Sanders hits at Cornel West over criticism of Biden

[ThatRobGuy]

Sanders hits at Cornel West over criticism of Biden

"There is a real question whether democracy is going to remain in the United States of America," Sanders said.

www.politico.com

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hit back at third-party presidential hopeful Cornel West, after West knocked the prominent progressive for backing President Joe Biden in the 2024 election.

Some politicians are so fearful of former President Donald Trump retaking the White House that “they don’t really want to tell the full truth,” West said. “[Biden has] created the best economy that we can get. Is this the best that we can get? You don’t tell that lie to the people just for Biden to win,” West said in a clip played on CNN Sunday.


Apart from the fact that this seems to be something of a 180 compared to how Sanders used to talk...

Are democrats genuinely thinking that Biden is doing a great job (Bernie and AOC both endorsing him...despite being critical last time around ....AOC going as far as saying that she and him don't even belong in the same party)? Or are they just more worried that West could potentially have the ability to play spoiler and split the vote? (similar to Nader in 2000 when he siphoned off enough votes to cost Gore the election).


In possibly related news...it would appear that some media outlets (that wouldn't dare badmouth him before because of the implications), are seemingly willing to do so now. Is the timing of ABC, WaPo, and DailyBeast being willing to run with the "Deadbeat Dad" angle for a guy who they wouldn't have dared said that about a year ago (out of fear of being accused of using 'racist dogwhistles') coincidental?

Green Party candidate Cornel West owes more than half a million dollars in taxes and child support: Records

Green Party candidate Cornel West currently owes about half a million dollars between unpaid taxes and unpaid child support, according to tax records.

abcnews.go.com

 

[FireDragon76]

I am afraid I agree more with Sanders than Dr. West. I wish things were different, as I do respect Dr. West. I just think democracy in the US is so fragile, I'd rather go with incrementalism than trying to bank on the very slim chance that Dr. West could pull off an electoral victory.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I am afraid I agree more with Sanders than Dr. West. I wish things were different, as I do respect Dr. West. I just think democracy in the US is so fragile, I'd rather go with incrementalism than trying to bank on the very slim chance that Dr. West could pull off an electoral victory.

But the "threat of the other team winning" is always going to be present...

At what point does the "we all just need to rally around this guy so the other team doesn't win" become a way of squashing "inside competition"?


It seems like this would be a problem with an easy solution (if party analysts are truthful in where public policy sentiments are)...that solution being, Biden could just adopt some of the policies of Cornell West, right? Then Cornell (and all of the potential Cornell supporters) could get behind Biden.

If the response to that is "well, if Biden does that, then he won't be able to win because he'd alienate too many people", then that means those ideas aren't really that popular.

If it's not that, then the only other explanation would be that the corporate entities pulling the strings don't like Cornell's ideas, and the DNC is willing to sellout and largely maintain the status quo in order to stay in their good graces by sticking with a guy who's not going to make too many waves.

Neither is exactly a good look...

 

[FireDragon76]

But the "threat of the other team winning" is always going to be present...

At what point does the "we all just need to rally around this guy so the other team doesn't win" become a way of squashing "inside competition"?


It seems like this would be a problem with an easy solution (if party analysts are truthful in where public policy sentiments are)...that solution being, Biden could just adopt some of the policies of Cornell West, right? Then Cornell (and all of the potential Cornell supporters) could get behind Biden.

If the response to that is "well, if Biden does that, then he won't be able to win because he'd alienate too many people", then that means those ideas aren't really that popular.

If it's not that, then the only other explanation would be that the corporate entities pulling the strings don't like Cornell's ideas, and the DNC is willing to sellout and largely maintain the status quo in order to stay in their good graces by sticking with a guy who's not going to make too many waves.

Neither is exactly a good look...

You are making some kind of equivocation where I just don't see any. The blue team has a right-of-center politician running on a platform of regulated capitalist economics, the red team has a criminally indicted pathological narcissist as their frontrunner, who has expressed a desire to wreck revenge and havoc upon this country.

It's a no brainer why Sanders might opt for the safer candidate. No appeal to nefarious conspiracies and ulterior motives are needed.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You are making some kind of equivocation where I just don't see any. The blue team has a right-of-center politician running on a platform of regulated capitalist economics, the red team has a criminally indicted pathological narcissist as their frontrunner, who has expressed a desire to wreck revenge and havoc upon this country.

It's a no brainer why Sanders might opt for the safer candidate. No appeal to nefarious conspiracies and ulterior motives are needed.

it's not appealing to conspiracies.

Bernie himself was the victim of DNC meddling in order to maintain the status quo, despite his ideas having quite a bit of popularity (a not-small percentage of people who ultimately voted for Trump, were Bernie supporters...suggesting that his ideas that were popular even on the other side of the fence)

Donna Brazile (who took over after the predecessor was fired) acknowledged as much...
As did Elizabeth Warren

Was the Democratic primary rigged?

Democrats made a big mistake in the 2016 primary.

www.vox.com

(both of which ended up walking some statements back...gee, I wonder why)

The DNC is always going to make whoever the GOP frontrunner is as "the worst thing ever" and "our person is the safer vote". They did it to Bush & Romney. (who are now labelled as "one of the good ones" now that they're no longer consequential and don't present any sort of threat)

 

[FireDragon76]

it's not appealing to conspiracies.

Bernie himself was the victim of DNC meddling in order to maintain the status quo, despite his ideas having quite a bit of popularity (a not-small percentage of people who ultimately voted for Trump, were Bernie supporters...suggesting that his ideas that were popular even on the other side of the fence)

Donna Brazile (who took over after the predecessor was fired) acknowledged as much...
As did Elizabeth Warren

Bernie can probably recognize that some things are bigger than him. That's called being a grownup and not being petty.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Are democrats genuinely thinking that Biden is doing a great job (Bernie and AOC both endorsing him...despite being critical last time around ....AOC going as far as saying that she and him don't even belong in the same party)? Or are they just more worried that West could potentially have the ability to play spoiler and split the vote? (similar to Nader in 2000 when he siphoned off enough votes to cost Gore the election).

Probably both. I think we can all agree it'd be nicer to have somebody younger at the helm, but Biden's had a decent number of legislative wins and no unforced errors that I can recall. Inflation and the border situation are unlikely to have been any better under another Dem and he's managed the diplomacy of the Ukraine war pretty well. He's even handled the whole Hunter thing about as well as could be hoped.

But the "threat of the other team winning" is always going to be present...

At what point does the "we all just need to rally around this guy so the other team doesn't win" become a way of squashing "inside competition"?

You can't escape this dynamic with a first-past-the-post system. If West doesn't want to be a spoiler, then he ought to operate within the primary system. If he's okay with being a spoiler, then what is he actually fighting for?

I'm all for ranked choice voting, but until then, third party candidates at the national level are just engaging in self-serving vanity projects.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Bernie can probably recognize that some things are bigger than him. That's called being a grownup and not being petty.

Everyone being "grown-ups" and "just back the lesser of two evils even if you don't like them" is how we ended up being a nation of over 300 million, and only having two parties represented in our legislative branch.

The lack of competition hasn't been a net positive.


There's currently no motivation for either party to get better if the public discourse is going to be centered around "well, you just need to do the right thing and vote for our guy"

The fact that we've devolved to where we're going to have our next presidential election determined by a incoherent shouting match between two 80 year olds (and not even new ones...we're getting a re-run) shows that the complacency the DNC and RNC have isn't doing us any favors.

Much smaller westernized countries (both in terms of landmass, population, and diversity) manage to have several parties represented...alliances are formed between parties when it comes time to make selections for the highest offices, but it involves compromise and not just badgering the smaller parties into getting on board without the bigger parties making any changes.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Everyone being "grown-ups" and "just back the lesser of two evils even if you don't like them" is how we ended up being a nation of over 300 million, and only having two parties represented in our legislative branch.

No, having two parties is a byproduct of a first-past-the-post electoral system.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you want more parties to have a voice, switch to a different method of electing people.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Probably both. I think we can all agree it'd be nicer to have somebody younger at the helm, but Biden's had a decent number of legislative wins and no unforced errors that I can recall. Inflation and the border situation are unlikely to have been any better under another Dem and he's managed the diplomacy of the Ukraine war pretty well. He's even handled the whole Hunter thing about as well as could be hoped.

At the risk of being a little over-punctilious, Biden can't have legislative wins, he's in the executive branch. Any "wins" he's had is the result of democrats in the legislature doing the work of negotiating, wielding power, and getting a piece of paper to his desk to sign. I don't see him having the influence or stamina to be a critical part of those processes.

You can't escape this dynamic with a first-past-the-post system. If West doesn't want to be a spoiler, then he ought to operate within the primary system. If he's okay with being a spoiler, then what is he actually fighting for?

I'm all for ranked choice voting, but until then, third party candidates at the national level are just engaging in self-serving vanity projects.

On that we agree 100%, I've linked this video before and I'll link it again, I'm a big fan of the alternative vote (or ranked choice as it's also called)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No, having two parties is a byproduct of a first-past-the-post electoral system.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you want more parties to have a voice, switch to a different method of electing people.

Canada has FPTP voting for their legislative branch...they still manage to have a legislative branch with more than 2 parties represented (forcing the 2 larger ones to make concessions and deals)

In fact, so does the UK and Iceland
Iceland:

UK

I'll agree that FPTP voting contributes to the problem, but it's not the only culprit.

In the US, the social pressure of "Well, you're libertarian, you just need to vote for the republicans" or "Well, if you identify with the green party, you just need to vote for democrats when it counts" is something that's clearly not happening in those countries. (or at least not to the same degree)

 

[iluvatar5150]

Canada has FPTP voting for their legislative branch...they still manage to have a legislative branch with more than 2 parties represented (forcing the 2 larger ones to make concessions and deals)

View attachment 335545

In fact, so does the UK and Iceland
Iceland:
View attachment 335547

UK
View attachment 335548


I'll agree that FPTP voting contributes to the problem, but it's not the only culprit.

In the US, the social pressure of "Well, you're libertarian, you just need to vote for the republicans" or "Well, if you identify with the green party, you just need to vote for democrats when it counts" is something that's clearly not happening in those countries. (or at least not to the same degree)

Doesn't their parliamentary system also have something to do with encouraging the success of more parties?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Doesn't their parliamentary system also have something to do with encouraging the success of more parties?

With regards to their lower houses of the legislative branch, I don't see how it could.

Their systems have some differences, but the "in-power party" (based on the house of commons) having their leader be the PM isn't any less consequential than the outcomes of our elections (in fact, it may be more so)

So one could argue that an MP vote in Canada carries more weight than a house rep vote here in the US. As here in the US, you can vote for a house rep from a party without any direct implications on who the president will be (IE: you can vote for a GOP rep, but a democratic president...people in the New England states do it quite a bit)

Based on my (albeit limited) knowledge of Canadian politics (I have family and friends up there and go there several times a year), if someone is a member of the NDP, they can vote their conscience without as much worry about people in the Liberal Party lambasting them for "not doing the right thing". The onus is on the Liberal Party to make the necessary changes to get the NDP on-board for a coalition to beat the Conservative Party, and not on the NDP members to cave on their positions "just to keep the Conservatives out of power".


I think the US would be in a much better place if Democratic and Republican ideas had to be run through Green and Libertarian filters...and more importantly, if if Democratic and Republican candidates had to get at least some measure of Green and Libertarian approval in order to get in power.

For instance, I can easily think of several examples where the GOP platform could be made better by needing to get Libertarian buy-in in order to have the votes to win. Most obvious ones being, the war on drugs would be over, separation of church and state would have to be cemented, and neocon warmongering would have to be drastically tamped down if the GOP ever wanted to be in power.

Likewise, Democrats would have to reign in their corporate ties and actually add more teeth to their stance on climate issues if they wanted to get the required headcount.


A Democrat with Green approval vs. a Republican with Libertarian approval would be a better, more substantive debate than what we're going to get a year from now.

 

[iluvatar5150]

With regards to their lower houses of the legislative branch, I don't see how it could.

Their systems have some differences, but the "in-power party" (based on the house of commons) having their leader be the PM isn't any less consequential than the outcomes of our elections (in fact, it may be more so)

So one could argue that an MP vote in Canada carries more weight than a house rep vote here in the US. As here in the US, you can vote for a house rep from a party without any direct implications on who the president will be (IE: you can vote for a GOP rep, but a democratic president...people in the New England states do it quite a bit)

Based on my (albeit limited) knowledge of Canadian politics (I have family and friends up there and go there several times a year), if someone is a member of the NDP, they can vote their conscience without as much worry about people in the Liberal Party lambasting them for "not doing the right thing". The onus is on the Liberal Party to make the necessary changes to get the NDP on-board for a coalition to beat the Conservative Party, and not on the NDP members to cave on their positions "just to keep the Conservatives out of power".


I think the US would be in a much better place if Democratic and Republican ideas had to be run through Green and Libertarian filters...and more importantly, if if Democratic and Republican candidates had to get at least some measure of Green and Libertarian approval in order to get in power.

For instance, I can easily think of several examples where the GOP platform could be made better by needing to get Libertarian buy-in in order to have the votes to win. Most obvious ones being, the war on drugs would be over, separation of church and state would have to be cemented, and neocon warmongering would have to be drastically tamped down if the GOP ever wanted to be in power.

I don't really understand how parliamentary systems are different from Congress, but afaik nearly every parliament has several parties and often some sort of coalition government. For the difference in results to be that stark and that long-lived, I have to imagine the driving forces are more systemic than merely people hedging against spoilers.

 

[Pommer]

I don't really understand how parliamentary systems are different from Congress, but afaik nearly every parliament has several parties and often some sort of coalition government. For the difference in results to be that stark and that long-lived, I have to imagine the driving forces are more systemic than merely people hedging against spoilers.

Their legislative and executive arms derive power from the majority (or coalition they cobble together): there isn’t the neat-divide that our three-legged stool of government has.
The politicking has to be done at the local level to maintain this power.
Some systems provide for a “President” who does all of the diplomacy and statecraft and allows the prime minister free to direct policy for the domestic side of things.

 

[FireDragon76]

FPTP dynamics in presidential elections probably explains why Congress is dominated by two political parties as well, due to the fact people tend to vote for the same parties for both.

 

[durangodawood]

Sanders hits at Cornel West over criticism of Biden

"There is a real question whether democracy is going to remain in the United States of America," Sanders said.

www.politico.com

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hit back at third-party presidential hopeful Cornel West, after West knocked the prominent progressive for backing President Joe Biden in the 2024 election.

Some politicians are so fearful of former President Donald Trump retaking the White House that “they don’t really want to tell the full truth,” West said. “[Biden has] created the best economy that we can get. Is this the best that we can get? You don’t tell that lie to the people just for Biden to win,” West said in a clip played on CNN Sunday.


Apart from the fact that this seems to be something of a 180 compared to how Sanders used to talk...

Are democrats genuinely thinking that Biden is doing a great job (Bernie and AOC both endorsing him...despite being critical last time around ....AOC going as far as saying that she and him don't even belong in the same party)? Or are they just more worried that West could potentially have the ability to play spoiler and split the vote? (similar to Nader in 2000 when he siphoned off enough votes to cost Gore the election).


In possibly related news...it would appear that some media outlets (that wouldn't dare badmouth him before because of the implications), are seemingly willing to do so now. Is the timing of ABC, WaPo, and DailyBeast being willing to run with the "Deadbeat Dad" angle for a guy who they wouldn't have dared said that about a year ago (out of fear of being accused of using 'racist dogwhistles') coincidental?

Green Party candidate Cornel West owes more than half a million dollars in taxes and child support: Records

Green Party candidate Cornel West currently owes about half a million dollars between unpaid taxes and unpaid child support, according to tax records.

abcnews.go.com

Some people dont want to say anything that would appear to benefit Trump, the leading candidate for the other side. I have to say, I cant blame them given the stakes.

As for me, Id much prefer a system where you can vote for your absolute first choice plus backups. Then we could be a lot more freewheeling with our criticisms. For now the unfortunate proper winning strategy is to close ranks.

Of course the D's are worried about a 3rd party threat. Naders antics arguably brought us the Iraq War II by enabling the Bush Neocon revolution. It was a massively consequential downside. We can barely even comprehend the scale of suffering unleashed that reverberates to this day. And for what upside?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't really understand how parliamentary systems are different from Congress, but afaik nearly every parliament has several parties and often some sort of coalition government. For the difference in results to be that stark and that long-lived, I have to imagine the driving forces are more systemic than merely people hedging against spoilers.

That's where the mindset differences come into play that I was referring to.

The difference between Democrats saying "what do we need to do to get the greens on board with us so we can get the majority we need for initiatives A B and C?"
vs.
"Let's just call the greens selfish if they vote for the green party and tell them they just need to do the right thing, put their principles on the backburner, and vote democrat so that republicans don't win"

I think the answer is, in part, that once a duopoly is established, and those two parties get an outsized influence in the election & debate rules, it's tough to claw that back...and that gets combined with the social pressure I referred to earlier.

Sort of a "the first two people to the top of the ladder get to take the ladder with them so nobody else can use it" kind of thing.

What is first past the post? - Fair Vote Canada

What is first past the post? How does it affect elections in Canada? Learn about our winner-take-all voting system and its problems.

www.fairvote.ca

There's an effort by some in Canada to reign in the FPTP voting system due to the fact that it leads to unfair levels of representation that aren't proportional to how people actually voted. However, that doesn't appear to deter people from voting their conscience like it seems to here.

So while the problematic end result is similar to what we deal with here, that doesn't seem to deter people from voting the way they actually want.

Some of the examples they cite

In the US environment, the people in the liberal party (and media allies) would've been socially pressuring the NDPs and Greens to vote for them in order to be able to make sure conservatives don't get a landslide victory.

 

[SummerMadness]

Third parties are not viable in the United States because of how members of Congress are elected. If you want viable third parties, then change our electoral system. No matter the case, another party coming to power only arises when another party implodes.

Nonetheless, if you look at American politics, the two major parties have factions that function like multi-party systems. That's why you here references to wings and caucuses within the Democratic and Republican parties.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Some people dont want to say anything that would appear to benefit Trump, the leading candidate for the other side. I have to say, I cant blame them given the stakes.

As for me, Id much prefer a system where you can vote for your absolute first choice plus backups. Then we could be a lot more freewheeling with our criticisms. For now the unfortunate proper winning strategy is to close ranks.

Of course the D's are worried about a 3rd party threat. Naders antics arguably brought us the Iraq War II by enabling the Bush Neocon revolution. It was a massively consequential downside. We can barely even comprehend the scale of suffering unleashed that reverberates to this day. And for what upside?

...but is there any time when the stakes wouldn't be high enough for them to say "you just need to vote for our guy this time"? Or at least portrayed that way?

While I understand Trump represents something rather concerning and unique in our modern era, they seemed to do the same when Romney was the guy the GOP put up.

There were articles from left leaning outlets expressing concerns that voting for Jill Stein could deliver Romney the presidency, with very similar rhetoric about how "the risks are too great not to vote for Obama"

Conservatives did the same thing to Gary Johnson's campaign...trying to strongarm libertarians into voting GOP in order to "keep Hillary out of the white house".

There's never going be a shortage of "this latest guy from the other side presents a serious threat, so you need to vote with us this time"