The fuck did i just watch. Why would they go to bat for her so hard. I mean I get the argument that the media is harsher on you the more left you go(seen recently with Tlaib) but Tulsi is not the one. I think its absolutely possible she was being honest about her transformation in 2012 on gay marriage but shes still heavily antimuslim. Really disappointed in Ana usually she and John are spot on. So glad im a patron for majority report instead.
You know youre fucking up when Kyle Kulinski is more critical of Tulsi than you.
Im not following he has high approval with black voters and has consistently scored well with the Naacp throughout his career on policy. Clinton is someone who was first lady then held several high level government offices through out her career. Throughout this she has reached out to PoCs which is good, but expecting an independent senator from vermont to over come those institutional and historical advantages is unrealistic in the span of a primary cycle. Could he have done better yes and will he do better going foward I dont know but its not the damning bullet its made out to be.
I think Ana wouldnt stand for that, she has enough clout to leave if he ever did something like that. I think its probably Cenks victim complex getting to her. I havent watched her show with Michael but hopefully he changed her mind.
I dont think they have. They've been pretty positive on Warren. If they actually endorse her over Warren id be shocked.
This is who Cenk has always been. The crappy writing about women, the Armenian Genocide stuff, being pals with Kulinski, keeping Dore on staff all this time instead of canning his obviously terrible ass, etc.
My point is Bernie wasnt the national politician Hillary was. I honestly dont know if it was all on him given his stances on things like being independent and not accepting PAC no doubt hurt him in getting to the national stage while Hillary though very skilled politician had advantages he couldnt have. Personally i dont think he planned on running for president untill elizabeth warren declined. I really cant fault him for not campaigning outside of vermont before hand.
That's not really what Ichth is talking about though. Bernie very clearly didn't take the South seriously when he ran last time and it's why he lost. He hasn't seemed to learn this lesson at all.
Please dont slander Warren like that =P
They are supporting Warren from what i've seen but it is weird theyre not fully backing her. Gabbard just splits the lefts ticket.
Richard Shelby and Patrick Leahy were both '90s Democrats too!
But, see, this is again the problem. If you want to be President, you have to have support outside your selected region. If you do not, you are not going to win. You can run 90 times, but you will still not win. The argument he's not that good of a politician is kinda worrying to me. I want someone who is a good politician. I want someone who knows how to build consensus. A good idea that you cannot implement because you have no allies isn't worth much. Running for president dictates a strong national coalition of support from, hail supreme, party people. The fact that Bernie never left VT to campaign for people (until recently) is not part of the problem with his campaign, it's part of the problem with him as a candidate.
Ya i dont know what his political calculus was in regards to that, but im arguing for losing the PoC vote in 2016 being indicative of how well fair in 2018. He could do worse but i dont know if 2016 is representative as its made out.
Fair enough but his ideas showed there was enthusiasm and regardless I think even if he loses this time hopefully he can pull the party further left on issues like standing up to israel apartheid and not voting for military budget increases.
Even before you get to his problems with outreach to black communities, simply reassembling his 2016 coalition in the absence of a singular Hillary Clinton campaign appears to be a problem because his prior coalition (lefties, socially conservative Is, young people) is all over the political map ideologically. The glue that bound it together was non-ideological anti-establishment sentiment... which is really hard to use as a binding agent when you're facing a fragmented field instead of a singular opponent.
Just because voters like someone doesn't mean they'll be willing to vote for them. They're two very different measurements. A distinction made in basically every thread where this disingenous conflation comes up.
Very true, im curious as to whether he expected to win early on or just wanted to platform his pet issues. Depending on how you look at it he atleast succeeded.
Yes, but we have to make do with what we have everyone but O'Malley cleared the field. Even if we dont win, running people like Bernie or Cynthia Nixon keeps the more center politicians honest.
She was a lamb to the slaughter but she helped get rid of the IDC and from what I understand like 2016 there werent alot of people willing to go up against the Cuomo machine. The amount of money leftists have to fight against places them at a perpetual disadvantage. Going forward there will be more options given the fresh wave of left leaning people running for office. But for now running anybody is better than nobody.
Well Justice dems, our revolution etc is doing that so well see if AoC was just a one off.
I'd rather have a progressive run that I can support that would push candidates to the left. Like Nixon and Bernie successfully did. I would have preferred if they had actually won their primaries, but that's not necessarily all I care about.
Extremely good and cool "no puppet no puppet" Donald Trump style rebuttal with absolutely zero substance.
lol, pretty sure he mentioned on MSNBC he doesn't really want to be for some odd reason.
it only makes sense for Donald Trump because the evidence is pretty explicit.
The idea that believing that Sander's chances of winning the 2020 nomination are low must mean that you're afraid of him is hilariously blatant projection.
