Maybe it’s just me, but this seems to be getting just a wee ridiculous. We’re still 6 1/2 months from the first primary votes being cast, as everybody likes to tell me whenever I talk about a poll, “It’s early yet!”, and already the recriminations are flying around.
In q statement to Politico, Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir dumped a bucket of shit on the heads of the very people the campaign needs for its oxygen, the media;
“This isn’t intended to be a sweeping generalization of all journalists,” he told POLITICO, “but there are a healthy number who just find Bernie annoying, discount his seriousness, and wish his supporters and movement would just go away.”
OK, chis is cheap, petty, and obnoxious for a number of reasons. For starters, while Shakir disavows making it a “blanket statement,” he goes on to infer that it’s a “healthy number,” clearly indicating he believes it’s a majority of reporters. Second, no responsible journalist would ever allow any personal feelings to seep in and color the way that they cover any candidate. And third, as long as the reporters keeps their feelings to themselves, and out of their reporting, the claim is specious and inconsequential in the first place.
This is not the first time that Bernie Sanders and his campaign have jousted with the press. The article points out that in 2016, Sanders complained that the media largely ignored him especially in the early stages of the campaign, ignoring the fact that the media regularly touted his prolific small donor contribution efforts.
Worse yet, this is not the first time Sanders has voiced public complaints this early in the campaign. Several weeks ago, when he fell further behind Biden after his campaign announcement, and as Elizabeth Warren started to climb in the polls, Sanders groused that the other candidates were holding him back by “stealing his thunder,” in pushing the same programs and ideas that he pioneered in 2016. This is like Bill Walsh complaining that other NFL teams snaffled his “West coast offense.”
The real problem here is that the optics are absolutely terrible. We’ve only had one debate, only 12% of voters have fixed on a single candidate, which means that nobody is out of the game, no votes have been cast, and yet the Sanders campaign is throwing shine all over the place. This tends to lead to two conclusions, both of them negative. Either Sanders is blaming other people for his performance and current standing in the polls, or worse yet, he’s starting to pick scapegoats to blame if his campaign fails. Neither one should be an image the campaign wants to portray, especially this early in the campaign.
Look, full disclosure, I’m not a Bernie supporter, but I’m not a Bernie hater either. I am not going to “back” any one particular candidate before the completion of the second debates at the earliest. And if it turns out that Bernie is the candidate, I will certainly vote for him. Anybody who follows politics knows that different candidates often have similar, or nearly identical solutions for major issues. Sanders should be proud that his once “radical” ideas are now a part of the mainstream conversations in the campaign. But rather than blaming everybody else for his current showing, I would think that the campaign would be better served to try to determine why his message isn’t resonating as well as he’d like and need it to be, and take steps to correct those problems. Because, this just isn’t working.
There is nothing different here. This is how it is with Bernie Sanders.
I don’t hate Bernie or Christians, but I’m not a fan of either’s group tendency to inquisitions…that might be how I’d put it.
The Sanders campaign strategy both times seems to be building a positive case around policy, and a negative case around process. In theory, this doesn’t seem like a terrible strategy…you stay on message about the things you want to accomplish, which are pretty popular, and attack groups like the media and DNC, which aren’t very popular if you attack them as broad, faceless organizations.
I would have thought this would work better than attacking an opponent. And yet, Sanders has taken that hypothetical and proven me wrong. You can, in fact, focus on attacking the process and build significant opposition to yourself.
Going back to my comparison to Sanders and Christians, this makes me think of a conversation I’ve had with some evangelicals over the years. Having worked in film and television for a while, some would gripe at me that “Hollywood” doesn’t make enough Bible stories into movies, thus proving their general godlessness. They feel that the Bible is full of amazing stories that deserve the Lord of the Rings treatment.
But when Hollywood does take on Christian themes in film, they’re often destroyed for it. Christians will boycott, picket and smear a production over minor issues, and there are always minor issues because Christian groups don’t agree on anything. So OF COURSE they don’t make Bible stories into films…the audience they need to make these profitable will try to undermine the production from day one.
Journalists may feel the same way about covering Sanders. If they try to be fair, offering both pros and cons, his supporters will go nuclear. So why risk covering Sanders at all? A segment on him might be newsworthy, but those segments include risks if you try to offer balanced context.
Bernie’s campaign attacking the DNC is *stupid*. He needs their help to run as a Democrat, and he knows that.
Not only that, but he WON his battles with the DNC to the point where many Hillary supporters cancelled their support. Between his victory on his dishonest demonization of the super delegates (which he is CONTINUING, despite winning on the issue, because it riles up his base) and the infamous DNC 2017 “Unity” tour which featured only ONE side of the contentious primary (Bernie, no one from Hillary’s campaign) and therefore was divisive instead, the DNC caved to him. It’s hugely hypocritical for him to attack them now. Also, they represent a huge swath of major Democratic worker bees and local officials you don’t want to be disenthused about you.
They didn’t “cave to him”. He got some things – which were relatively reasonable requests), but not others. All those requests were voted on by the DNC members.
Since Bernie is NOT an actual Democrat (remember that he is STILL an “Independent” despite his PROMISE in 2016 to run in ALL future elections as a Democrat), I would say the DNC most definitely DID cave to him.
Spin it however makes you feel best but Bernie is NOT a Democrat and should NOT be allowed in the race until he actually JOINS THE PARTY. And if he becomes the nominee? Well, I will not vote for him. (Full disclosure notice: I live in Alabama. This state will NEVER vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate in the general election–even Obama couldn’t crack the 40% mark in 2008 and the state hasn’t voted for a Dem since 1976–so it’s not like my vote will matter one way or the other. About the only way Trump could possibly lose Alabama is for a few ALABAMA women to come forward and offer credible accusations of sexual abuse by him; even then, that wouldn’t guarantee a Democrat would be elected. And if Bernie’s the nominee, a Democrat still wouldn’t win.)
I agree it’s not a great strategy. And to be honest, I don’t know if he’s still doing it. I largely ignore his campaign aside from actual policy speeches.
Bernie is a complicated guy, which I found myself COMPLETELY incapable of writing about in my autistic, sarcastic style without pissing off everyone on all sides. I found that you’re allowed to be mean and evil, but never indifferently funny, otherwise…bam, the swift hand of internet justice shall descend upon you.
But I think he’s rally earnestly motivated by a deep desire for social justice, which I admire. But I also think he has hate in his heart for those who stand in the way. I get why this is so, I just wish is weren’t. He often makes me reflect on MLK, who was able to be angry with love instead of angry with hate.
Warren strikes me as angry with love, and it’s why I respond to her so much more positively.
I’m far more cynical on Bernie, Rory. I think social justice is a means to an end for him, much like it was for my distant relatives Louisiana Governors Huey and Earl Long. And the end was always the White House, which he feels slipping through his fingers yet again. Snubbing Netroots Nation because of Markos Moulitsas’ presence is evidence enough of that hate and bitterness you mentioned.
But his “brand ” is an anti-establishment revolutionary, so that’s what his base expects…
I guess…I mean, I think that winning on the left is about complaining about how things are then bringing together a completely diverse coalition to try to fix them. Obama did this well. Clinton did this well in ‘92. It’s clearly not easy.
In 2016, I thought a lot about what Sanders could have done differently. Anything I’d propose is pure conjecture. But there was this point where the primary results were coming in, and they weren’t great for him and he wanted to fight over them. He chose to portray the Dem establishment as standing in his way and rigging the system. At the time, I wondered if he maybe should have blamed the establishment on the right, like Stacey Abrams did. There is a case to be made, I think, that Republicans have disenfranchised his voters.
Maybe if he attacked voter suppression and Republican state legislatures, he could have made the case that an unfair system was keeping his voters out of the process without dividing the left. Perhaps this could have kept his base riled up, won some black voters, and thrown some shade at the DNC without outright attacking them.
I don’t know. But his strategy held everything very stable when he was losing. A pivot probably wouldn’t have hurt him any.
This was never about Bernie just changing the conversation. It’s about him becoming the President, period, because that was the real, ultimate goal all along. If that smacks a little too much like entitlement, the secular version of the divine right of kings and/or not too removed from Trump’s attitude now that he’s in the White House…well, I wouldn’t disagree.
It’s part of why I didn’t vote from him in the primaries in 2016. (Besides that he’s remarkably ignorant about how things are outside Vermont.)
Attacking the media is STRAIGHT out of Trump’s playbook and sounds very much like it came from David Sirota. And yes, I think Bernie’s ego is in control now.
Worse, he’s attacking grassroots Democrats — He looks down his nose at anyone who doesn’t support him and his exact ideas, phrased his exact way. He’s got David Sirota on his team whose idea of running a campaign is to put down other candidates. His emails have put down Joe Biden by name and by implication the entire rest of the field with smug, shade-throwing remarks. It seems like he views anyone who isn’t wholly on his team as “the enemy.” And attacking journalists, who have frankly ignored his mountain of baggage and gone out of their way to portray him as a progressive hero to many, has a Trumpian vibe to it that is off-putting.
Full disclosure: I loathe Bernie and he isn’t doing much to make me change his mind. And I will NOT vote for him if he is the nominee unless he fires Sirota and anyone in his campaign who has admitted they did not vote for our 2016 nominee — and apologizes for hiring them.
Thanks for letting us know you’re as much of a purist as his fans.
He’s basically dismissed me as anyone who matters so he doesn’t matter to me.
I get why you dislike Bernie. I have a long list of concerns about him…for one, I’ve never been able to decide how genuine he is in expressing his views. By which I mean that I’m not totally sold that he doesn’t want to nationalize every industry and tax every extraction corporation out of existence, lol.
But in terms of your voting scenario, I look at it like this. When casting a vote, I’m not voting for the person on the ballot. I’m making a decision as to which option I think will produce the best possible outcome for the constituents served by that vote. If people will be better off because I vote for Bernie over Trump (and I would feel that way in that horrible choice), then I’m going to mark a check next to a better outcome for the millions of Americans (and citizens of the world) who are affected by the American presidency.
Is that a tacit approval of the candidate? No. It’s just a vote for an outcome. That view guides my ethics in voting, and allows me to make choices even if it offers power to horrible or mediocre people. Fortunately, I’ve never felt like I’ve had to vote for someone I consider truly awful, but I’m prepared to do so if the outcome of them being in power is better than the outcome of their opponent being in power.
This might be an approach we should make more standard on the left. Because we’ve gotten way too accustomed to viewing a vote as requiring endorsement of the person we’re voting for. That’s tough in a coalition as diverse as the left is.
I think he’s genuine. I just think his outlook, experience and accomplishments are very narrowly focused and don’t include me as a women.
They totally include you as a woman, so long as you want exactly what he wants you to want, because total adherence to a single, central figurehead is what democracy is truly about. Sarcasm. I mean…obviously… mostly. I think.
(But I get what you’re saying. I cringed at his response to the abortion question at the debates. It concerns me to think all he’d do if Roe were overturned is to continue pushing single payer. That was a really bad moment.)
When I question him being genuine, I’m not sure that’s the right word. What I mean is that I’m not sure he’s always forthright with his views. He says he wants to move us step by step toward green energy, and to use the private marketplace to do so. But in the past, he’s written some pretty firery opinions about taking over energy companies, bankrupting executives, making their assets public and socializing energy.
Either way, he’s genuine in his quest for sustainability. But which Bernie is the real Bernie? If I vote for him, would he push for his agenda in a reasonable manner…or would he start looking for ways to manipulate the system through executive order, creating chaos?
There’s an undercurrent of radicalism to Bernie, but it’s a radicalism I’ve never felt he’s entirely honest about, and I find it hard to trust him. By contrast, Warren has some radical ideas too, but I feel like she’s very upfront about how far and fast she’d go, and I find her trustworthy. I respect that some people find Bernie honest and trustworthy…I’ve just never gotten there.
The man has done nothing but scream “Fake!” at me for a long time now. When my alarm bells go off THIS loud, there’s a good reason why. He gets the nomination, I’ll support him with no complaints. But I’m under no unnecessary illusions here.
My group of friends, who are largely LGBT activists, were really disturbed in 2016 when the subject of gay rights came up in the second debate. He portrayed himself as a 20+ year gay equal rights warrior, and her as a flip-flopping opportunist.
The problem was that we in the gay community understood the truth of both of their histories. They both stood for civil unions for decades…which was fine, it took a long time to move the needle on equal marriage rights.
When they did flip, which was about the same time, she fought for equal marriage pretty hard. She came out to California, and she helped the NoH8 cause, while outright apologizing for taking so long to come around. It was political, sure, but her evolution was welcome and significant. Bernie refused the invite to come out – he was the only Dem Senator who declined. He never did anything significant for equal marriage rights.
I spent years as an LGBT activist. I had doors slammed in my face, I sometimes feared that people might assault me, I fought to stupid Mormon church and marched at countless events, and there where nights I took the long route to my car because there were anti-gay groups in the area and I was afraid. That was the work that had to be done, and I did it, and so did others, and many paid a higher price than I ever had to.
I didn’t care that Sanders and Clinton supported civil unions until one day they didn’t. I did care that he stood on a debate stage and made it seem like our sacrifices and our work were to his credit. That’s a big part of the reason I have issues trusting him completely.
That last sentence right there…THAT is a tendency of his that reminds me WAY too much of Trump. “I alone can fix it” is what he says in his actions way too often.
Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.
Bernie is the same vitriolic, charismatic curmudgeon he was in 2015/16, the kind of guy you’d love to meet at your aunt’s for Thanksgiving so you don’t have to talk to your racist Uncle Homophobe. Sure, under those circumstances I’d chat with him a few minutes.
But not now. I noticed early in the 2016 election cycle Sanders was a one-note candidate: everything–and I mean everything–came down to a single message of unequal economic opportunity, which is fine…as far as it goes. I kept waiting for him to talk about my biggest issue, climate. He rarely did, and then only as it related to economics, ignoring the existential crisis we all know now it to be. I rarely heard him talk about the myriad women’s issues, and then only as they related to economics. Consequently, I ignored him and went to work for HRC.(Which, in the interest of full disclosure, I was going to do anyway.)
So here we are again. Bernie is still Bernie, and Bernie supporters still support him ferociously, and in any other election cycle, I’d ask someone to please pass the popcorn, but the man’s utter disregard for the peril we all face should the ol’ Stroke Waffle be re-elected; his petulance, his divisiveness, and his bloody-minded determination to blame his failure to connect with a plurality of Democratic voters on Someone/Anyone Else has got to go. We must not spare Bernie and his shit any more time, attention, resources, or credibility than we already have.