences that matter, especially concerning militarism and the relationship of electoral politics to social movements, and we will see a lot more on those topics in the months to come.

But there is one issue that lurks in the background: Warren’s refusal to endorse Bernie in 2016 and her eventual endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

At the time I was not bothered by Warren’s refusal to endorse Bernie. It took unusually brave elected Democrats to endorse Bernie because Hillary and the DNC made it clear that anyone who did so was going to pay a severe price for doing so. Even those who endorsed and campaigned for Hillary in 2016 who did not do so with sufficient enthusiasm were strongly criticized internally by the Hillary campaign with a consensus such people would be treated rudely once Hillary go to the White House. Such was the treatment planned for Bill de Blasio, we learned from the Wikileaks revelations.

I knew a number of progressive members of Congress who held Hillary in low regard and Bernie in high regard who did not endorse Bernie in 2016 because it could jeopardize their careers or their effectiveness in office. Only a handful like Merkley and Gabbard were willing to take that risk.

Because of that I cut Warren a lot of slack in 2016. She had famously criticized Hillary for Hillary’s blatant reversal of her position to support a horrible Wall Street friendly bankruptcy bill, so everyone knew Warren thought Hillary was an unprincipled sellout. That was useful.

But now I think that decision by Warren not to support Bernie in 2016 must be revisited and reconsidered. It would have been a courageous, dangerous and risky position for Warren to endorse and campaign for Bernie in 2016, but it also could have been tremendously consequential. Warren’s support could have put Bernie in position to win several early states which Hillary barely won, like Iowa and Massachusetts. It could have helped end the inane “Bernie is a sexist preventing the first woman president” meme and kept the discussion on the issues, where Bernie proved to be very popular.

Bernie might have actually won the nomination and the election. That is something Warren has to live with and acknowledge, if only in her private moments. I think at worst Warren’s support would have carried Bernie closer to the nomination and positioned progressives as a more powerful force in the party and undercut the reactionary role the DNC continues to play. Warren’s support would have legitimated Bernie’s campaign for a lot of people who thought of it as a protest campaign, not a serious quest for the nomination. It would have been an added boost to the Justice Democrats who ran the dissident campaigns to get progressives elected to Congress in 2018 and beyond.

It would have made a difference, possibly a huge one.

When Warren was asked why she did not support Bernie in 2016 by Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, her answer was evasive, self-serving, misleading and pathetic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V983cJzFCWA

It was stunning to realize she could not provide an answer to a question millions of Bernie supporters wanted an answer to. She simply dodged it, and equivocated; she played politics and came across as a politician in the worst sense of the term.

When I saw her lame response to Cenk’s questioning, it reinforced my concern that she is eager to get progressive support, but she does not necessarily see herself as part of a progressive movement. She put her career in front of the cause, when she could have made a difference. It also suggested that she is not that good of a politician. She is fumbling questions she has had years to think about and in her fumbling it looks like she is cooking up a pile of bullshit.

If Warren gets the nomination I will support her, and do so enthusiastically. She runs circles around the corporate Democrats. But in the meantime I think there is evidence that there are real and important differences between Bernie and Warren, and the type of president they would each be.

submitted by /u/elrod_enchilada
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – bernie

I propose we launch a Decentralized Autonomous Organization to fund and operate the Bernie Campaign

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

I have been following platforms for decentralized organizing for many years and I think the technology is ready to experiment with and could possibly change how society is organized dramatically. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, or DAOs, are organizations that operate without the need for a leader to direct actions, because actions like choosing to fund lobbying efforts, these actions can be voted upon and executed automatically with the use of Ethereum blockchain technology to execute computer code on the blockchain to direct cryptocurrencies transactions to fund massively scaled cooperation. Check it out here to learn more! I can also answer questions.

submitted by /u/imjonbean
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

Can we get the campaign to become a verified BRAVE Publisher?

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

I use the brave browser and would gladly send all my $ BAT tokens to the campaign if they used it.

I also use the Bittube airtime extension and would gladly donate my $ TUBE there.

Not sure if campaign finance laws would prohibit this though… or campaigns are not thinking about it. What do you all think?

submitted by /u/NoelART
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

Campaign advice to expand media reach: Use Spanish subtitles.

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

Guys Im sure some of you here can reach the communications team of the campaign. On most marketing videos you guys MUST include spanish subtitles. There are so many spanish speaking people in the US, plus the families outside the US that also influence voters.

With spanish subtitles people can get to understand Bernie and the campaigns message. So far I can hardly find any videos with subtitles in spanish.

What do you think?

submitted by /u/bkindbreal
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

Donation Verifications! Three from 2016, Day 1 of the current campaign, and a bonus of my Bernie Action Figure! (repost without address, lol)

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

Donation Verifications! Three from 2016, Day 1 of the current campaign, and a bonus of my Bernie Action Figure! (repost without address, lol)

submitted by /u/The_Hoff901
[link] [comments]

SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes