Bernie Sanders Endorses Joe Biden For President

[morvoran]

Well, I can't say this is much of a surprise as it was a long time coming. Anybody who knows anything (or remembers how things happened in the past) already knew that the DNC would do everything to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination and that Bernie would quickly show his yellow belly and submit to Biden.

I find it odd that this happened shortly after Bernie's press secretary just called Biden's sexual allegation "credible" this past weekend and now Bernie is endorsing the accused rapist. All I got to say is, "these leftists be crazy!!!"

Source: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/13/833528203/bernie-sanders-endorses-joe-biden-for-president

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders officially endorsed his former rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, on Monday.

Sanders, who suspended his campaign last week, had long said he'd support whoever won the Democratic nomination, but he did not formally endorse Biden when he announced an end to his own run on Wednesday.

Sanders made the announcement as he remotely joined Biden on a livestream video.

"Today I'm asking all Americans ... to come together in this campaign to support your candidacy, which I endorse," Sanders said to Biden.

"We've got to make [Donald] Trump a one-term president and we need you in the White House," Sanders added. "So I will do all that I can to see that that happens."

During the livestream, Sanders and Biden discussed the nation's coronavirus response and multiple policy issues.

Specifically, the two announced the formation of several task forces focused on shared policy concerns, including on the economy, education and criminal justice.

"Now, it's no great secret out there, Joe, that you and I have our differences and we're not going to paper them over; that's real," Sanders said. "But I hope that these task forces will come together utilizing the best minds and people in your campaign and in my campaign to work out real solutions to these very, very important problems."

Sanders and Biden clashed over issues including health care, Social Security and guns during the Democratic primary.

Sanders' endorsement of Biden came earlier in the presidential cycle than Sanders' endorsement of nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016. That came in July 2016.

In announcing the suspension of his own campaign last week, Sanders committed to remaining on the ballot in upcoming primaries, to be able to accrue delegates to exert influence over the party platform. But he also acknowledged that it would be "virtually impossible" to surpass Biden in delegates to obtain the nomination.

Toward the end of the livestream, Sanders joked that the two should play chess, and Biden touted his longtime friendship with Sanders.

"I appreciate your friendship, and I promise you I will not let you down," Biden said to Sanders.

"I know you are the kind of guy who is going to be inclusive," Sanders said. "You want to bring people in, even people who disagree with you. You want to hear what they have to say," Sanders said. "We can argue it out. It's called democracy. You believe in democracy. So do I," he added.

Biden has accumulated 1,228 pledged delegates, according to NPR's delegate tracker. Wisconsin was set to release the results of its primary, held last week, later Monday.

 

[Xzi]

No shock there, he promised to endorse the eventual nominee at the very start of the campaign. If there's one flaw with the way Bernie handles himself, it's that he's simply too nice.

 

[morvoran]

If there's one flaw with the way Bernie handles himself, it's that he's simply too nice.

No, he's too lilly livered. We don't need somebody that would let China and Russia (or even Canada) push them around and take over while they stand to the side and wait for them to finish.

 

[Xzi]

No, he's too lilly livered. We don't need somebody that would let China and Russia (or even Canada) push them around and take over while they stand to the side and wait for them to finish.

Russia, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have Trump's ass branded with their nation's flags already. Bernie would've be the least susceptible of all 2020 candidates to being bought, considering he took zero in corporate donations.

 

[morvoran]

Trump's ass

You sure are fixated on this, why?

Russia, Israel, and Saudi Arabia

Russia - didn't the whole "Russia collusion" hoax teach you anything? Maybe ask Obama what he meant when he told Putin he'd have "more leverage" in his second term.
Israel is an ally to the US, not just to Trump.
I can't see Saudi Arabia as being "Trump friendly" seeing that we are now energy independent and giving them way less of our money as the last several presidents. Don't you remember when Obama bowed to their king?

Bernie would've be the least susceptible of all 2020 candidates to being bought

Pppffff, yeah, ok.

considering he took zero in corporate donations.

No, he just took money from unemployed people who were expecting "free stuff" and now they have less money since Bernie screwed them.

 

[Xzi]

Russia - didn't the whole "Russia collusion" hoax teach you anything?

Yeah, it taught me there's a whole lot of public evidence for Putin directly funding Trump through Deutsche Bank, and far more which has been kept secret.

Israel is an ally to the US, not just to Trump.

Zionists* like Netanyahu are an ally to Trump, and they couldn't give two shits about what happens to the US. They just want to use our military to do their dirty work for them, and thus Trump is guaranteed to go to war with Iran if reelected. Hell, he might even do it before the election if polls aren't looking favorable to him.

I can't see Saudi Arabia as being "Trump friendly" seeing that we are now energy independent

Are you kidding me? The only time Trump mentions SA at all is to praise Mohammad Bin Salman. There have also been plenty of mentions of bailouts for oil companies because of how full the worldwide reserves have become.

 

[notimp]

"It wont be a suprise, anyone that does know anything..."

.. knows that if you have political constituency (people that vote for you), and are ideology driven (Sanders, mostly - certainly not any of the - 'who should I endorce while dropping out at the exact right time for the DNC wish candidate' candidates), you can change public debate and thereby parts of the political program of the running nominee.

Not sure thats very much the case this year, because the dropping out play (followed by a no public debates clause because of Covid-19) really wrecked Sanders importance as far as the media circuit was concerned, but at least him endorsing the democratic candidate means something. Compared to all the other minority pandering pool candidates that literally only had one job.

To fall over at the exact opportune moment.

And the show goes on.

 

[strawpoll-legend]

I don't understand why people view this as selling out. If Bernie fans don't vote Joe, Trump will win 2020. He has no choice but to publicly endorse Biden, unless he would be happy with another 4 years of Trump.

 

[Ignint]

His options for people to endorse was certainly narrow.

 

[SG854]

Bernie Sanders endorses taking a shit in a Republican restroom.

 

[Foxi4]

Bernie Sanders endorses taking a shit in a Republican restroom.

To be fair, the Republican ones are probably cleaner - conservatives are naturally inclined towards orderliness and have a higher disgust sensitivity.

 

[CallmeBerto]

I don't understand why people view this as selling out. If Bernie fans don't vote Joe, Trump will win 2020. He has no choice but to publicly endorse Biden, unless he would be happy with another 4 years of Trump.

Bernie got really popular as being anti-establishment. Joe is everything wrong with the establishment.

 

[Foxi4]

Bernie got really popular as being anti-establishment. Joe is everything wrong with the establishment.

People were hoping for a great anti-establishment showdown. Thing is, the radically progressive segment of the DNC that people really like is relatively small, so it was fairly predictable that this thing will be a repeat of 2016. They wanted a nice, mellow candidate, and Joe fit the bill until he started falling apart right before our eyes.

 

[notimp]

Absolutely wrong.

In 2016 a ground swell of support for fringe politics occurred in the US as people wanted to see things change - badly. That almost (and it was close) made Sanders a democratic nominee. And it partly (allthough with a white nationalist 'community' angle) was what brought Trump the presidency.

Candidates are not chosen, or elected, because they are 'nice and mellow'. (But apparently because they attract the needed demographic well.)

What happend this year is, that people on the left could be segmented into showing support for superfluous surface stuff. (I'm with the gay candidate, I'm with the black candidate, I'm with the strong women, I'm with the progressive women that talks a little like sanders, I'm with the straight laced guy...) Then DNC told some of those mildly successful token *something* candidates, when to break off and who to support - at the worst time for the Sanders campaign, in the worst election system I've ever had to look at (snowballs, and allows for open influence, and for voting results to get published, before everyone has voted).

But the important part comes then.

Sanders didn't end his campaign then and there (it was pretty obvious that he was dead as a candidate, five days after the breakoff endorsements (I resign my campaign and endorse Biden)), because he hoped that something like in 2016 could happen again. A little outrage over what had happened, groundswell, momentum changes - and hes back in the race.

Now why didnt that happen? The official analysis within his campaign points at - the people just didn't show. No political issue really was important to them, they just wanted to cheer a little for their token candidates, then fall behind the designated DNC nomination (who had done nothing to separate himself from the pack at that point).

But we also know - that Elisabeth Warren continued in the race pretty much only (far longer than made statistical sense), to split sanders voter base (she had one big sponsor that 'allowed her to') - and if one candidate gets 4 endorcements from token candidates at the exact point, when snowballing (influence on other voters) benefits are statistically highest... well. Thats it - its over.
--

So the short of it is - America couldnt care less about actual politics, whatever they are doing is something like a reality show voting contest, where in the end they do something without hearing a political argument ever.

Sometimes they are angry enough - that they vote for something that isnt establishment.

But that in itself means nothing. Because even in trying that they could vote someone like Trump in that really, really doesnt know much (And has problems keeping the White House staffed with anyone who knows anything - and/or would dare to speak up when needed. (Aaaand fired...)). So then its institutions in power again.

(The elections where you dont just vote for the president are important as well, you know?)

And the political impulse goes towards making the country more isolationist. (But not in any important capacity - where it would hurt economically, but more so in a kind of playground, where North Korea becomes 'very important' (not so much... (I mean - attention helps...)), and bullying the head of the WHO seems like a worthwhile thing... Or the wall thing, symbolism, for symbolisms sake...

And in the end, what happened structurally was, that credit got pumped into the economy - so some older factory jobs survived a little longer. But indirectly - so by giving money to the leadership structures of those companies.

Now granted, an Institution like the ECB does the same thing in Europe, but at least there it is tied to having to produce new upstart projects, and pay for the risk. In the US its feared again, that stimulus will be used for stock buybacks, and not much else.

All the 'important' decision on the progressive left are now argued to be foreign political ones. And they are important. Its just that the average american voter knows nothing about foreign politics. They even dont know as much - as actually none of what your presidential candidates are running on is actually political. (In any important structual sense.) Its like everyone gets into a side project for a while, as a hobby (you know - like building a wall), and then forgets about it again shortly after.

And that apparently means 'people are happy enough' and there was no ground swell this time for progressive programs - according even to Sanders campaign strategists... (2016 there was)


People were just - complacent in 2020, which must mean, that everything is kind of fine...


And then you look at this as a foreigner, and you see protofashist rhetoric (strong man politics), structural racism, no political topics being discussed so far at all (except for 'socialism' which was attack PR and not what Sanders was campaigning for (democratic socialism, very different (even historically))), a political candidate that gets chosen, by the DNC - because he appeals to democraphics. A 2016 election that was decided at least in part by microtargeted ads that taught people to be complacent and not go to the polls.

And someone whose takeaway from this is - DNC chose their candidate, because they wanted someone with more smile. Which is absolutely wrong. But also the official line for why he was chosen ('electibility' - which means nothing).

"I elected him, because he seemed electable" is a tautology.

And then America wants healthcare (that helicopter money (government checks) was distributed so people wouldnt fall out of healthcare, during the crisis (for the rest you still had foodstamp programs I guess). And still millions of them did, during the curfews.

And then you go with the candidate that promises you 'what Obama already did'? Maybe some more situational improvements - nothing too harsh.
-

So yeah. Kind of strange all around...

Oh, and btw thats not me saying vote Trump - because, from a foreign policy perspective - really, no, please don't. Thats just this strange 'what the heck are you doing' and why do you think thats political/democratic...

edit: Let me answer my own lamenting question. I just made the mistake of entering Biden into a youtube search. The first video that I would deem 'probably mostly political in content' shows up at position 72. With Trump I'd like to say that 'I'm still scrolling', but his official function as 'explainer in chief during the crisis (says everything once, changes it the next day)' saves him. With him one shows up within probably the first 10.

But thats exactly my problem. What Biden seems to be doing currently is telling old people, how they can talk to their grandchildren with a green meadow no smaller than 10 feet separating them in distance (as a response to a featured tweet of 'I'm so sad, when can I talk to my grandchildren again'), And how he is sending them pictures and messages everyday on facebook. Sure whatever works and is needed I guess - but none of that is political. If thats one part out of ten in an interview or townhall, I have no problem with it - but if its all there is...

And thats not his campaign PR - no, thats a media circuit interview. (MSNBC)

Meanwhile Alex Jones cruises through the streets in a 'I cant believe its not a humvy' with people with automatic rifles protesting social isolation measures, cheering him on streetside... I mean you dont need PR people for this anymore - just think of the most profane childhood boys fantasy - pervert it maximally, reenact it in reality. (At least thats a form of venting. Sure - let that happen...)

Then everyone can collectively learn to ignore it - and then it becomes magically better through ignoring (or because everyone could vent) - you know - like on facebook.

 

[Foxi4]

Absolutely wrong.

In 2016 a ground swell of support for fringe politics occurred in the US as people wanted to see things change - badly. That almost (and it was close) made Sanders a democratic nominee. And it partly (allthough with a white nationalist 'community' angle) was what brought Trump the presidency.

Candidates are not chosen, or elected, because they are 'nice and mellow'.

What happend this year is, that people on the left could be segmented into showing support for superfluous surface stuff. (I'm with the gay candidate, I'm with the black candidate, I'm with the strong women, I'm with the progressive women that talks a little like sanders, I'm with the straight laced guy...) Then DNC told some of those mildly successful token *something* candidates, when to break off and who to support - at the worst time for the Sanders campaign, in the worst election system I've ever had to look at (snowballs, and allows for open influence, and for voting results to get published, before everyone has voted).

But the important part comes then.

Sanders didn't end his campaign then and there (it was pretty obvious that he was dead as a candidate, five days after the breakoff endorsements (I resign my campaign and endorse Biden)), because he hoped that something like in 2016 could happen again. A little outrage over what had happened, groundswell, momentum changes - and hes back in the race.

Now why didnt that happen? The official analysis within his campaign points at - the people just didn't show. No political issue really was important to them, they just wanted to cheer a little for their token candidates, then fall behind the designated DNC nomination (who had done nothing to separate himself from the pack at that point).

But we also know - that Elisabeth Warren continued in the race pretty much only (far longer than made statistical sense), to split sanders voter base (she had one big sponsor that 'allowed her to') - and if one candidate gets 4 endorcements from token candidates at the exact point, when snowballing (influence on other voters) benefits are statistically highest... well. Thats it - its over.
--

So the short of it is - America couldnt care less about actual politics, whatever they are doing is something like a reality show voting contest, where in the end they do something without hearing a political argument ever.

Sometimes they are angry enough - that they vote for something that isnt establishment.

But that in itself means nothing. Because even in trying that they could vote someone like Trump in that really, really doesnt know much (And has problems keeping the White House staffed with anyone who knows anything - and/or would dare to speak up when needed. (Aaaand fired...)). So then its institutions in power again.

(The elections where you dont just vote for the president are important as well, you know?)

And the political impulse goes towards making the country more isolationist. (But not in any important capacity - where it would hurt economically, but more so in a kind of playground, where North Korea becomes 'very important' (not so much... (I mean - attention helps...)), and bullying the head of the WHO seems like a worthwhile thing... Or the wall thing, symbolism, for symbolisms sake...

And in the end, what happened structurally was, that credit got pumped into the economy - so some older factory jobs survived a little longer. But indirectly - so by giving money to the leadership structures of those companies.

Now granted, an Institution like the ECB does the same thing in Europe, but at least there it is tied to having to produce new upstart projects, and pay for the risk. In the US its feared again, that stimulus will be used for stock buybacks, and not much else.

All the 'important' decision on the progressive left are now argued to be foreign political ones. And they are important. Its just that the average american voter knows nothing about foreign politics. They even dont know as much - as actually none of what your presidential candidates are running on is actually political. (In any important structual sense.) Its like everyone gets into a side project for a while, as a hobby (you know - like building a wall), and then forgets about it again shortly after.

And that apparently means 'people are happy enough' and there was no ground swell this time for progressive programs - according even to Sanders campaign strategists... (2016 there was)


People were just - complacent in 2020, which must mean, that everything is kind of fine...


And then you look at this as a foreigner, and you see protofashist rhetoric (strong man politics), structural racism, no political topics being discussed so far at all (except for 'socialism' which was attack PR and not what Sanders was campaigning for (democratic socialism, very different (even historically))), a political candidate that gets chosen, by the DNC - because he appeals to democraphics. A 2016 election that was decided at least in part by microtargeted ads that taught people to be complacent and not go to the polls.

And someone whose takeaway from this is - DNC chose their candidate, because they wanted someone with more smile. Which is absolutely wrong. But also the official line for why he was chosen ('electibility' - which means nothing).

"I elected him, because he seemed electable" is a tautology.

And then America wants healthcare (that helicopter money (government checks) was distributed so people wouldnt fall out of healthcare, during the crisis (for the rest you still had foodstamp programs I guess). And still millions of them did, during the curfews.

And then you go with the candidate that promises you 'what Obama already did'? Maybe some more situational improvements - nothing too harsh.
-

So yeah. Kind of strange all around...

Oh, and btw thats not me saying vote Trump - because, from a foreign policy perspective - really, no, please don't. Thats just this strange 'what the heck are you doing' and why do you think thats political/democratic...

edit: Let me answer my own lamenting question. I just made the mistake of entering Biden into a youtube search. The first video that I would deem 'probably mostly political in content' shows up at position 72. With Trump I'd like to say that 'I'm still scrolling', but his official function as 'explainer in chief during the crisis (says everything once, change it the next day)' saves him. With him one shows up within probably the first 10.

But thats exactly my problem. What Biden seems to be doing currently is telling old people, how they can talk to their grandchildren with a green meadow no smaller than 10 feet separating them in distance (as a response to a featured tweet of 'I'm so sad, when can I talk to my grandchildren again'), And how he is sending them pictures and messages everyday on facebook. Sure whatever works and is needed I guess - but none of that is political. If thats one part out of ten in an interview or townhall, I have no problem with it - but if its all there is...

And thats not his campaign PR - no, thats a media circuit interview. (MSNBC)

Meanwhile Alex Jones cruises through the streets in a 'I cant believe its not a humvy' with people with automatic rifles protesting social isolation measures, cheering him on streetside... I mean you dont need PR people for this anymore - just think of the most profane childhood boys fantasy - pervert it maximally, reenact it in reality. (At least thats a form of venting. Sure - let that happen...)

Oh please, the 2016 primary absolutely was rigged against Sanders, we've known that for a while now, their e-mail chain leaked. The Sanders campaign was internally derided and stifled, meanwhile the Clinton campaign was pushed first and forward. Voters can only vote for what they see or hear, so when the party picks their "preferred winner" internally, it all gets a little murky.

Choice excerpts:

“Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess”

"It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

You don't need the Russians to interfere with American elections, the DNC is doing a bang-up job by themselves. They do not want a candidate who doesn't have big multimillion dollar donors behind him because they're nearly broke as an organisation. They're burning through money faster than they can raise it, and they're already millions of dollars in debt. They can't hand-pick the winner, no, but they sure can use the "power of suggestion" by putting Sanders waaay at the bottom of the ballot when, realistically, only Biden and Sanders had a chance at the nomination and should've been the top two choices on the list. They'd have an excuse if the names were listed alphabetically, but they were not. Of course this was different in each state, but the point stands.

 

[notimp]

Oh please, the primary absolutely was rigged against Sanders, we've known that for a while now, their internal e-mail chain leaked. The Sanders campaign was internally derided and stifled, meanwhile the Clinton campaign was pushed first and forward. Voters can only vote for what they see or hear, so when the party picks their "preferred winner" internally, it all gets a little murky.

Sure - but he got somewhere through public support in 2016. This time - nothing. nada. Niente. (Silently fizzled out. No media attention, no programmatic influence, ...)

Some people being miffed for a day that Pete wasnt the right candidate to go with - oh well. (He had the best haircut, though... (parasocial connection more important, than political program)).

Thats a difference that was there. On why its there I'm not sure - campaign organisation says its because 'people didnt come, because they didn't care enough about issues' - I say - with a primaries system thats that susceptible to outside influence...

(Primaries system is designed to be all about momentum (= popularity), and momentum that you can buy with favors (endorsements) - more easily if you are big (establishment). Then you only need someone that resonates with people (called a vessel, even within the Sanders campaign (was a wtf moment for me the first time I heard that))) - so apparently everyone in the US just takes this as a given - totally normal.)

 

[Foxi4]

Sure - but he got somewhere through public support in 2016. This time - nothing. nada. Niente. (Silently fizzled out. No media attention, no programmatic influence, ...)

Some people being miffed for a day that Pete wasnt the right candidate to go with - oh well. (He had the best haircut, though... (parasocial connection more important, than political program)).

Thats a difference that was there. On why its there I'm not sure - campaign organisation says its because 'people didnt come, because they didn't care enough about issues' - I say - with a primaries system thats that susceptible to outside influence...

(Primaries system is designed to be all about momentum (= popularity), and momentum you can buy with favors (endorsements) - more easily of you are big (establishment). Then you only need someone that resonates with people (called a vessel, even within the Sanders campaign (was a wtf moment for me the first time I heard that))) - so apparently everyone in the US just takes this as a given - totallynormal.)

To be fair, the media is complacent in robbing the voter of information and ensuring that the public sees the inoffensive, milquetoast candidate that appeals to the broadest target audience well ahead of the pack. That said, I can see what you're saying - the 2020 primary was a bit of a shit show, to put it mildly.

 

[qqq1]

It always annoys me how candidates run against each other saying "The other people running are so terrible and it would be awful to choose them I'm the only good person here" but when they don't make it they change to "Oh this other person is so great you gotta vote for them."

 

[Foxi4]

It always annoys me how candidates run against each other saying "The other people running are so terrible and it would be awful to choose them I'm the only good person here" but when they don't make it they change to "Oh this other person is so great you gotta vote for them."

I mean, yeah, it's a race, it has to be competitive. However, I too would prefer if they stuck to one stance or the other, in my case I'd like them more if they were competitive and combative all the time. I live under no delusion of party unity, these people most likely hate each other.

 

[notimp]

It always annoys me how candidates run against each other saying "The other people running are so terrible and it would be awful to choose them I'm the only good person here" but when they don't make it they change to "Oh this other person is so great you gotta vote for them."

Thats another thing, political attack ads are forbidden in most of europe. (Also in the US they are usually payed for by superpacs. (Not the actual campaigns, but pretty much the actual campaigns (coordinated with the campaigns (even though they shouldnt legally)))

Of course facebook is still unregulated, and now plays a major role in circumventing that, but here it wasnt a factor five years ago. And is much less 'normal' than in the US still (its not something you expect to see (political culture)).

If you were wondering why I sometimes referenced the daisy ad, here is its history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning

Daisy ad: