Episode 229 tracks the latest on the impeachment trial (in which Adam Schiff, above, is presenting evidence) and then reacts to Hillary Clinton slamming Bernie Sanders and praises Cheer.
Getty Images
Hillary needs to move on and woman up: 2016 was almost three years ago, what matters now is who has the best chance of beating Trump, and if the person who does is Bernie-as many polls now suggest- she's going to have to accept that and get at least as far behind a Sanders-led ticket as Bernie got behind her, which was pretty solidly behind her- he made 40 speeches on behalf of the Clinton-Kaine ticket and that's more than most primary runner ups do for the person who bested them in the nomination.
As to 2016, Hillary needs to accept reality-her Electoral College defeat was her fault and her fault alone. It wasn't Bernie's fault that Hillary gave Trump the issue he used to destroy the ticket's chances in the firewall states when she refused to all the platform to make a "no TPP(Trans-Pacific Partnership)" pledge, and reduced the language on trade deals to a meaningless statement of opposition to "bad trade deals"-a term which didn't pledge her to anything at all and left tons of wiggle-room to push the TPP through after the election, even though the vast majority of working-class voters were against TPP and would only have lost if it had passed. That issue was what flipped the firewall states to Trump. It wasn't Bernie's fault that Hillary never went to Wisconsin during the general election campaign and barely set foot in the other firewall states, and wasted half her time on pointless visits to purple states she had no chance of taking from the GOP. It wasn't Bernie's fault that Hillary treated Sanders activists like shit, letting her supports mock them as political failures and making it clear she'd never listen to a damn thing they had to say, while simultaneously demanding their votes as if she was simply entitled to them.. It wasn't Bernie's fault that Hillary never mentioned any of the universally popular Sanders items in the platform during the fall campaign and, instead, reduced her message to nothing but 1) It's time for a woman to be president; 2) we have to defend reproductive choice; and 3) Trump is a scumbag-all of which were true things, but none of which, all by themselves, was going to make a case for electing her.
Hillary lost because just ran "against", and never ran "for".
Biden will do the same.
Klobuchar will do the same.
Buttigieg will do the same.
The first podcast after they finally, actually start impeaching the motherfucker, and Dan isn't there?! You didn't mention where he was, so I'm going to assume in DC, marching in front of the White House with a 20ft ITMFA sign.
Funny how you guys recorded the podcast just a day before things really got started in the impeachment trial, and you were making jokes about how the GOP members would be putting on a show of "accidentally" falling asleep.
How could you have known that the GOP would instead immediately prove (yet again) how little regard they give to the rule of law by simply walking out of the Senate chamber while Schiff was laying out his arguments. And, as an added bonus, SCCJ Roberts did fuck all about them flagrantly ignoring the rules senators had set for themselves.
The Bernie Blackout was real, and now they are attacking him on all the same bases because they can't ignore him anymore: hatchets jobs by corporate media during debates (last week's CNN was a disgrace especially regarding healthcare), repeated attempts to smear his life long pro women stand (there are no more misogynists among Sanders' base than any other campaign historically, including Clinton's), denial of his record (including his linkage to mass movements that delivered many labor victories), active denial of his support for Clinton in 2016, and on. It is quite sobering to see Eli once again provide cover for these attacks.
As for, the "it's rigged" meme: well yes, the establishment that owns corporate media (doing its job as described above) will do almost anything to prevent a New Deal Democrat from being elected including ignoring him, then smearing him when they can't ignore him anymore. Trump is a demagogue who used popular resentment against economic elites to lie his way into power, of course he used the fact that mass media doesn't represent the interest of average Americans as amply demonstrated by its blatant warmongering during the buildup to the Iraq war, giving equal time to climate deniers as they give scientists, constant advocating for American exceptionalism, shilling for trickle down, tax cuts for the wealthy, free trade agreements design by corporations, and on, and on . Trump repeating "fake news" to obfuscate his own turpitude has no special power to explain the role played by corporate media to manufacture consent for business as usual.
Rich missed the core problem with the "Bernie Bros" narrative: the people making the charge claim that they're not universalizing about Sanders supporters (even when they are), but that they're ONLY using the term to refer to the specific segment of Sanders supporters. However, there's still a problem even if we take them at their word: it's simply false that Sanders supporters are somehow worse than other people's supporters, or uniquely bad. The couple of contemporaneous analyses I remember seeing (linked below) found that Sanders supporters were not uniquely hostile and in fact may well have been significantly LESS hostile than people online in general and than Trump or Clinton supporters specifically. See this analysis of Twitter posts from the Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/24/these-6-charts-show-how-much-sexism-hillary-clinton-faces-on-twitter/ - and the results of this survey of perceived aggression by Rad Campaign, Lincoln Park Strategies, and craigconnects - http://onlineharassmentdata.org/2016elections/
Charitably, we'll credit the false impression of Clinton backers that Sanders supporters were especially hostile to availability bias, with an assist from notability bias (I suspect that some people were being knowingly deceitful, especially the journalists who ought to know better than to make general assertions based on anecdotes from sources prone to motivated reasoning, though being unable to read minds, I can't parse who falls into which camp, and I have no interest in doing so anyway). Clinton supporters were extremely unlikely to be harassed by other Clinton supporters (and Sanders supporters by Sanders supporters, Trump supporters by Trump supporters, etc.) because they're working toward a common goal and thus had no real beef with each other. Additionally, because Trump is clearly a raging racist, misogynist asshole, it's not particularly notable when Trump supporters prove to be the same. So when generalizing their anecdotal experiences, Clinton supporters were most likely to see harassment from Trump or Sanders supporters in the first place and more likely to think that harassment from Sanders supporters was notable, leading to a false impression of an especially problematic army of "Bernie Bros". Conversely, if you were a Sanders supporter (like me, for example), you were only likely to see rainbows and sunshine from other Sanders supporters, while Clinton and Trump supporters engaged in a litany of anti-Semitic, Red-baiting, ageist/ableist, and just generally nasty harassment; this likely amplified the pushback for the same reasons that many Clinton backers amplified the original charge.
The whole narrative is simply a result of some people (of any demographic) being nasty online, and faulty - but commonly human - reasoning generalizing non-representative anecdotes.
@4: The nomination of anyone EXCEPT Bernie Sanders guarantees the reelection of Donald Trump. Hey, look, I can make blank assertions, too! But mine's better reasoned, especially since we now know that a Right-wing ("Centrist") Democrat lost to Trump; I'll let Nathan J. Robinson explain it ALLLLLLLLLL the way back in February of 2016 - https://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency
I'm not doing this to gloat, but because Leftists were correct in 2016 despite the sneering dismissals of us, which is an important fact to consider if you REALLY think defeating Trump is the most important thing; here's Sanders backer Michael Moore making the correct call in 2016, too - https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
The nomination of Bernie Sanders would mean a death spiral for the Democratic party. Trump would have won in a landslide against Sanders in 2016 instead of the pathetically thin margin he did have. Nominate Bernie Sanders and kiss every moderate Democrat goodbye.
“We keep hearing this argument about electability, or nominating safe candidates, and we keep losing,” said Derek Eadon, a 36-year-old former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party who endorsed Sanders this month.
Eadon, who was previously with Julián Castro’s campaign, didn’t take Sanders seriously in 2016. Two things changed since then. A painful nerve disease forced Eadon to become intimate with the absurdist horror of America’s health care system.
And he said he saw Sanders expanding the electorate. “His ability to keep bringing in new people, and people that have not been involved before, is just such a strength electorally,” said Eadon.
This is the paradox helping to fuel Sanders’s rise: The more he attracts people who are heedless of traditional electability concerns, the more electable he looks."
And Gens X,Y, Z, a, b, and fucking C don't
give a fuck about your incessant
Electability Syndrome.
Think: tsunami
in Blue
baby.
"Nominate Bernie Sanders and kiss
every moderate Democrat goodbye."
If by 'moderate Dem' you mean the
Centrists / corporatists / ClintonDems™
that Wild Bill picked up, in 1993
(along with Corporate America),
well, then, Adios.
Who knows, perhaps Democratic socialism
may not be everything you've heard it to be.
(Think FDR and LBJ)
Don't forget to take full advantage of decent roads, healthcare, all that shit Repubs always say, that are just too damn Good, for us, we, the little people; but don't worry, we want you to enjoy the fruits of fair taxation. You're invited, too.
@12: If progressives could hold our noses and vote for the "moderate" candidate, as most of us did in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2016-note: we won in 2008 because our nominee ran as a progressive-he only reduced himself to being a "moderate" after he was elected, even though there was no reason to do so-just once, just ONCE, moderates could return the favor. It's not as though the anti-progressive wing of the party should always matter more than the progressive wing.
And if Bernie would have lost in a landslide in 2016, how do you explain all the polls, then and NOW, in which he has run solidly ahead of Trump, including the polls taken this year which show him beating Trump by LARGER margins than Biden does?
We don't have to choose between principle and electability this year: the polls show the voters WANT us to stand for something.
Hillary needs to move on and woman up: 2016 was almost three years ago, what matters now is who has the best chance of beating Trump, and if the person who does is Bernie-as many polls now suggest- she's going to have to accept that and get at least as far behind a Sanders-led ticket as Bernie got behind her, which was pretty solidly behind her- he made 40 speeches on behalf of the Clinton-Kaine ticket and that's more than most primary runner ups do for the person who bested them in the nomination.
As to 2016, Hillary needs to accept reality-her Electoral College defeat was her fault and her fault alone. It wasn't Bernie's fault that Hillary gave Trump the issue he used to destroy the ticket's chances in the firewall states when she refused to all the platform to make a "no TPP(Trans-Pacific Partnership)" pledge, and reduced the language on trade deals to a meaningless statement of opposition to "bad trade deals"-a term which didn't pledge her to anything at all and left tons of wiggle-room to push the TPP through after the election, even though the vast majority of working-class voters were against TPP and would only have lost if it had passed. That issue was what flipped the firewall states to Trump. It wasn't Bernie's fault that Hillary never went to Wisconsin during the general election campaign and barely set foot in the other firewall states, and wasted half her time on pointless visits to purple states she had no chance of taking from the GOP. It wasn't Bernie's fault that Hillary treated Sanders activists like shit, letting her supports mock them as political failures and making it clear she'd never listen to a damn thing they had to say, while simultaneously demanding their votes as if she was simply entitled to them.. It wasn't Bernie's fault that Hillary never mentioned any of the universally popular Sanders items in the platform during the fall campaign and, instead, reduced her message to nothing but 1) It's time for a woman to be president; 2) we have to defend reproductive choice; and 3) Trump is a scumbag-all of which were true things, but none of which, all by themselves, was going to make a case for electing her.
Hillary lost because just ran "against", and never ran "for".
Biden will do the same.
Klobuchar will do the same.
Buttigieg will do the same.
The first podcast after they finally, actually start impeaching the motherfucker, and Dan isn't there?! You didn't mention where he was, so I'm going to assume in DC, marching in front of the White House with a 20ft ITMFA sign.
Funny how you guys recorded the podcast just a day before things really got started in the impeachment trial, and you were making jokes about how the GOP members would be putting on a show of "accidentally" falling asleep.
How could you have known that the GOP would instead immediately prove (yet again) how little regard they give to the rule of law by simply walking out of the Senate chamber while Schiff was laying out his arguments. And, as an added bonus, SCCJ Roberts did fuck all about them flagrantly ignoring the rules senators had set for themselves.
The Bernie Blackout was real, and now they are attacking him on all the same bases because they can't ignore him anymore: hatchets jobs by corporate media during debates (last week's CNN was a disgrace especially regarding healthcare), repeated attempts to smear his life long pro women stand (there are no more misogynists among Sanders' base than any other campaign historically, including Clinton's), denial of his record (including his linkage to mass movements that delivered many labor victories), active denial of his support for Clinton in 2016, and on. It is quite sobering to see Eli once again provide cover for these attacks.
As for, the "it's rigged" meme: well yes, the establishment that owns corporate media (doing its job as described above) will do almost anything to prevent a New Deal Democrat from being elected including ignoring him, then smearing him when they can't ignore him anymore. Trump is a demagogue who used popular resentment against economic elites to lie his way into power, of course he used the fact that mass media doesn't represent the interest of average Americans as amply demonstrated by its blatant warmongering during the buildup to the Iraq war, giving equal time to climate deniers as they give scientists, constant advocating for American exceptionalism, shilling for trickle down, tax cuts for the wealthy, free trade agreements design by corporations, and on, and on . Trump repeating "fake news" to obfuscate his own turpitude has no special power to explain the role played by corporate media to manufacture consent for business as usual.
The nomination of Bernie Sanders guarantees the reelection of Donald Trump.
Rich missed the core problem with the "Bernie Bros" narrative: the people making the charge claim that they're not universalizing about Sanders supporters (even when they are), but that they're ONLY using the term to refer to the specific segment of Sanders supporters. However, there's still a problem even if we take them at their word: it's simply false that Sanders supporters are somehow worse than other people's supporters, or uniquely bad. The couple of contemporaneous analyses I remember seeing (linked below) found that Sanders supporters were not uniquely hostile and in fact may well have been significantly LESS hostile than people online in general and than Trump or Clinton supporters specifically. See this analysis of Twitter posts from the Washington Post - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/24/these-6-charts-show-how-much-sexism-hillary-clinton-faces-on-twitter/ - and the results of this survey of perceived aggression by Rad Campaign, Lincoln Park Strategies, and craigconnects - http://onlineharassmentdata.org/2016elections/
Charitably, we'll credit the false impression of Clinton backers that Sanders supporters were especially hostile to availability bias, with an assist from notability bias (I suspect that some people were being knowingly deceitful, especially the journalists who ought to know better than to make general assertions based on anecdotes from sources prone to motivated reasoning, though being unable to read minds, I can't parse who falls into which camp, and I have no interest in doing so anyway). Clinton supporters were extremely unlikely to be harassed by other Clinton supporters (and Sanders supporters by Sanders supporters, Trump supporters by Trump supporters, etc.) because they're working toward a common goal and thus had no real beef with each other. Additionally, because Trump is clearly a raging racist, misogynist asshole, it's not particularly notable when Trump supporters prove to be the same. So when generalizing their anecdotal experiences, Clinton supporters were most likely to see harassment from Trump or Sanders supporters in the first place and more likely to think that harassment from Sanders supporters was notable, leading to a false impression of an especially problematic army of "Bernie Bros". Conversely, if you were a Sanders supporter (like me, for example), you were only likely to see rainbows and sunshine from other Sanders supporters, while Clinton and Trump supporters engaged in a litany of anti-Semitic, Red-baiting, ageist/ableist, and just generally nasty harassment; this likely amplified the pushback for the same reasons that many Clinton backers amplified the original charge.
The whole narrative is simply a result of some people (of any demographic) being nasty online, and faulty - but commonly human - reasoning generalizing non-representative anecdotes.
@4: The nomination of anyone EXCEPT Bernie Sanders guarantees the reelection of Donald Trump. Hey, look, I can make blank assertions, too! But mine's better reasoned, especially since we now know that a Right-wing ("Centrist") Democrat lost to Trump; I'll let Nathan J. Robinson explain it ALLLLLLLLLL the way back in February of 2016 - https://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency
I'm not doing this to gloat, but because Leftists were correct in 2016 despite the sneering dismissals of us, which is an important fact to consider if you REALLY think defeating Trump is the most important thing; here's Sanders backer Michael Moore making the correct call in 2016, too - https://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
The nomination of Bernie Sanders would mean a death spiral for the Democratic party. Trump would have won in a landslide against Sanders in 2016 instead of the pathetically thin margin he did have. Nominate Bernie Sanders and kiss every moderate Democrat goodbye.
“We keep hearing this argument about electability, or nominating safe candidates, and we keep losing,” said Derek Eadon, a 36-year-old former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party who endorsed Sanders this month.
Eadon, who was previously with Julián Castro’s campaign, didn’t take Sanders seriously in 2016. Two things changed since then. A painful nerve disease forced Eadon to become intimate with the absurdist horror of America’s health care system.
And he said he saw Sanders expanding the electorate. “His ability to keep bringing in new people, and people that have not been involved before, is just such a strength electorally,” said Eadon.
This is the paradox helping to fuel Sanders’s rise: The more he attracts people who are heedless of traditional electability concerns, the more electable he looks."
And Gens X,Y, Z, a, b, and fucking C don't
give a fuck about your incessant
Electability Syndrome.
Think: tsunami
in Blue
baby.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/opinion/bernie-sanders-iowa-trump.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
"Nominate Bernie Sanders and kiss
every moderate Democrat goodbye."
If by 'moderate Dem' you mean the
Centrists / corporatists / ClintonDems™
that Wild Bill picked up, in 1993
(along with Corporate America),
well, then, Adios.
Who knows, perhaps Democratic socialism
may not be everything you've heard it to be.
(Think FDR and LBJ)
Don't forget to take full advantage of decent roads, healthcare, all that shit Repubs always say, that are just too damn Good, for us, we, the little people; but don't worry, we want you to enjoy the fruits of fair taxation. You're invited, too.
@11 Yeah, whatever. Enjoy Donald Trump for another four years if you nominate Bernie.
Trumpfy?
G o n e
like yesterday's
fishwrap
Even Repubs [FINALLY!]
could Not Stand
the Stench
Paradigm Shift,
America or
Bust.
@12: If progressives could hold our noses and vote for the "moderate" candidate, as most of us did in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2016-note: we won in 2008 because our nominee ran as a progressive-he only reduced himself to being a "moderate" after he was elected, even though there was no reason to do so-just once, just ONCE, moderates could return the favor. It's not as though the anti-progressive wing of the party should always matter more than the progressive wing.
And if Bernie would have lost in a landslide in 2016, how do you explain all the polls, then and NOW, in which he has run solidly ahead of Trump, including the polls taken this year which show him beating Trump by LARGER margins than Biden does?
We don't have to choose between principle and electability this year: the polls show the voters WANT us to stand for something.