This is a fabricated narrative.brokenface wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 9:48 pmI didn't call it a cult, but it does have cultish elements in the same way Corbyn's support had. The worry I have, and you hint at it with your comments on Warren, is that it goes to where it becomes 'Bernie or nothing'. Warren may not be as good, she may be closer to status quo, but she is also infinitely, infinitely better than Trump. All of the plausible options are infinitely better than Trump. Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg. All of them.Dolwphin wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 3:27 pmPeople are supporting Sanders because of his transformative social democratic policy agenda. His supporters are more than willing to harshly criticize him when they disagree. Seems like an unfair categorization to label his multi-racial working-class coalition as a "cult". Corbyn almost won the previous election and massively over-performed the polls and that seems to indicate the flaw in you implicit premises. But in the most recent election ... Labor was ambivalent and weak on the key issue: Brexit.brokenface wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 12:36 pmit's like watching a rerun of Corbyn vs labour moderates. Please don't make it a Sanders cult on the left. It'll end up with an election as miserable as Corbyn's vs Johnson.
My impression is Sanders will always have an element of the party against him cause he's not a member, and it's going to be hard enough against the 'evil socialist' propaganda republicans will pump out without having a division on your own side.
Warren seems better option, she's got policies like Sanders but she'd be more tolerable for the moderate side so the party machinery would get behind her properly.
The institutional biases have nothing to do with membership, e.g. compare treatment of Bloomberg, but rather it is about ideology and class interests. Trump admits in leaked audio recordings that Socialism won't be so easy to beat, specifically mentions student/medical debt relieve. Furthermore, Trump correctly states that Sanders is better than him on trade. And that issue made Trump win the Electoral College by sweeping the Rust Belt.
There is big ideological and theory of change distinctions between the two campaigns. They have different demographic coalitions that highlight these distinctions. Warren have reduced her progressive credentials during this campaign; e.g. moving away from M4A. She have obtained significant funding from Billionaires & Corporate interests. She transferred that dark money from her Senate campaign. She promised, to her credit, not to take such funding during the primary, but have stated that she will during the GE. Her policy proposals that are "like" Sanders is always watered-down; they are means-tested and not universal. Her foreign policy aligns with the unacceptable Status Quo. I have not mentioned her greatest liability here, because technically It Is not about policy, but her dishonesty would be successfully exploited by Trump In a GE.
There's no point having all the ideological purity in the world if you lose the election because you will be able to do none of it. Zero. Four more years of Trump and USA is finished as a democracy. It's nearly gone now.
More Clinton voters voted McCain over Obama, than Sanders voters voted Trump.
Sanders' slogan is "Not Me, Us", and he is trying to build a massive coalition across ideological lines.
If Warren had not stepped back on promoting Medicare for All, or played dirty with the sexism accusations, she would not have lost a lot of favour with the left and people would still have been pushing the Sanders/Warren bill.
And the "purist" left, if you want to call them that have constantly gone after Sanders, especially on foreign policy, angry man Jimmy Dore has even called him a sheep dog.