I think Warren's vicious smear of Bernie might be the final nail in her campaign.

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 131

The media released a baseless smear of bernie over the last few days. Members of warren's team leaked a story to the media (almost certainly with Warren's blessing) that bernie had told her in a private meeting that a woman couldn't win. They then spent the whole day the story came out refusing to comment fueling the media to keep reporting it. Warren eventually came out and said it was true. The point of all of this is to try to smear Sanders as some kind of chauvinist. 

Sanders has a long history of fighting for women's issues. He tried to get Warren to run in 2016, and only ran himself because she refused. There are also videos of him confirming he believes women can win the presidency dating back to the 80's. 

To run this attack on Sanders smacks of desperation. And even worse, she is attacking the person she has the most in common with while letting Biden, a man who has made TONS of terrible decisions, statements etc, completely off the hook. 

She can't possibly beat Sanders on the issues because he is the most trusted candidate on most of them. She can't beat him in popular appeal because he has the highest favorability rating among the candidates too. So she takes a cheap shot that cannot possibly be confirmed or disproven to try to undermine her closest ally. 

I think this desperate play is bad for her campaign. 
When your party is a mess and can only unite on hating Trump knowing that you will use 2020 elections
--> @SupaDudz
When your party is a mess and can only unite on hating Trump knowing that you will use 2020 elections
Sanders' message is almost entirely about policy. Medicare for all, economic reform, political reform etc. Defeating the murderous, racist, man baby in the white house is obviously a high priority to protect the country, but for Sanders the focus is on his vision for fixing the problems that led to that moron being elected in the 1st place. 


--> @HistoryBuff
You mean a blazing socialist who is getting ready to ruin the economy
--> @SupaDudz
You mean a blazing socialist who is getting ready to ruin the economy
Republicans call every single democrat a socialist. They called Obama a socialist and he was only slightly to the left of the republicans. When you use the exact same wildly inaccurate smear for literally everyone you disagree with, it really fails to land. Sanders isn't a socialist. No democrats are socialists. You either don't know what that word means, or you simply don't care that you sound dumb.    
--> @HistoryBuff

--> @Mopac
1st, project veritas is a right wing group whose sole purpose is to spread misinformation and to smear people. I wouldn't trust anything they have to say. 

2nd, this video is just stupid. They managed to find one person out of the thousands who work for the sanders campaign who believes that violence may be needed. Is that the position of Sanders? absolutely not. Is that the position of anyone on his team that actually speaks to sanders, of course not. Why do you think the opinion of some random organizer somehow reflects on Sanders or his campaign in any way?
--> @HistoryBuff
Sanders is a socialist, so he is naturally going to be surrounded by these people.

It is something bigger than Bernie, as even he knows.





--> @HistoryBuff
The media released a baseless smear of bernie over the last few days. Members of warren's team leaked a story to the media (almost certainly with Warren's blessing) that bernie had told her in a private meeting that a woman couldn't win. They then spent the whole day the story came out refusing to comment fueling the media to keep reporting it. Warren eventually came out and said it was true. The point of all of this is to try to smear Sanders as some kind of chauvinist. 
Is this false as in Bernie said woman couldn't win?

--> @TheRealNihilist
Is this false as in Bernie said woman couldn't win?
Bernie has said it is false and that he did not say that. Warren has remained cagey about what exactly happened. The only thing she will say is that she said a woman could win and "bernie disagreed". Maybe she means that Bernie said that trump would use it as a weapon against a female candidate. Maybe bernie meant the specific women running couldn't win (ie Warren couldn't win, not women couldn't win) it isn't clear what exactly warren is accusing him of because she won't clarify. 

But the leaks from her campaign to the media were intended to make sanders seem sexist in a desperate play to boost her campaign. She used that in the debate to appeal to identity politics, basically making the argument that she is a woman, and that this is a valid reason to vote for a specific candidate. Which is dumb.
--> @Mopac
Sanders is a socialist, so he is naturally going to be surrounded by these people.
1) sanders is not a socialist. You should really get your facts straight. 
2) socialists are not inherently violent. 

So literally everything about that sentence is wrong. 


It is something bigger than Bernie, as even he knows.
of course it is. It is a massive movement. That movement is filled by all sorts of people. Some of those people might advocate for violence. But that is not a reflection on Sanders who very much does not advocate for violence. Trying smear a candidate because some supporters of his are extremist is just a really lazy and stupid thing to do. 

--> @HistoryBuff
How does that answer the question apart from Bernie said he didn't is enough?

Do you have a source for the stuff preferably more objective one?
--> @TheRealNihilist
How does that answer the question apart from Bernie said he didn't is enough?

Do you have a source for the stuff preferably more objective one?
This is kind of part of my point. There are no sources. No one was in the room other than Bernie and Warren. It was a private conversation they had over a year ago. She has no evidence he said this. She won't even tell anyone what he said. She just makes vague implications. 

Everything about this just looks bad for warren. Bernie has a long history of fighting for women's rights. There is a video of him in the 80's saying he thought women could win the presidency. He pushed Warren to run in 2016 and only ran himself when she said no. Bernie's history makes her vague accusation unlikely.

She won't even say what exactly she is accusing him of. The conversation was a year ago and the entire time since then they have been friends and allies, but a few weeks before the iowa primary when her campaign is on the decline, that is the moment she chooses to make the accusation? If she though bernie is sexist, why have they been friends for years? Why wait so long to tell anyone?

She has absolutely nothing to back it up. It reeks of desperation and it makes her look like a typical political backstabber. 
--> @HistoryBuff
Bernie Sanders not being a socialist is news to me. I didn't realize this was a controversial thing.






--> @HistoryBuff
Socialism quite naturally is attractive to revolutionaries. Revolutionaries tend to be throwed off about something. If socialism didn't simultaneously appeal to peoples compassion and greed it wouldn't be as attractive as it is to people.



--> @HistoryBuff

Biden is currently winning. 
--> @Mopac
Bernie Sanders not being a socialist is news to me. I didn't realize this was a controversial thing.
The right wing news outlets say this pretty much constantly. So I understand why many people are wrong about this. A socialist believes that the means of production (factories, mines, etc) should all be collectively owned by the people. No politicians in america advocate for this. 

Socialism quite naturally is attractive to revolutionaries. Revolutionaries tend to be throwed off about something. If socialism didn't simultaneously appeal to peoples compassion and greed it wouldn't be as attractive as it is to people.
There aren't any socialists running. Bernie sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, but that is a very different thing from a socialist. And frankly, he closer meets the definition of a social democrat. Again, i can see why people get these terms wrong. 
--> @TheRealNihilist
Biden is currently winning. 
is he now? That link shows that he is in a complete dead heat in Iowa. .4% is a tiny margin. There is no way to call a winner with a margin that small. 

Add to that the fact that polling companies weight their polls to the people they consider most likely to vote. This usually trends towards older people who have voted in previous primaries. For a candidate like sanders, who has huge appeal for young people and people who don't usually show up for primaries, this means that alot of people who support sanders are under weighted in these polls and the older people who support Biden will be over weighted in these polls. 

Take the 2016 primary in Wisconsin for example, the polling suggested he was at about 43%. He ended up getting 56.5%. In Iowa he was polling between 40% and 45% and ended up getting 49.5%. There is a very good chance that Bernie will beat the polling numbers by a couple of points, potentially 10-13 points if the Wisconsin example happened again this cycle (which i am not saying is likely). So if the polls show him tied with Biden, that isn't good news for Biden.  
--> @TheRealNihilist
There is also the issue of energy. Voting in a caucus, especially in Iowa that has some weird silly rules, takes some time and effort. You have to take time out of your life to go and do that. If you only kinda like a candidate, are you really going to go and do that? If you are really excited by your candidate and can't wait for them to win, you are much more likely to go vote. 

Joe biden's supporters are consistently low energy. They see him as safe. They like him, they might be a bit nervous about another candidate winning, but they aren't super excited to go vote for him. Sanders does not have that problem. He has, very energized supporters. 
--> @HistoryBuff
All socialist countries call themselves democracies and republics.

So I don't really get the distinction.




--> @HistoryBuff
But yeah, to stay on topic, dirty tricks don't make a campaign look good. 
--> @Mopac
All socialist countries call themselves democracies and republics.

So I don't really get the distinction.
They are all different things. A socialist is basically a communist. They want the government (or the people) to collectively own the means of production. So all factories, mines etc would be government owned and run.

Social Democracy is basically capitalism, but with government rules and regulations in place to make sure things are fair and society in general benefits from it.

They are extremely different concepts, but fox news (and other right wing news sources) just like to call everyone a socialist. 

--> @HistoryBuff
I understand how words modify the meanings of things.

What do I know about socialism? I know that in the name of socialism governments slaughtered thousands of bishops and priests, demolished churches, and starved, tortured, and killed 50+ million of my people in the last century.

I think I am justified in being suspicious. 

--> @HistoryBuff
I don't know.
--> @Mopac
What do I know about socialism? I know that in the name of socialism governments slaughtered thousands of bishops and priests, demolished churches, and starved, tortured, and killed 50+ million of my people in the last century were killed. 
1) the people doing that weren't actually socialists. they were dictators. 
2) there are no socialists in america, certainly not any running for government. 

I think I am justified in being suspicious. 
You are suspicious of a social democrat because people in a different country, who believed in a completely different ideology that happened to have a similar name, did bad things? I don't think that is justified in any way. It's like saying "tree" sounds like "treason" so all trees are evil. 

Socialists and social democrats are nothing alike. To pretend they are means you are either ignorant of what those terms mean, or you simply don't want to understand and just want to throw around insults. Which is essentially choosing to remain ignorant.