Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

“More of this”, i said to the dog.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I was promised a recession.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Second rate reporter says what?

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

This fight is for everything.

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

No one could have predicted…

You are here: Home / Past Elections / 2020 Elections / Election 2020 Open Thread: It’s Not A Campaign, It’s A Performance

Election 2020 Open Thread: It’s Not A Campaign, It’s A Performance

by | 261 Comments

This post is in: , , , ,

So Sanders’ most online supporters have successfully gamed the system — and the media — into another BIG WIN FOR BERNIE!!! media cycle, this time concerning his fundraising:

Hey, as long as it’s good for the credit-card companies, amirite? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Meanwhile, out in the real(ish) world, where the actual work is done…

Part of the price of relying on volunteers and interns is that every campaign will be plagued with staffers who spend more time cultivating their personal issues than working on their candidate’s official program. But of course the Sanders campaign is the one whose staffers feel the need to contact the media about this eternal dynamic!

Also, it was reported as Excellent news for Bernie! when Jeff ‘Comic Book Guy’ Weaver lost his position as the official face of the Sanders campaign. Perhaps the political horse-race touts predicted this would give Weaver more opportunity to play to his real strength, nitpicking minor details and curating grudges…

Sen. Bernie Sanders frequently attacks Amazon on the campaign trail, vowing to break up the online retail giant if elected, denouncing its treatment of workers and decrying its ability to pay no federal taxes on billions in profits.

That’s why impassioned dissent erupted within the Sanders campaign earlier this year over its purchases of large amounts of supplies through Amazon, according to five people with knowledge of the situation…

The Sanders campaign continued using Amazon despite the concerns. Through September, it had spent more than $233,000 on Amazon purchases — much of it in office supplies, and often through Amazon’s Marketplace feature — a review of campaign finance records shows…

The campaign’s spending on Amazon is a small fraction of the more than $40 million it shelled out on operating expenditures during the same period. But it was more than other campaigns spent on the company, and more than enough to prompt surprise and complaints from staffers who felt it conflicted with the campaign’s principles…

“I hear you on amazon but who is the paragon of virtue in . . . office supplies?” wrote senior Sanders adviser Jeff Weaver in an email over the summer, according to a person who saw the email and described it to The Washington Post. “I hear uline is terrible. Cant beleive staples is a great company but happy to shown I’m wrong.”…

The Amazon purchases are not the campaign’s only business practice to spark internal protest. In April, the campaign used Airbnb to arrange housing for state staff who traveled to Washington for a team meeting, triggering blowback from New Hampshire campaign staffers reluctant to use the company, according to three people with knowledge of the situation. Critics of Airbnb have argued it negatively impacts housing prices and hotel workers…

These internal disputes, which have not been previously reported, underline a basic tension in the Sanders campaign: Many employees see it as not just a bid for office but a social movement that stands for workers’ rights and reining in big corporations. Some have privately vented that the campaign doesn’t always live up to those ideals.

That tension was also evident over the summer during a standoff between management and unionized Sanders field staffers over pay, with some employees complaining that their salaries conflicted with the senator’s calls for a minimum wage of $15 an hour. After the dispute became public, the workers won a raise…

All of which, of course, reinforces my cynical conviction that Sanders isn’t running a campaign, where one wins or loses; he’s performing on the campaign stage, for the attention. Also — whether or not he’s consciously aware of the fact, I’ll grant him that loophole — because it’s become a permanent grift where St. Bernie the Pure collects ‘love offerings’ from people who think having the right political opinions is more important than actually being able to affect political outcomes.

Which would be just fine, if he weren’t doing his best to kneecap the actual Democrats in the race, and guarantee that the GOP will be allowed to loot our mutual commonwealth for another four years!

Reader Interactions

261Comments

  1. 1.

    debbie

    Steyer too, plus he stole a competitor’s donor list. One would almost think these ?s are Republicans.

  2. 2.

    M31

    Man, the committed bernie bros really don’t like the Hoarse Whisperer.
    As in, endless spittle-flecked incoherent tantrumflailing ragegasms about him on Twitter–it’s quite remarkable.

  3. 3.

    Martin

    Goodhart’s law.

    When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

    Small dollar donations are good. Engineering small dollar donations means that nobody will give a shit about small dollar donations any longer. More individual donations is good. Engineering more individual donations means that nobody will give a shit about the number of individual donations any longer.

    Way to wreck the system.

  5. 5.

    Anne Laurie

    @M31: Yeah, that’s one reason I joined the Horse’s Patreon.  The RoseBros have already doxxed the man, and he’s not susceptible to threats of personal violence the way female commentors too often are.

    It’s kinda gentlemanly, how he keeps tweaking the ragers — while they’re abusing him online, they’re too busy to tell women exactly how they deserve to raped or murdered because they’re not on the Bernie bandwagon.

  6. 6.

    Anne Laurie

    @Gin & Tonic: Didn’t you get the memo today? We’re not supposed to attack him here.

    We?  Why do you suppose I posted this in prime time, instead of waiting for my usual low-traffic late-night anti-Bernie rant?

    Sanders only gets to be the Democratic nominee if too many actual Democratic primary voters fall for the razzle-dazzle.  Fvck that noise, as the youngs would say.

  7. 7.

    Baud

    So is the data available to figure out how many actual donors he has and how much they donate in average when you add up the $1 contributions?

    You can’t game the total amount in any event.

  8. 8.

    Anne Laurie

    @Baud: You can’t game the total amount in any event.

    But you can disguise a whole bunch of ‘dark money’ in a flurry of low-money divided donations from the same noisy minority of supporters.   The Sanders campaign has been as transparent about his actual donors as they’ve been about his health records or his taxes — enough to satisfy an incurious media base, but not enough for actual scrutiny.

  9. 9.

    anarchoRex

    It’s pretty easy to take the 96mil he’s raised and divide it by fivemil donations to see that his avg is ~$18.

     

    And yeah, a few of my donations were like $2 because that’s all I could afford, so fuck you, asshole.

  10. 10.

    Elizabelle

    @Gin & Tonic:   I am hoping, and actually praying, that the Creator calls Bernie home.  Real soon.

    I will vote for a Democrat.  Not some scoldmonster high on his own supply.

    Washington Monthly:  Nancy LeTourneau:  paraphrasing: without white on white states like Iowa and NH as the first states to vote, we would not be hearing all about Bernie.

    The DNC needs to reign this system in.  Hard.  Change the primary schedule, no more Iowa and NH first, no more caucuses, period.  And presidential candidates have to be Democrats (for some length) who have been elected to a significant office and who cough up their tax returns, as a condition of filing in a state and as a candidate.  No more of this fan dance.

    I am sick of the savior from Vermont.  It’s his vanity run that has brought in the billionaires.  (OK, they fear Elizabeth Warren too.  And she would focus on and work for the serious structural change we need.  Rather than just flap her damn lips and rag on Democrats.)

  11. 11.

    Mo MacArbie

    I think that only donations of $200 and up need to be reported with names attached. We’re probably at the mercy of top line total money and total donors self-reported by campaigns with a simple average performed. Any billionaires in there? Who can say.

    Though frankly, I’m more concerned with the billionaires that fund data-mining and message-tailoring shops, donate to campaigns to use said shops, and actually turn a profit while trashing social media platforms with them.

  13. 13.

    Yutsano

    @anarchoRex: Eh feux toi aussi. He’s gaming the total donation numbers so he can claim to have the support of millions. It’s not so much a scam as an ego boost. And it’s not like Bernie doesn’t have an ego.

  14. 14.

    Another Scott

    It’s how St. Bernard ears his living these days.  Unsurprising.

    In other news, AlMonitor:

    “We will take preemptive action as well to protect American forces and protect American lives,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters in a Pentagon gaggle on Thursday. “The game has changed, and we’re prepared to do what is necessary to defend our personnel and our interests and our partners in the region.”

    That seems to me to be a huge, and dangerous, expansion of the W’s preemption doctrine.

    Brookings from 2002:

    […]

    POLICY BRIEF #113

    The new shift in emphasis on preemptive and preventive uses of force is a response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which brought home the necessity to address potentially catastrophic threats before the country can be attacked. The first manifestation of this more forceful attitude was the president’s seminal Sept. 20, 2001, speech to a joint session of Congress vowing to hold responsible the terrorists as well as those who harbor them. It paved the way for a largely successful military campaign in Afghanistan and sent a clear warning to other state sponsors of terrorism.

    The preemption concept was further elaborated in the president’s West Point speech and then more formally in the National Security Strategy. It threatens to attack so-called rogue states, which pose a danger to the United States, whether or not they are demonstrably linked to terrorist organizations of global reach. The administration argues that the continued spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) technology to states with a history of aggression creates an unacceptable level of risk, and presents “a compelling case for taking anticipatory actions to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack.”

    However, a broad-based doctrine of preemption carries serious risks. The Bush administration was right to take a strong stand against terrorists and extremist states, but it had already accomplished this goal with its early words in the period after the September 11 attacks and its actions in Afghanistan. It did not need a formal doctrine of preemption to drive the point home. Rather than enunciate a formal new doctrine, it would have been better to continue to reserve the preemptive military tool for a narrow, rare class of situations where inaction poses a credible risk of large scale, irreversible harm and where other policy tools offer a poor prospect of success. Given that the doctrine has now been promulgated, the Bush administration should clarify and limit the conditions under which it might be applied.

    Elevating the preemptive option to a policy doctrine can have serious negative consequences. For one, it reinforces the image of the United States as too quick to use military force and to do so outside the bounds of international law and legitimacy. This can make it more difficult for the United States to gain international support for its use of force, and over the long term, may lead others to resist U.S. foreign policy goals more broadly, including efforts to fight terrorism. Elevating preemption to the level of a formal doctrine may also increase the administration’s inclination to reach for the military lever quickly, when other tools still have a good chance of working.

    Advocating preemption warns potential enemies to hide the very assets we might wish to take preemptive action against, or to otherwise prepare responses and defenses. In this tactical sense, talking too openly about preemption reduces its likely utility, if and when it is employed. Finally, advocating preemption may well embolden other countries that would like to justify attacks on their enemies as preemptive in nature.

    One can argue that a more explicit policy of preemption actually reinforces deterrence by putting other countries on notice about America’s seriousness of purpose in addressing threats such as the possession of weapons of mass destruction by rogue regimes. It also allows the administration to argue that its focus on Iraq is part of a broader security concept and does not represent preoccupation with a specific regime. However, linking the real problem of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to a broader doctrine of preemption (defined to include preventive war) complicated the administration’s task in gaining international support for its preferred policy, and may do so again if the administration chooses to use force against Iraq. Many countries worry that the Bush administration will take a similar approach in dealing with other cases such as North Korea or Iran or Syria. Further, other countries’ frustration with the United States’ decision to grant to itself, (though not to others), a right of preemption may chill their willingness to cooperate fully with the United States in the war on terrorism.

    […]

    Pretty soon, at this rate, preemption will be used against people who look at us funny. :-/

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  15. 15.

    Baud

    @anarchoRex:

    That’s not the allegation. The allegation is that he is lowering his average by having donors donate $1 at a time rather than $100 or $1000 all at once, and then treating each $1 donation as a separate donation.

    The only thing that should matter is the total per donor, not the timing of their donation.

  16. 16.

    Mnemosyne

    @anarchoRex:

    How many of those 5 million “unique” donations are people donating $1 18 times to boost the number?

    I can’t stop you from throwing good money after bad if you’re determined to do it, but don’t get mad at me for telling you that’s what you’re doing.

  17. 17.

    WaterGirl

    @Baud: The Obama campaign in 2008 was able to state x number  of donations and x number of unique donors.  It was a big deal when they got to x million dollars AND to x million unique DONORS.

    Fucking people are so busy gaming the system that they have lost the plot.

  19. 19.

    Yutsano

    @Elizabelle:

    The DNC needs to reign this system in. Hard. Change the primary schedule, no more Iowa and NH first, no more caucuses, period.

    Good luck with that. Iowa state law guarantees they will go first no matter what the DNC imposes.

  21. 21.

    Mnemosyne

    @?BillinGlendaleCA:

    Happy New Year! I spent much of it following the meltdown of my professional writing organization (RWA/Romance Writers of America). That was … not fun. And continues to not be fun. ?

  23. 23.

    Another Scott

    @Anne Laurie: I looked at the FEC site at one point near the end of the 2016 campaign.  St. Bernard had a bazillion $27 donations from what seemed to be inadequately-documented sources.

    It will be interesting to see if he’s better at documenting his support than he was last time.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  24. 24.

    anarchoRex

    @Baud:

    @Mnemosyne:

    show me where his campaign encourages people to do that. Supporters deciding to do that on their own isn’t on him, and I’m certain that his finance people are tearing their hair out over all the extra CC processing fees that are eating up these tiny donations.

  25. 25.

    Elizabelle

    @Yutsano:   From your Slate article, from 2004:

    To preserve its kingmaker role, as well as the economic boon of hosting thousands of campaign workers and journalists, the Iowa legislature added a section to the state code that mandates that the caucus be held eight days prior to any other caucus or primary. The secretary of state’s office has also been active in lobbying the DNC and RNC to preserve Iowa’s unique status, arguing that the state’s relatively small size makes it an ideal testing ground for presidential hopefuls.

    So:  perhaps some Democratic candidates should skip Iowa from the get go, and go right ahead to a more meaningful state.

    I think Hillary Clinton’s campaign might have been thinking of doing just that in 2008, but the news leaked.

    What is good for Iowa is not good for the Democratic party, and we should have a say in that.  They can throw their damn party.  We don’t have to attend.  It’s outlived its purpose and actively skews the results and burns $$$ now.

    The GOP might do better too, since they pretty much get whoever is most beloved by the evangelicals.

  26. 26.

    geg6

    Since this has an OT tag and because my disdain for Bernie and his minions rivals that of Trump and his minions, I have a question.

    Has there been a post with a link to the Pets of Balloon Juice calendar and I missed it?  Or any word on when that might be happening?

  27. 27.

    Kent

    @Yutsano:Good luck with that. Iowa state law guarantees they will go first no matter what the DNC imposes.

    If the DNC had the balls and the rest of the country behind it they could do whatever they wanted.  Iowa can hold whatever caucuses they want according to whatever schedule they want but the DNC doesn’t have to recognize any of the delegates that would emerge.  Iowa gets away with always being first because there isn’t any meaningful organized opposition to it and the political class is comfortable going to Iowa every 4 years.

  28. 28.

    Mnemosyne

    @anarchoRex:

    You mean like when a Sanders supporter said on Twitter that he hopes Obama gets cancer, and then doubled down?

    Or when a Sanders supporter decided to attack the father of one of the kids murdered in the Parkland shooting because he said he didn’t trust Bernie’s commitment to gun control?

    I have more Very Normal Behavior examples for you if you have a few hours to go through them all.

  29. 29.

    kindness

    I don’t want to say Bernie appears to be a skank because that sounds harsh.

    How about Bernie is acting skanky.  Oh much better.

  31. 31.

    anarchoRex

    This “grift” shit is hilarious considering most people’s preferred candidates have made way more money while serving in office for less time than Sanders. The projection is strong.

  32. 32.

    Kent

    @Elizabelle:So:  perhaps some Democratic candidates should skip Iowa from the get go, and go right ahead to a more meaningful state.

    That was Guiliani’s strategy in 2008.  He went straight to Florida.  We all know how well that worked out for him.

  33. 33.

    Mnemosyne

    @anarchoRex:

    The Sanders campaign is publicly bragging that they have 5 million individual donations. They don’t care about the credit card fees, apparently.

  34. 34.

    MazeDancer

    Two words; Pu.Tin

    What could cover mote for the Russians than a weakened FEC and all that 1 dollar malarkey.

    When is Warren going after him? At least on guns.

  35. 35.

    Starfish

    @M31: One time, I pointed out that Sirota had fewer followers than Hoarse Whisperer. That was the wrong thing to say.

  37. 37.

    Another Scott

    @geg6: There was a comment a day or few ago that Beth was finishing it up (working on quotes from our departed friends).  It shouldn’t be too much longer.

    I’m sure the Blogmeister will let us know.

    HTH.

    Cheers,

    Scott.

  38. 38.

    anarchoRex

    @Mnemosyne: moving the goalposts. I said show me where he’s encouraging supporters to break donations into smaller chunks to game the #s

  40. 40.

    Mnemosyne

    @anarchoRex:

    David Sirota is not a “supporter.” He’s a member of Bernie’s campaign staff, and yet he’s doing and encouraging this petty shit ALL. THE. TIME.

    Go search Sirota’s timeline for my nym and you’ll see my personal run-in that I had with his petty shit. Unless it was attached to one of the 20,000 tweets he deleted after being called out, of course.

  45. 45.

    Mo MacArbie

    This does make me curious what Bernie’s median donation is, vs. average. You know, like monetary figures are often more meaningfully reported. It would be funny if it was…$1.

  48. 48.

    Starfish

    @Baud: Our Revolution is a 501(c)4 so they do not have to disclose what they are bringing in.

    Here are the donors donating $250 or more because they are choosing to disclose. On Twitter, someone was saying there were some very large donations, but I am not sure where the information about $100,000+ donations came from.

  49. 49.

    Mnemosyne

    @anarchoRex:

    So cheating doesn’t matter as long as there’s no public documentation of the campaign specifically requesting it?

    Cool cool cool.

  50. 50.

    anarchoRex

    For the record I think avg amount per donation  and # of donations is a dumb metric. # of donors and avg donation per donor would be much more meaningful. But all the campaigns crow about those figures, so here’s another case of it’s only bad when Bernie does it. The gnashing of teeth in this post probably has a lot more to do with the gangbusters quarter he had than any principled objection to this. LMAO Pete had a whole “compete for the lowest donation” scheme to try and game his avg donation figure and it’s crickets here on that.

  52. 52.

    Starfish

    @anarchoRex: There were people running up credit card debt to donate to Obama, and my advice for them is the same as my advice to you. This is not a financially sound practice, and you should not do this.

  53. 53.

    patroclus

    Gee – yet another Wilmer thread!! I kind of defended him in the afternoon thread (I like him as a Senator), but once a day is good enough, so tonight I’m not going to defend him. I could not care less about how many donors he says he has and the idea that he’s gonna get money out of American politics is ludicrous (after Buckley v. Valeo – which isn’t going to be overturned by this Court – equating money with free speech, it’s about as realistic as getting money out of banking). But I do care about how he’s gonna vote on the MCA. Is he going to vote for it after Nancy got all the pro-labor and pro-environment and enforcement stuff in it, or is he going to purity pony it and vote against it? What is it – does he favor lowering tariffs and non-tariff barriers on dairy products and other agricultural stuff or not? This is a key question for me as to whether I’d ever consider voting for him.

  54. 54.

    WaterGirl

    @geg6: Good question, I imagine others have it, too.  The calendar is delayed, but Beth is working on it.  We spoke a couple of days ago and she was in the process of arranging photos with the in memoriam quotes.

    I imagine John will post an update within a couple of days, but in the meantime I thought it couldn’t hurt to share what I know.

  56. 56.

    Mnemosyne

    @Elizabelle:

    Yeah, I should probably stop engaging. I ended up watching way too much of the burning dumpster fire that is the Sanders cult at work on Twitter, so I’m still a little het up about it.

  57. 57.

    Martin

    @Yutsano: The DNC can employ whatever process they want to choose their delegates. They can simply pick someone without benefit of caucus or primary.  They have the right to say they will only seat delegates chosen in primaries between June 1 and June 30 and put an end to all of this nonsense.

    Not saying that would be an easy or wise strategy, but nothing in Iowa law affects it.

  60. 60.

    M. Bouffant

    All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.

  61. 61.

    anarchoRex

    @Starfish: thank you but there’s a reason I said it’s what I could “afford” as in I’m not hurting myself financially. I truly hope no one is getting themselves into money trouble by donating more than they can bear  to some politician.

  62. 62.

    Mnemosyne

    @anarchoRex:

    If you’re gaming the system and then crowing about the “great” numbers that result from gaming the system then, yeah, that’s cheating, because the numbers you’re crowing about are false. Sorry to disillusion you.

  63. 63.

    Kraux Pas

    Since open thread Inhad a question.

     

    Earlier today I misidentified a type of logical fallacy, where one either extrapolates to a group the actions of individuals or to individuals from a group. What is that type of fallacy?

  64. 64.

    WaterGirl

    @patroclus: I was just thinking that abut 5 minutes ago.  I think we are being descended upon by Bernie people.  I am guessing that the vociferously anti-Biden new commenter may be in that camp, as well.

  65. 65.

    Starfish

    @anarchoRex: A lot of people have been let off the hook by his followers with this type of logic, and y’all need to do much better than this. The people harassing everyone on Twitter are not him, but culture flows from leadership.

  67. 67.

    Martin

    @anarchoRex: In the past, small dollars was a proxy for ‘not rich people’. It no longer means that. It was always a means to figure out what kinds of people are supporting the candidate.

    Maybe we could require that only people who are willing to release their tax returns can make political donations (even to their own campaigns), that way we can answer the question directly.

  68. 68.

    Adam L Silverman

    But he’s got Penelope Power!

    Also, did Sirota approve the touching?

  69. 69.

    Chyron HR

    @anarchoRex:

    Have you considered the possibility that the bird which landed on Bernie’s podium was a funny coincidence and not a sign that he is literally messiah?

  70. 70.

    anarchoRex

    @Mnemosyne: I don’t have an account, is it possible to search a timeline without one? In turn, I think Sirota is an asshole, and Im not pleased that he was hired.

  73. 73.

    Chyron HR

    @Kraux Pas:

    Just jump ahead to “I’M VOTING FOR TRUMP TO TEACH ALL YOU NI**ERS AND WH*RES A LESSON!”  We all know it’s coming.

     

    Again.

  74. 74.

    Elizabelle

    I think we might need a respite thread.  Two preceding threads on the conflagrations in Australia — really distressing topic, and now a thread tailor-made for anarchoRex to strut around in and too much on Bernie.  Enough.

    I’m out for a while anyway.  It’s Fidos night at the botanical garden; got to go look at some of the pups.

  75. 75.

    Martin

    @Yutsano: I’ll also note that’s blatantly illegal. if California (or any other state) passed a law that we had to go at least 8 days ahead of Iowa, neither state could ever hold a primary or caucus.

  76. 76.

    Cacti

    I do think Bernie has benefitted from his infarction in that it’s kept his opponents from going after him in debates, out of a real fear that he might die on stage, mid finger wag.

  77. 77.

    Baud

    A big problem is that you can’t just oppose Bernie with high minded arguments for the same reason you can’t just oppose Trump with high minded arguments: Because their people are playing a more ruthless game.

  79. 79.

    Mnemosyne

    @Kraux Pas:

    Dude. I know that you enjoy feeling like the lone voice standing up for the little guy, but you got WAY too caught up in that role in 2016 and ended up picking some really nasty fights that made you look really, really bad.

    I would like to respectfully request that you not do the same in 2020.

  81. 81.

    Mo MacArbie

    @WaterGirl: Eh, weren’t you concerned about the readership lull over the holidays? Let the hate flow through you. Feel the power of the dark side;)

  86. 86.

    patroclus

    @Cacti: I disagree.  Bernie supporters need to be won over to support whoever actually becomes the nominee.  I have two young co-workers who are Bernie fans and we’ve been debating him for weeks now (I routinely call him Shouty McPointyFingers which really irritates one of them but the other thinks it’s funny).  While I don’t really care where he buys his office supplies, I’m definitely going to use this Amazon.com/airbnb stuff in my next conversation with them just to annoy them.

  89. 89.

    Mnemosyne

    @Baud:

    I don’t know that it’s ruthless so much as destructive in that three-year-old’s tantrum kind of way.

    As mentioned above, I’m currently watching an organization I believe in tear itself apart so it can bend over backwards to make the few white supremacists in their ranks comfortable, so I may be feeling a little cranky right now. There’s a reason I haven’t been inflicting myself on all y’all for the past couple of weeks.

  91. 91.

    anarchoRex

    @WaterGirl: if this is in reference to me, Ive been reading this blog since before Obama was elected. I’ve always been a lurker, and the few comments I did have were under the “furioso ateo” nym way back in like 2009-2010. I can’t speak for other Bernie supporters.

  93. 93.

    Cacti

    I heard that after his heart attack, Bernie’s first words were:

    “Give it to me straight, doc.  Will I still be able to wag my finguh?”

  95. 95.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @WaterGirl:

     I am guessing that the vociferously anti-Biden new commenter may be in that camp, as well.

    Is that person new? I thought I recognize the initials, but a few people use initials to post, and I have trouble keeping track of nyms. If s/he isn’t a troll, then certainly a crank

  97. 97.

    WaterGirl

    @anarchoRex: No, that was not in reference to you.  It was in reference to a brand-new nym less than two weeks ago, where – to the best of my knowledge – every single comment has been anti-Biden.

    Not a personal word, not “hey that’s a nice photo” in On the Road, not a “boy, I ate too much at the holidays’.  All anti-Biden, every comment.  Or even, “I hate Biden”, but so-and-so is my preference and this is what I like about him/her.  No, “boy do I not want it to be Biden, but I’ll vote for any Democrat, even one I hate, over Trump”.

    I love it when new people post, but that doesn’t feel like a new member of the community to me. It feels like someone who wants to disrupt this community, not join it.

  99. 99.

    Amir Khalid

    @anarchoRex:

    Couldn’t you have saved up and made fewer but bigger donations? More convenient for you, less work for Wilmer’s campaign to process so many small donations, less money lost in processing fees.

  102. 102.

    WaterGirl

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: There are actually two of them, I think.  One is jk and the other has several words in the nym, but I forget what they are at the moment.

    edit: I’m kind of anti anyone who wants to trash the Democratic candidates all the time.  Amy K is not my cup of tea, but I don’t spend all day every day trashing her.  She may be our nominee and that is not helpful.

    The candidates that I believe are doing Putin’s work?  Those I do not consider to be Democrats.

  103. 103.

    patroclus

    @?BillinGlendaleCA: Touche!  But it’s a long game.  Pointing out when Bernie is being hypocritical (he buys from Amazon.com???!!) is my effort to educate them that no politician is perfect even if they profess to be purity ponies.  And while I’m currently leaning towards Klobuchar, neither of them has ever heard of her and I don’t think she has a prayer of winning the nomination anyway.  So it’s really a matter of preparing them to compromise on their true choice as I will have to do anyway as well.

  104. 104.

    Mnemosyne

    @Starfish:

    Apparently part of the problem is that they’ve become a weird clique on a particular RWA message board that no one from the organization is willing to stand up to, and it only emboldens them. The parallels between Trumpers, Sandernistas, and the RWA mess are really apparent and creepy.

  105. 105.

    anarchoRex

    @Amir Khalid: I tend to donate right before the end of a quarter. And that’s generally the little I can spare by then. I’ve made a couple ~$20 donations as well when I could afford it. Plus, the earlier a donation is given the more valuable it is to a campaign, so it’s best not to wait too long. If I took all my cumulative donations and gave them the week before Iowa they’d be much less helpful than spread out over the year the way they have been.

  106. 106.

    anarchoRex

    @chopper: I’ll never understand why having a D next to your name is more important than anything else. By this logic you’d rather have Manchin for president.

  107. 107.

    WaterGirl

    @Mnemosyne:

    I’m currently watching an organization I believe in tear itself apart so it can bend over backwards to make the few white supremacists in their ranks comfortable,

    I’m sorry, but if you’re bending over backwards to make white supremacists comfortable, then you’re either a white supremacist or you are too much of a coward to hold a leadership position.

    (Obviously the “you” there is not you, Mnem, but the leaders you are talking about.)

  111. 111.

    patroclus

    @anarchoRex: Okay, enough about contributions.  Should Bernie vote for the MCA?  Why or why not?  Should he have favored the TPP?  Why or why not?

  112. 112.

    MomSense

    @Mnemosyne:

    I’d still like to know what became of all the FEC violations from his last presidential campaign.  Candidates shouldn’t be able to start new campaigns and avoid the consequences from violations of the previous campaign.

  113. 113.

    WaterGirl

    @anarchoRex: No one probably cares how much YOU are donating, or when you donate it, or the amount of each donation.

    People think it’s a bullshit campaign strategy. It’s disingenuous.  Its purpose is to mislead.  I think so, too.  I don’t like it.

    But it’s foolish of us to let a conversation with you about the details of your donations take over an entire thread.  Just my opinion.

  114. 114.

    Baud

    @anarchoRex:

    It’s not more important than anything else. Tulsi has a D next to her name, but everyone here believes she’s even worse than Bernie.

  115. 115.

    WaterGirl

    @MomSense: I’d donate good money for that to be put up on a billboard somewhere.

    Until we get that going, I’ll just copy it here so I can read it one more time.

    I’d still like to know what became of all the FEC violations from his last presidential campaign.  Candidates shouldn’t be able to start new campaigns and avoid the consequences from violations of the previous campaign.

  118. 118.

    zhena gogolia

    @anarchoRex:

    Because I have seen no evidence that Manchin is the preferred candidate of Russian military intelligence. I have seen such evidence (in the Mueller Report) with regard to Sen. Sanders, and there is other supporting evidence as well.

  119. 119.

    anarchoRex

    @patroclus: no on TPP, mostly because it shackled nation’s attempts to regulate products from international corporations by giving the corps an intl court to sue the offending nation in. Imagine Monsanto taking papa new guinea to court for wanting to regulate pesticides.

     

    On the MCA, I think it’s a colossally stupid political mistake to give Trump such a gold star win less than a year before the election. That said, if it’s an improvement over NAFTA I will 100% expect Bernie to vote for it.

  120. 120.

    Adam L Silverman

    @anarchoRex: I want to start with the below is not directed at you. Not personally, nor even spatially.

    I don’t have a lot of issues with Senator Sanders and those I do don’t need to be dealt with here. But at the end of the day it boils down to his being a free rider. He’s simultaneously running to win the Democratic presidential primary and at the same time already filed to run for reelection to the Senate in Vermont as an Independent in 2024. He says he’s in the tent pissing out while at the same time he’s actually outside the tent pissing in. He knows, because he’s a smart person, that he doesn’t have the numbers needed to achieve what he wants. He never has and he never will. That’s why he’s never been able to mobilize enough popular support for his initiatives to move any of them through Congress, which is one of the reason that there will never be a revolution (this is a whole other post in itself, which I’m not doing tonight and most likely not ever as I simply don’t need the grief). And it is why he has to both run under the imprimatur and using the resources of the Democratic Party while at the same time trying to argue that he’s not really a Democrat and doesn’t really like the party because a significant number of his senior staff and surrogates, as well as his supporters are not really Democrats and don’t really like the party. They have the numbers to be spoilers, but not winners in their own right. These things are incompatible. They don’t make him a bad person. They don’t even make him a bad politician or an unfit leader. But they do stand out to a lot of people as something that is very problematic.

  121. 121.

    Mnemosyne

    @WaterGirl:

    Yeah, there’s a reason why there’s a rising call for the permanent (executive) staff to be fired. There seems to be an institutional problem that the volunteer board of directors is not empowered to fix.

    I don’t have the link handy, but Nora Roberts had a good piece on her blog about her issues with the permanent staff that led her to leave the organization.

  124. 124.

    Baud

    @Adam L Silverman:

     

    it boils down to his being a free rider

    This is the key.  To put in it terms progressives can understand, he is the worker in a “right to work” state who doesn’t join the union but accepts its benefits.

  125. 125.

    Starfish

    @Mnemosyne: I wish we would write more about the patterns of behavior.

    There are a few repeated patterns of abusive behavior that I am seeing, and I wish more people would name the patterns and write about them.

    There are a bunch of men pretending they do not understand very basic stuff to waste people’s time.

    Then there are people being abusive and if you call them out on it, they are all “What did I do?”

  128. 128.

    WaterGirl

    @Adam L Silverman: I was with you all the way, right up until this:

    They don’t make him a bad person. They don’t even make him a bad politician or an unfit leader.

    There are things you need to be and do if you want to be taken seriously when you are campaigning to be President of the fucking United States of America.

    You need to put your country over your personal gain. Bernie can’t check that box.  You need to very seriously consider whether you have the high-level intelligence, temperament, empathy, and the ability to bring a good part of the country along with you.  Bernie can’t check that box.  You need to consider whether you are, indeed, the leader the country needs at this moment.  Bernie can’t check that box either.

    I think all of those things make Bernie a bad person, a bad politician, and unfit to lead.

    Other than that, what you wrote was a most excellent summary of what in the world is wrong with Bernie.

  129. 129.

    anarchoRex

    @Adam L Silverman: Thanks for writing that. I see and acknowledge the critique. I don’t arrive at the same conclusions from your premise, but it would take too long (and be super annoying to tap out in my phone) to get into it. So, just, thanks for actually writing a serious reply.

  130. 130.

    Adam L Silverman

    @WaterGirl: It is from Captain America: Civil War. It is the conditioned mnemonic used to foreground the mind control programming that allowed Hydra to control Bucky Barnes as their premier black ops and assassin the Winter Soldier.

  134. 134.

    Amir Khalid

    It was my impression that someone keeps track of how many unique donors each candidate has, as a datum separate from how many individual donations, so that e.g. anarchoRex counts as one Bernie donor no matter how many times they chip in their buck or two. I wonder how many unique donors each candidate can claim.

  136. 136.

    anarchoRex

    @Baud: see, this is where I diverge, because I dont see the Dem party as the “union,” I see them as the “management.” My loyalties to labor being what they are, it doesn’t bother me when someone gets one over on the bosses.

  137. 137.

    cs

    Bernie’s contributions go through ActBlue. ActBlue probably does bundling to reduce credit card fees. Companies who receive many individual small dollar amounts, like Apple and their app store, practice this. I’m sure ActBlue does too. Banks will still probably make bank from the many contributions, but it’s not going to be as big as it seems.

    Despite how distasteful many Bernie supporters are, I’m probably going to vote for him this year. Well, it’s a 50/50 between him and Warren. I fully realize he’s not going to get what he wants in the face of Republican obstructionism and the small-c conservatism of much of the Democratic Party. But I want someone like Warren or Bernie who will at least try. Not someone who goes in pre-compromising like Biden or Buttigieg.

    And I don’t even mind the yellling. The times we live in are terrible and on the cusp of something even more terrible. Not just Trump, but the incipient fascism & power of the religious right, the climate and the collapse of species & ecosystems, wealth inequality and the oligarchy only getting stronger. Sometimes, at least for me, rage is a natural response. Seeing a candidate who reflects that rage is good. And I think it’s refreshing for many voters.

    Usual disclaimer: I don’t think Bernie’s the messiah. I’m going to vote for whoever the nominee is. I might extend a middle finger at the voting machine if it’s Biden, but that’s a meaningless gesture. Will still pull for him anyways. I’m chair of my small county’s Democratic Party, so I’ll continue to be publicly neutral during the primary. Majority of my party’s members have indicated their support for Biden. I still smile at them and remind them of the primary’s date. And post-primary, I’ll still muster our party’s resources to push for the candidate in the general. Even if it’s Biden.

  139. 139.

    patroclus

    @anarchoRex: You do realize that TPP (under a new name) is  now in effect and Monsanto can sue under its provisions and in courts generally as always.  So given that, what was the point of opposition and not giving American consumers and companies the benefits of lower prices and reduced trade barriers?  I’m truly not following your analysis.

    On MCA, we’ll see whether Bernie votes for it.  Given his entire history, I’m guessing not.  Granted, it seems likely to pass anyway, so unlike TPP, he’s off the hook for responsibility for killing a good deal, but I’ll remember for sure.

  140. 140.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    because I dont see the Dem party as the “union,” I see them as the “management.” My loyalty to labor being what they are, it doesn’t bother me when someone gets one over on the bosses.

    There it is. Something called “the Democratic Establishment” is the real enemy.

  141. 141.

    Baud

    @anarchoRex:

    That’s up to you.  Everyone sees the party differently.  Republicans see us as evil and immoral, but that’s not what we are either.

    I see us as all in this together, despite our diversity and differences.  If some outsider is trying to get one over on the “bosses,” they are trying to hurt me, and I will fight back against it.

  142. 142.

    Another Scott

    @Amir Khalid: Information like that is on the fec.gov web site, but it can lag quite a bit.  And there’s no requirement that donations < $200 or so be reported, so it’s hard to know for sure…

    HTH.

    Cheers,

    Scott.

  143. 143.

    Mnemosyne

    @Starfish:

    Part of the problem is that a whole lot of people are resistant to seeing their behavior patterns, and they get really hostile if you point any patterns out.

    Then there’s the (mostly) dudes who have convinced themselves that their emotions are “logical” and “rational,” so when they get enraged at someone, it’s “rational,” but someone’s reaction to their rage is “emotional” and can be discounted or ignored. We raise men and boys very badly in this society, for the most part.

  144. 144.

    Mo MacArbie

    @anarchoRex: I see the Dem party as me. And a bunch of other folks too. Someone has to be in charge, and I like some of them more than others. I hope though, that whatever bickering and backstabbing may go on, that they can unite at the proper time to work toward the bigger goal. I have less confidence that the new guy who has led a party of one his whole career has been acculturated to that.

  146. 146.

    Kamala.Harris.2020

    @Adam L Silverman:

    They have the numbers to be spoilers, but not winners in their own right. These things are incompatible.

    Sanders got 43% of the D votes in the last primary so It’s odd to claim that he can’t be a winner in his own right.  He’s not a marginal candidate.

     

    He’s not my first, or second, or third choice but the hatred some people (not you Mr. S) have for Sanders is just mystifying.

  148. 148.

    James E Powell

    The most significant achievement of Bernie Sanders’s political career is that he helped to put Trump in the White House. That he will not acknowledge this and apologize is disqualifying.

    Just my view, but I am most definitely not alone. Given his name ID, the press/media’s uncritical coverage of him, and that he has been running since the end of the 2016 campaign, the fact that he cannot get above 30% shows that he is not popular enough with the Democratic electorate to animate them for the general election.

  149. 149.

    anarchoRex

    @patroclus: the difference is that Monsanto would have to sue in that country’s courts. Now they (if it was still part of the deal, I didn’t keep up with it after Trump pulled out) can sue in independent international courts. Considering the track record institutions like the IMF have vis a vis underdeveloped countries, I’m not optimistic that it isn’t just another avenue for capital to squash any kind of popular reform.

     

    Plus, if I’m not mistaken, most labor organizations were against the TPP as negotiated, which is (usually) good enough for me to do the same. This is the opposite of the case with the MCA, which I understand to have labor org support.

  151. 151.

    Baud

    @patroclus:

     

    On MCA, we’ll see whether Bernie votes for it. Given his entire history, I’m guessing not.

    He announced at the last debate that he was not

  152. 152.

    Another Scott

    @Kamala.Harris.2020: Bernie continues to show that he’s not a team player.  In politics, one needs to be a team player to make good things happen.  It’s easy to break stuff on one’s own, but building takes a team.

    He attacks the Democratic party team.

    That’s one of the main reasons why I don’t like him.  At all.

    YMMV.

    Cheers,

    Scott.

  153. 153.

    anarchoRex

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: talk the DCCC out of blacklisting candidates challenging incumbents in primaries and get back to me. Or even the DNC to go back to Obama’s no corporate donations rule. They do it to themselves.

  154. 154.

    zhena gogolia

    @Kamala.Harris.2020:

    Let me help you out with this comment from James E Powell

    The most significant achievement of Bernie Sanders’s political career is that he helped to put Trump in the White House.

    That’s reason no. 1 why I hate him. I haven’t forgotten and never will.

  155. 155.

    MisterForkbeard

    @Kamala.Harris.2020: It’s more that Sanders has never been able to get an enormous amount of assistance in Congress. Still can’t, even now. He just doesn’t have a nationwide base of support for his ideals.

    But if Sanders gets 43% of the Democratic vote, that indicates that 57% of the liberal party thought he was too liberal. So while he has a chance of winning the primary, I think his chances in the general are smaller. Still possible.

    Personally, I think Bernie’s kind of a fake and he has enough issues I’d rather see a different nominee. Kamala was my favorite. I could be persuaded towards Biden or Warren. Buttigieg-from-last-March would have been fine, too.

    If he’s the nominee, I’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for him and be out extolling the good points of his candidacy daily. But someone else would do better and keep the party much more cohesive.

  156. 156.

    MisterForkbeard

    @Another Scott: I can agree wholeheartedly with this one.

    It’s fine to have critiques. He goes beyond that – he creates and reinforces bullshit “corruption and lying” narratives that all of the right use, and the far-left echoes it. And he encourages them both.

    Not a fan. I’m especially not a fan of a few other things in his 2016 campaign, but you don’t shit on your own team, especially by making things up.

  158. 158.

    Kraux Pas

    @Starfish:  Thank you. The ecological fallacy is actually a specifically statistical version of what I was looking for, the division fallacy. Which is what I had learned and your page led me to.

  160. 160.

    WaterGirl

    I’m tired of talking about Bernie.  What’s the most healthy thing you ate today?  Least healthy?  Here are mine.

    Election 2020 Open Thread: It's Not A <em>Campaign</em>, It's A <em>Performance</em> Election 2020 Open Thread: It's Not A <em>Campaign</em>, It's A <em>Performance</em> 1

  164. 164.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @WaterGirl: I’m making pureed vegetable soup to make up for holiday excess, but I just found a left over chunk of double-creme brie in the fridge and ate it for an appetizer

  165. 165.

    Kraux Pas

    @MisterForkbeard: He goes beyond that – he creates and reinforces bullshit “corruption and lying” narratives

     

    He at least he defines what he sees as corrupt actions based on what may reasonably defined as reality. He had that over any Republican in spades.

     

    We can at least disagree and discuss what we consider corruption to be as long as we have that to start.

  166. 166.

    patroclus

    @anarchoRex: Monsanto retains the ability to sue in any court in any country they wish to.  Under the now-applicable TPP (which includes all countries other than the U.S. which signed it), they now have the ability to sue in the TPP-specific enforcement mechanisms as well.  Bernie stopped nothing other than the U.S.’s participation in lower prices, lower tariffs, lower non-tariff trade barriers and other benefits for American consumers and businesses which the Canadians, Mexicans etc.. now enjoy.  Kudos to Bernie!

    The MCA is a small addendum to NAFTA (which remains in effect as to virtually all products it covers) which affects a limited range of dairy and agricultural products by lowering tariffs and non-tariff barriers.  Thanks to the House Dems, it now also contains beefed up labor and environmental provisions (albeit still applicable to only a limited range of products).  Labor has swung around and now supports it – we’ll see if Bernie will.  I suspect not.

  167. 167.

    anarchoRex

    @WaterGirl: were driving from SC to Houston today, and it’s all McDonald’s all the way, unfortunately (I’m not in charge of deciding where we eat). Relatedly, I’m in the back of a van for 16 hours today, with nothing else to do, hence the surge of commenting

  168. 168.

    James E Powell

    @Kamala.Harris.2020:

    Sanders got 43% of the D votes in the last primary so It’s odd to claim that he can’t be a winner in his own right.

    So he started with ~40%. Where is he now? Why couldn’t he hold that number?

  169. 169.

    Colleeniem

    @patroclus: Bernie will continue to do what is advantageous for his state, like all Senators, as he very much intends to keep being a senator if the presidential race pans out, regardless of the ideology. Why do I think this? He did the same as Mayor of Burlington (supported police stopping union strike for Gatling guns company), and as governor and senator, e.g. supporting the continued investment into the boondoggle that is the F-35, because it will throw cash to his constituents.

    He is just as much of a Politician as everyone else, and no irresponsible early life back story can wave that away. He may have had the pretty words for a long time, but he’s done not much to take advantage of his seniority in the senate while he has it.

    I’m sure we are all aware, but he’s the ranking member in the Budget committee, which ultimately decides (along with the house) how much of our treasure goes to defense and how much goes to everything else.  In November, that committee had a hearing to oversee a budget reform bill. Who presided at the hearing? Sheldon whitehouse, not the ranking member with more seniority.
    This occurred after his heart attack, by the way. What’s more stressful…traveling to campaign or contributing your heft to our deliberative process (rhetorical)? What has greater lasting impact? Legislation.

    This isn’t a reply to you, I’m just venting. I don’t see the savior that people think he is, and as a politician, he’s as middling as many others.

  170. 170.

    Mnemosyne

    @Another Scott:

    Bernie continues to show that he’s not a team player. In politics, one needs to be a team player to make good things happen. It’s easy to break stuff on one’s own, but building takes a team.

    Yes, this. Part of the problem is that Sanders and his followers seem to see themselves as being on a different team than the Democrats, and don’t see any reason why they should try and win us over to their team. They act like Yankees or Patriots fans who are more interested in taunting everyone else than in explaining why people should follow their team.

    FTFY.

  171. 171.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    He at least he defines what he sees as corrupt actions based on what may reasonably defined as reality.

    WALL STREET SPEECHES!

  172. 172.

    anarchoRex

    @patroclus: am I misunderstanding? Monsanto would have standing to sue Papa New Guinea in a US court and PNG would have to abide by the ruling?

  173. 173.

    Another Scott

    @anarchoRex: The DCCC is “the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House of Representatives”.  The DSCC supports Democratic members of the Senate.

    What would you have them do instead?

    Cheers,

    Scott.

  174. 174.

    JAFD

    OK, I’m old and old-fashioned, like doing my shopping in Real Stores. And I live in ‘the New York metropolitan area’. And I don’t like Amazon’s treatment of their workers, and their ‘independent contractors’ delivery service. But I still spent a couple of hundred bucks with them, in 2019, on Stuf I Simply Could Not Find Anywhere Else…

    Now if Joe Doakes gets parachuted into Dogpatch to run Senator X’s campaign office, finds that Dogpatch Office Supplies is owned by the local GOP chairman, where’s he gonna get paper clips? Wal-Mart ? Staples (Bain Cap’s project ???) . Not unreasonable to pick Amazon as lesser evil and get on with the registration drive.

  175. 175.

    WaterGirl

    @Baud: I do, but I try to mostly only post about the website.  it’s not like John went out and recruited me to start writing at Balloon Juice.  I kind of came in through the back door with the website, and I try to respect that.

    John knows where to find me if he wants me to write about other things.

    That being said, if we go 6 or 8 hours without a post, all bets are off, and I would definitely put up an open thread.

  176. 176.

    Gin & Tonic

    @WaterGirl: The healthiest? A bottle of Left Hand Brewing Milk Stout. Hey, it’s almost like a glass of milk, isn’t it? It has milk in the name.

    In other OT news, my son sent me a pic of the old Museum of Archaeology in Tbilisi. The museum is abandoned. How meta is that?

  179. 179.

    anarchoRex

    @Another Scott: I dunno, let voters decide who they want to represent them? This is ignoring that the DCCC has never blacklisted challengers until this cycle. Were they not serving house Dems before by not doing this?

  180. 180.

    WaterGirl

    @Gin & Tonic:

    A bottle of Left Hand Brewing Milk Stout.

    Definitely, plus milk has protein, too.  If I’m not mistaken, I think that’s the logo I really like.

  181. 181.

    Baud

    @anarchoRex: Are you saying that the DCCC and the DSCC have historically given money to candidates who challenge incumbent Dems?  That’s news to me.

  183. 183.

    Mo MacArbie

    @JAFD: True, but if 2016 taught us anything, it’s that one can spin powerful, election-determining arguments out of horseshit issues.

  189. 189.

    Mnemosyne

    @JAFD:

    I’m not going to try and claim they’re hugely less evil, but Staples and Office Depot both have online shopping sites, as does Shoplet and a bunch of other small sites.

    There are plenty of office supply alternatives to Amazon.

  191. 191.

    Another Scott

    @anarchoRex: You’re being naive if you think that an organization whose mission is to support a particular group of elected officials is go[i]ng to spend money to defeat members of that group.

    There are plenty of mechanisms to support challengers to incumbent Democrats in the House.  The DCCC not being one of them doesn’t make the DCCC Corrupt™ or something.

    Cheers,

    Scott.

  195. 195.

    anarchoRex

    @Baud:  are you not familiar with the DCCC’s new policy? Historically, it’s been pretty rare for the DCCC to spend money on a primary for any candidate. That’s neither here nor there, and probably won’t change. What’s new is that any firm that contracts with a challenger is now blacklisted by the DCCC. If that had been the rule in 2018, any company that printed lit, ran polling, shot video, etc., for AOC would never be able to work with a DCCC candidate ever again. This is raising the barrier to protect incumbents, by making firms more hesitant to even work with people trying to enter politics. Is this something you agree with?

  201. 201.

    glory b

    @Baud: Yeah, interesting how, once people of color and women got to positions of power, the party  became the “bosses.”

  204. 204.

    patroclus

    @anarchoRex: Monsanto has always had the ability to sue other countries in U.S. courts.  For various reasons, non-U.S. courts rarely give effect to U.S. court’s judgments.  But U.S. courts can and do award plaintiffs the right to seize defendants’ assets held in the U.S.  The best example of this is Elliot Management’s pursuit of Argentine assets over the past 20 years.  TPP changed nothing about this.

    Under TPP, however, suits can now be brought by multinational corporations like Monsanto (or one of their non-U.S. subsidiaries) under the TPP’s enforcement mechanisms and the signatory countries have at least said that judgments will be enforced in those countries.  Very little of this has been tested as yet, so we really don’t know whether a signatory country would in fact honor such a judgment (if obtained).  That is, the U.S.’s non-participation did not stop what you and Bernie presumably opposed – it went into effect anyway in all of the signatory countries (other than the U.S.).  So the drawback you mentioned went into effect anyway and the U.S. got none of the benefits of the overall deal/

  210. 210.

    Josie

    @WaterGirl:

    My daughter-in-law and I tried a new recipe for ramen soup made with mushrooms and coconut milk – very simple and wonderful.  It is definitely going in the regular rotation.  Earlier I may have indulged in some leftover Christmas cookies (bourbon balls).

  212. 212.

    anarchoRex

    @patroclus: I’m still fine with this. Your pov seems to presuppose that it will be US firms squashing other countries, so no big deal. In 10 years Chinese conglomerates would be using that mechanism to squash US attempts at regulation, so I’m glad we’ve avoided putting the shoe on the other foot ourselves.

    And you haven’t addressed TPP’s lack of labor support. If your argument is that American workers are dumdums that shot themselves in the foot by avoiding this deal I’m not sure you’re going to make much headway.

  213. 213.

    WaterGirl

    @Josie: The ramen sounds interesting.  Bourbon balls?  The really chocolatey ones?  If so, I am super jealous. I used to work with a woman who made them for my group every year.  So good.

  215. 215.

    jk

    OT

    January 1, 2020 was Public Domain Day. Works published in 1924 are entering the US public domain. They include George Gershwin’s ‘Rhapsody in Blue’ and ‘Fascinating Rhythm,’ silent films by Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, and Thomas Mann’s ‘The Magic Mountain,’ E. M. Forster’s ‘A Passage to India,’ and A. A. Milne’s ‘When We Were Very Young.’ These works were supposed to go into the public domain in 2000, after being copyrighted for 75 years. But before this could happen, Congress hit a 20-year pause button and extended their copyright term to 95 years.

    h/t https://boingboing.net/2019/12/30/coulda-been-bob-dylan.html

  219. 219.

    Another Scott

    @anarchoRex:

    OpenSecrets:

    The DCCC vendor policy is widely panned by progressive consulting firms. One progressive fundraiser, who insisted on speaking on background, bemoaned the policy as a giveaway to “lazy and ineffective” firms that haven’t modernized their strategy but get by with longstanding ties with the Democratic party.

    The DCCC spent $297 million during the 2018 midterm cycle and paid out big sums to hundreds of companies and individual consultants. Boasting strong fundraising numbers to start the 2020 cycle, the committee raised $69 million and spent $45.8 million through the first half of 2019.

    The policy doesn’t apply to all campaign-related companies. ActBlue, the digital fundraising company credited with helping Democratic candidates outraise Republicans with small-dollar donors, doesn’t adhere to the policy. The same goes for technology provider NGP VAN. Both companies have a policy of working with all Democratic candidates, including those primarying Democratic incumbents.

    In response to the DCCC policy, Middle Seat, Revolution Messaging and the Ocasio-Cortez-allied Justice Democrats group joined a number of other progressive organizations in creating a website to recruit firms willing to work with primary challengers. The Justice Democrats and their affiliated group Brand New Congress are helping primary challengers launch their campaigns. Cori Bush, who is challenging Rep.William Clay Jr. (D-Mo.), contracted the group’s executive director Isra Allison as her campaign manager.

    DCCC’s policy for political vendors:

    BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS AND TERMS:

    The core mission of the DCCC is electing House Democrats, which includes supporting and protecting incumbents. To that end, the DCCC will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting Member of the House Democratic Caucus.

    [ ] I understand the above statement that the DCCC will not conduct business with, nor recommend to any of its targeted campaigns, any consultant that works with an opponent of a sitting Member of the House Democratic Caucus

    Furthermore, to be considered as a DCCC vendor and to be placed on the DCCC approved vendor list, a political vendor must agree to the following:

    [ ] I agree to assign a lead to the DCCC or targeted campaign contract that is a partner, founder, VP and/or principal and that will attend quarterly meetings as scheduled.
    [ ] I agree to not charge retainer fees for non-fundraising activities.
    [ ] I agree to not charge a mark-up for production costs.
    [ ] I agree to calculate commissions, when applicable, on actual spend, not approved budget.
    [ ] I agree to utilize DCCC systems and tools as directed.

    Please provide a list of the races your firm worked on during the 2018 cycle:

    Please provide an overview of your expected workload during the 2020 cycle:

    It’s so horrible that the DCCC only wants to work with vendors that aren’t working against its mission. And it’s so horrible that vendors who don’t accept the DCCC’s position have other places they can go to work for other candidates.

    Just horrible.

    (groucho-roll-eyes.gif)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  220. 220.

    Feathers

    @Mnemosyne: Condolences. I didn’t go home for Christmas this year and may have followed this mess a bit too closely. I used to write (mysteries) and went to a few local RWA chapter meetings with a friend from a screenwriting group who belonged to both. Good people. And damn they were organized. A big part of why I stopped writing was a really harmful and toxic writing group. It can just drive people crazy. (The other reason was discovering that my “writer’s block” was undiagnosed ADHD combined with serious working memory issues. Sigh.)

    It does appear that they chose to kick out the wrong person, so hopefully things may not end bleakly. I am curious to see what happens when the publishing houses return to work next week. The corporate side of the business has stayed out of things so far.

  221. 221.

    WaterGirl

    @Baud: My exact words:

    I do, but I try to mostly only post about the website.

    It’s the exception that proves the rule?  Plus, I see at least 3 weasel words in there.  Besides, it’s Baud 2020!  What’s more Balloon Juice-y than that?  Let me know when your campaign materials are finished and we’ll put them up under Featuring. :-)

  222. 222.

    Formerly disgruntled in Oregon

    @anarchoRex: What on earth are you talking about? Sounds like a paranoid conspiracy. Do you have anything to back up these accusations?

    And if you don’t like how the DNC, DCCC, or any other DXYZ groups spend the money people donate to them, maybe just don’t send those groups any money!

    It’s not like the DNC charges you dues to be registered as a Democrat and vote in our primary.

    One more thing —

    Democrats are Management?

    It’s not Democrats who recently passed over a trillion dollars in tax giveaways to corporations and the wealthy. Trump and the Republicans did that.

    Management, my ass.

  223. 223.

    patroclus

    @Colleeniem: Agreed.  He’s a hypocritical politician.  And as a legislator, he’s accomplished very little.  As I said this afternoon, however, he is a loyal member of the Democratic Caucus and he’s been acceptable generally as a Senator.  I would vote for him over any Republican, period, despite his decades-long terrible record on guns and trade.

    Yes, he’s the ranking member on Budget, which in theory, is a powerful slot.  But that presupposes that the Senate actually follows the Budget Act of 1974 and passes a budget resolution each Spring, which the Appropriations and Finance Committees then follow as to amounts, floors and caps.  But the Senate rarely actually does this and instead negotiates continuing resolutions and omnibus bills to avoid shutdowns which apply to various lengths of time.  Consequently, the Budget Committee is usually fairly irrelevant and the Leadership does most of the actual negotiating and deal-making.

  228. 228.

    Formerly disgruntled in Oregon

    @Another Scott: Thank you for providing some actual information about these policies.

    So… not a conspiracy theory, so I was off. But a much more reasonable position for an incumbent re-election organization, which is what the DCCC and similar organizations are, than what was being implied.

    Again – don’t like it? Don’t give them money.

  229. 229.

    MisterForkbeard

    @Kraux Pas: No question he’s much better than Republicans.

    He also chooses views of ‘corruption’ that are factually false, beneficial to him, and deleterious to the Democrats and which Republicans have echoed.

     

    His surrogates are  STILL claiming that the nomination was stolen in 2016. He’s talked about how that process was rigged. Both his supporters and Republicans continue to drive wedged about that same conspiracy theory in 2020.

     

    It’s not helpful. He needs to cut it out and push back on it.

  233. 233.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @MisterForkbeard: a week or so ago there was some poll that had rose twitter banging on enough about Bernie to get “President Sanders” trending on twitter. One of the top tweets (most retweeted? most liked? I’m not really clear on how it works) was from Michelle Malkin’s twitchy group saying “The DNC won’t let him win!”, or some such. I’m sure their concern was deeply sincere.

  234. 234.

    patroclus

    @anarchoRex: My point of view is that we have higher prices and lower wages because politicians like Sanders and Warren (and Trump) killed the U.S.’s participation in the deal.  My point also is that there really isn’t such a thing as “U.S. firms” – they are multinational corporations and they act like it all the time.  They got exactly what they wanted out of TPP and American workers, consumers and businesses got nothing.  I hope Bernie, Liz and Donnie enjoy getting Americans lower wages and higher prices and less international cooperation among labor unions..

  235. 235.

    WaterGirl

    @Baud: John’s pretty good-natured.  Just yesterday he told me to go ahead and approve the new commenter nym that was pending.

    Ambidextrous Media Masturbator (Both Sides!)

    Plus, he sleeps a lot in the winter. :-)  Okay, kidding about that last part, I wouldn’t ever do anything behind Coles’s back.  But Calling All Jackals looks to me like the perfect spot for Baud 2020! campaign materials.

  236. 236.

    Formerly disgruntled in Oregon

    @anarchoRex: I read it. Thanks, AnotherScott!

    If you had included these links in your post to back up your accusations, I wouldn’t have suggested that you were spreading conspiracy theories. Though you certainly made it sound worse than it turned out to be.

    My point remains. If you don’t like how they spend their money, don’t give them any.

    BTW, these DXYZ campaign groups are not the Democratic Party. Millions of engaged citizens and voters all over the country – we’re the Democratic Party. Please join with us to beat Trump and the Republicans.

  238. 238.

    FelonyGovt

    What Bernie’s supporters don’t seem to understand is that there are many of us who are proud, life-long Democrats. Is the party perfect? Of course not. But crapping on it every chance he gets does not endear Mr. Sanders to us older women, African Americans, and others who are an integral part of the party.

  239. 239.

    VFX Lurker

    @Kamala.Harris.2020:He’s not my first, or second, or third choice but the hatred some people (not you Mr. S) have for Sanders is just mystifying.

    As I mentioned in another thread, I lost people that (I thought) were friends in 2016 because of the Wilmer campaign. Women I knew fled to private Facebook chats rather than discuss politics within view of Wilmer supporters.

    I never saw that in 2008, because Barack Obama did not make misogyny a cornerstone of his successful campaign.

    Only one Wilmer supporter ever apologized to me for his execrable behavior, and that was only after I finally blocked him on Facebook.

  240. 240.

    anarchoRex

    @Formerly disgruntled in Oregon:

    Millions of engaged citizens and voters all over the country – we’re the Democratic Party. Please join with us to beat Trump and the Republicans.

    this is wild. Just because I support Bernie and don’t like the Dem party establishment does not make me your enemy. I know there are Bernie or Bust asshats out there, but they’re very much the minority. I’m one of those millions of engaged citizens, I’m involved with my local party and political scene. I vote in every primary and support my local candidates. I’ve registered hundreds of new voters over the years. I worked on a campaign challenging Will Hurd (R-Snake.) Inviting me to join you is such condescending bullshit, as if I haven’t been working to beat Republicans since I was old enough to vote. Just because you don’t agree that im supporting the candidate I think has the best chance to beat Trump, doesn’t mean I’m against you. Frankly I think many of you are wildly misguided politically (as I’m sure y’all feel about me) but none of you are my enemy.

    As for providing links about the DCCC, maybe just don’t assume because someone levels a critique against a dem party apparatus you’re not familiar with, that it’s a conspiracy theory.

    Good grief.

  241. 241.

    Colleeniem

    @patroclus: I concur, and I know I’m a random stranger on the internet, but I have direct personal experience with, and understand the long failure of the budget process and the actual influence of this committee. However, (with the broken glass caveat) I will give a side eye to a apparently popular politician who doesn’t use his power, celebrity or otherwise, who doesn’t shine a light on that fact for reasons they don’t explain, especially if they ARE the ranking member.

  242. 242.

    MisterForkbeard

    @anarchoRex:

    As for providing links about the DCCC, maybe just don’t assume because someone levels a critique against a dem party apparatus you’re not familiar with, that it’s a conspiracy theory.

    To be fair, you had to walk this back a bit and the policy is much less awful than you implied. We’re not enemies at all, but you’d get a lot less annoyance if you were less combative about this stuff.

  244. 244.

    Mnemosyne

    @anarchoRex:

    They didn’t need to do it before, because there weren’t organizations dedicated to challenging Democratic incumbents. Now there are, and the DCCC acted in self-defense. Funny how you get all bent out of shape when Democrats defend themselves. ?

  245. 245.

    Fair Economist

    @patroclus: The TPP (now CPTPP) is much better because the US didn’t sign. Once we were out, the remaining signatories greatly reduced the abilities of multinationals to sue using ISDS courts, weakened some pretty severe restrictions on generic drugs, and reduced the periods for copyright protection.

  246. 246.

    WaterGirl

    @anarchoRex: I haven’t seen you write that you will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that ends up being.  Will you?  If you won’t, then what reason would any of us have to listen to you?

  248. 248.

    Goblue72

    Show us on the doll where Sanders touched you with his Q4 fundraising total beating Biden (and Buttigieg) – and possibly Warren when she reports.

    You’re a parody account at this point.

  249. 249.

    MisterForkbeard

    @Goblue72:

    Show us on the doll where Sanders touched you with his Q4 fundraising total beating Biden

    This sounds an awful lot like a parody itself. I don’t think almost anyone here has been especially enthusiastic about Biden.

  250. 250.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @Goblue72: Hiya Dwight! I like your new posting habit of popping in at the end of dead threads to make a doody. Does it make you feel better about your sad, lonely, little life? I hope so. Cause I’m big hearted like that.

  251. 251.

    anarchoRex

    @WaterGirl: Did you miss the part where I’ve supported the Dem party since I was old enough to vote? Not like anyone is going to listen to me anyway, but I voted for Clinton, in Texas, and I’ll vote for whoever wins the nomination this time. Now that I’ve had to bow and scrape through this pointless loyalty ritual, I can expect you’ll demand it of every commentor on here that flat out says they won’t vote if certain candidates win the nomination?

  253. 253.

    janesays

    @Elizabelle: So… in the unfortunate event that Bernie Sanders winds up the nominee (which is definitely a frighteningly real possibility at this point), are you actually saying that you’ll withhold your vote in November for the Democratic nominee?

    If you do that and Trump gets re-elected, you would bear just as much responsibility for him winning in 2020 as the asshole Bernie Bros who refused to vote for Clinton in 2016 were for Trump getting elected in the first place.

    Don’t be like them. We’re better than that. And the consequences of Trump getting re-elected will be about ten times worse than the consequences of him getting elected the first time because, yes, Supreme Court. RBG is very unlikely to survive until 2025.

  254. 254.

    MisterForkbeard

    @anarchoRex: Just about everyone here DOES agree to vote for the nominee, with I think the exception of Tulsi Gabbard. Even then she’d still get most of the vote if she somehow won the nom.

    The reason you’re getting this is because you’re new, showed up and shit all over the party, posited a wild accusation, walked it back, then said it wasn’t actually that bad but that it could LOOK bad, and then you started lecturing people on how saying “Unite with us and the Democratic Party against Republicans” was deeply insulting to Bernie voters.

    I think you can see why people are a little skeptical about your behavior. I’m also glad that you’re going to vote for the Dem nominee. That’s the right thing to do.

  255. 255.

    janesays

    @Elizabelle: The Democratic Party could always tell Iowa that it has to share it’s first-in-the-nation status with a group of states, and if they try to defy the party by scheduling their caucus earlier, the party could respond by stripping their delegates of voting power at the convention. Basically, make it a meaningless contest. Other states have been punished in the past by losing their delegates voting power, so it isn’t exactly unprecedented.

    The downside of that it that it would likely drive the state even further to the Republican side and make it even harder to win in November (it’s still a relatively purplish state, though leaning a little more red than blue right now).

  256. 256.

    janesays

    @Mo MacArbie:

    I think that only donations of $200 and up need to be reported with names attached. We’re probably at the mercy of top line total money and total donors self-reported by campaigns with a simple average performed. Any billionaires in there? Who can say.

    Incorrect. Individual contributions to a candidate exceeding $50 must disclose the donor’s name, and cumulative contributions exceeding $200 in a calendar year must also disclose the donor’s name. So if I make 20 donations for $10 to Candidate X in the same calendar year, my name must be disclosed at the time I make that 20th donation, and every donation thereafter.

    Also, you can’t get around the $2,800 contribution cap by making a zillion tiny donations. $2,800 is the maximum total money you can give any one candidate per election (primary and general are considered two separate elections, so the limit applies to each individually) – even if you give it to them in 280 contributions of $10 each.

    https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/keeping-records/records-receipts/

  257. 257.

    janesays

    @Yutsano: The DNC can impose a “hey, if you still go first in defiance of our new primary/caucus schedule, your delegates’ votes at the convention won’t actually count” rule.

  258. 258.

    janesays

    @anarchoRex: To be clear, however much we might consider any one or two or three candidates to be our “enemies” in the primary process, at the end of the day, there is only one “enemy” whose presence in the White House is a literal threat to the future existence of the Republic – Donald John Trump.

    As such, I will be voting for whoever has the (D) after their name on the November ballot, no matter who that person is, and no matter how long they have had a (D) after their name.

    I would vote for Bernie Sanders.

    I would vote for Joe Biden.

    I would vote for Elizabeth Warren.

    I would vote for Pete Buttigieg.

    I would vote for Amy Klobuchar.

    I would vote Cory Booker.

    I would vote for Andrew Yang.

    I would vote for Michael Bennet.

    I would even vote for Michael Bloomberg or Tulsi Gabbard, if they were to win the Democratic nomination (fortunately, neither of them will be the nominee, so that’s a choice I won’t be forced to make).

    And yes, if he were running for the presidency and he became the Democratic nominee, you’re goddamn right I would vote for Joe Manchin.

    Why?

    Because there are only two possible outcomes in November’s election – the Democratic nominee is elected, or Donald Trump is re-elected. There is no Democratic candidate in the field whose election would have worse consequences for this country than Donald Trump’s re-election. None. Not one. As such, I must do everything in my power to see that Donald Trump is not re-elected, which means I must vote for the Democratic nominee, even if I can’t stand the person.

    It’s not rocket science. A lot of purity pony BernieBros fucked things up for us badly in 2016 by refusing to vote for Clinton, and if I thought behaving vindictively in response wouldn’t have massive negative ramifications for hundreds of millions of people, I would tell every BernieBro on the planet to get fucked if they begged me to vote for him after he won the nomination. But I can’t afford to be vindictive about this. None of us can. The Supreme Court hangs in the balance, and with it, every single piece of progressive legislation passed in our lifetimes.

    Refusal to vote for a Democratic nominee you don’t personally like constitutes aiding and abetting Donald Trump’s re-election, and I will view anyone who engages in such conduct as complicit in the presidency of the most vile human being ever to taint the Oval Office with his presence. This goes for both those who view Bernie Sanders as their personal messiah and those who despise the man with the same amount of intensity as those who worship him.

  260. 260.

    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony

    @Baud:

    Tulsi has a D next to her name, but everyone here believes she’s even worse than Bernie.

    Not everyone.  Tulsi is my second to last choice, just above Bernie.  I am not a progressive.  I am a moderate.  So while I think Bernie and Tulsi would be equally bad performers in office, I at least align with her policies more.

  261. 261.

    Dennis

    Laughable, tiresome attack angle on Sanders. Any port in a storm, I guess. Latch on to a tweet that claims Sanders supporters are breaking up their donations into smaller amounts, like who cares?? “Bernie is enriching the banks with transaction fees!”, extra LOL. You look desperate, just like the entire Dem establishment does. And I’m a Warren supporter! But I will happily support Sanders if Warren falters.

Comments are closed.