Support NeoGAF

[Maxim726X]

I wonder how much Bernie is coloring the perception of this debate. I am less bothered by Mello's past stance on abortion -- which I'm not okay with as a matter of policy, but can accept as part of a 50-state strategy -- and more annoyed with the hypocrisy of Bernie or Bernie-esque thinkers who believe it's okay to compromise on social issues but totally anathema to progressive values to ever compromise on economic issues.

Because there doesn't appear to be any compromise here?

Again, if Mello does indeed vote in tow with the Democrats, no concessions will be made.

 

[freeofgreed]

It has to do with his most outspoken supporters, clearly, some of which are in here decrying people being upset about Mello. How is this confusing to you?

I've yet to see a single person decry people for being upset with Mello. So you'll have to quote some. What people are taking issue with is this double standard, where people are against purity tests and for a 50 state strategy normal, but suddenly in this thread have an issue with it just because of their beef with Bernie.

 

[Nerokis]

Well, duh. This has always been the case, and so long as we hope to have representation in conservative leaning areas, it'll continue to be a good idea to encourage this kind of flexibility. Having people in place who'll be with us 80% of the time is better than having people who'll be against us 80% of the time.

 

[guek]

It has to do with his most outspoken supporters, clearly, some of which are in here decrying people being upset about Mello. How is this confusing to you?

You realize that most Bernie supporters voted Hillary, right? And that Bernie bros were specifically targeted by Russian propaganda to smear Hillary?

 

[wildfire]

If people want to know why this blew up, it's because Sanders was willing to give Mello a pass on abortion because he otherwise mostly aligned with Sanders' views. Which is fine! That's the point of the 50 state strategy. But this happened in the same week that he said he wasn't sure that Ossoff wasn't a progressive because he didn't share Sanders' views on the economy and a few other issues. It wasn't a big deal, and he later clarified his comments about Ossoff and supported him, but he didn't have to say anything at all or at least give token support. Yet when there was an anti-abortion candidate, Sanders didn't make a comment saying he wasn't sure if Mello was progressive, he gave Mello his full support with this reasoning. Why couldn't he do that with Ossoff from the beginning too? The dude just isn't careful in the way he chooses his words, and that's why this blew up

I doubt most people were reacting with this in mind. Regardless it's a fair point that Sanders shouldn't have disparaged Ossef in the manner he did.

 

[Bowler]

As a conservative with moderate social views, I wish someone like Bernie would say this stuff on the Republican front.

 

[Angry Grimace]

why

This is called "politics."

Specifically, getting back the voters that swung to Trump.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

You realize that most Bernie supporters voted Hillary, right? And that Bernie bros were specifically targeted by Russian propaganda to smear Hillary?

Yes, many voted Hillary while acting as if it was the worst thing in the world, missing no opportunity to make sure everyone understood that. Again, helpful. But let's not derail.

50-state strategy is a way forward, even if it means selling your soul a little at a time.

 

[kirblar]

There is a sort of redistribution of voters for both parties happening right now; probably more so for Republicans than Democrats.

Wedge issues have taken surprisingly large roles in the political scene. 82% of evangelicals voted for President Trump despite President Trump being really awkward on religious grounds. Abortion is the king of wedge issues. Democrats see how they're being hurt badly in the short term on abortion in states that they otherwise could do better in. I visit a lot of Republicans discussion groups for insight, and interestingly they're also looking for abortion position adjustments, which I found really interesting, because I think Republicans have the stronger ground on the voter demos for abortion. While I don't have any proof to back it up, I think it's either a concern of long term demographic changes, or the general concern that the Republican party is splintering into three groups based on financial and social grounds.

Overall Democrats stand the most to downplay abortion and gun issues in the short term [something that mass shootings in nearly all demographics wasn't enough to influence change on].

Republican groups seem to feel their biggest concerns are that Democrats look like the party of fiscal responsibility; largely in part to the fiscal apocalypse parties, consisting of President Trump, but also the other extreme known as the tea party, aka freedom caucus, and [thank goodness] they're really concerned that the environmental data that continually comes out is making them look bad, and some are looking for a way to be the champions of the environment in this administration through tax reform without regulations, which I do not believe will work based on our entire market play.

Both parties are probably confused to the rise of populism in the world. They both have big donors which have played into this rise, and there is risk in upsetting the donors. This is really the meta of everything right now. The dual US shift, and world political turmoil towards populism highlights a very strained world economy that isn't being reflected in markets. Whichever party decides to buck plutocratic policies and empowers workers in the US is going to be the winner moving forward, and I think this issue is significant enough to redefine party lines by itself.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from what precedes it. If things are being more and more defined on wedge/social issues, it stands to reason that economic ones aren't going to be enough to bridge the gap.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I am a Democrat and am also pro-life. In every sense of the word. Anti-death penalty, pro-birth control, pro-sex education, pro-WIC and every other social and economical policy designed to make having and raising children as easy as possible.

I just don't think babies deserve to be aborted. YMMV, and I would never run a platform on removing that protection. Democratic leadership should be extremely inclusive of this ideal if they want to actually win state houses, governorships, etc. across the country and not just in the most populous of areas.

 

[freeofgreed]

Yes, many voted Hillary while acting as if it was the worst thing in the world, missing no opportunity to make sure everyone understood that. Again, helpful. But let's not derail.

You started the derail... people really need to let go off that fucking primary.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

If you're going to compromise, compromise. If you're going to stand firm, stand firm. But you can't preach hard for standing firm on A and then compromise on B.

This is the issue folks are having and why Sanders is brought up. This is the sentiment other have as well

Yep. The message that keeps being sent by Bernie, Ellison, and now Perez is that we can compromise on social issues that are important to women and minorities, but we absolutely cannot compromise on economic issues.

Given women and minorities are the backbone of the party, this is not a good message for Bernie and others in leadership to send.

I doubt most people were reacting with this in mind. Regardless it's a fair point that Sanders shouldn't have disparaged Ossef in the manner he did.

I doubt we'd even be talking about Heath Mello if Bernie's support of him wasn't juxtaposed with his nonsupport of Ossoff.

 

[Hindl]

I doubt most people were reacting with this in mind. Regardless it's a fair point that Sanders shouldn't have disparaged Ossef in the manner he did.

That juxtaposition definitely kicked things off for a fair number of people. The other side of this is that women's rights is one of the core Democratic values, especially with women being the biggest core demograpic the Democrats have

 

[freeofgreed]

Yep. The message that keeps being sent by Bernie, Ellison, and now Perez is that we can compromise on social issues that are important to women and minorities, but we absolutely cannot compromise on economic issues.

Given women and minorities are the backbone of the party, this is not a good message for Bernie and others in leadership to send.

I still want to know, how this is him compromising on social issues, and how he never compromises on economic issues. People keep asking but no one is answering.

 

[Blader]

Because there doesn't appear to be any compromise here?

Again, if Mello does indeed vote in tow with the Democrats, no concessions will be made.

If Mello adopts the Kerry/Biden/Kaine view on abortion and pro-choice policy, then you're right, no concessions will be made. But so far he has no history of doing so legislatively and instead has a history of taking explicitly anti-choice actions, so accepting him on those grounds alone now is a compromise.

 

[Trojita]

Yeah. Ain't nothing really wrong with that. Folks got focuses. Regional differences abound.

It's merely previous rhetoric and the idea of there being certain issues one cannot compromise on. You got folks salty, because compromise on other issues outside of his personal focuses being used as a bludgeon against others. Which is why he had to walk back the commentary on Ossoff.

Politics is compromise. Voting is compromise. These things are true because even on a state level, folks are rather different about what they care about.

I applaud Sanders and the DNC for being willing to do the work to get Democrats elected at a local, state, and national level. Because otherwise, we have what we got now. And that level compromise needs to extend to the voting populace, which sometimes means voting for folks you're not in lockstep with on various issues.

Even I have reservations about 5 month abortions personally. Like I couldn't personally authorize one, perform it, and I don't know what I would do if a partner told me they would have one.

At the same time I know that some women don't find out they are pregnant until much later, they have full rights over their body, and I shouldn't tell someone they don't have agency in being a host incubator.

So as a politician I wouldn't make a bill restricting the ability to get an abortion. I'd be pro choice.

 

[kirblar]

You're Lepen comparison still makes no sense. The more you explain to more confused I become. For your comparison to work you'd have to imply that Lepen actually didn't want to curb immigration, but she just said she did to win votes.

Also please explain how he doesn't compromise on economics to this degree. numerous people have pointed out that he does yet they've all be ignored.

I didn't compare him to Le Pen! I said that if you're willing to compromise on social issues, people like Le Pen are your natural allies if you're on the extreme ends of the economic spectrum.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

You started the derail... people really need to let go off that fucking primary.

A very vocal supporter brought up Bernie and Hillary, and I made a little counter-point. Truce? Cool.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I still want to know, how this is him compromising on social issues, and how he never compromises on economic issues. People keep asking but no one is answering.

Well, supporting and campaigning for an anti-choice candidate is very clearly compromising on social issues. I don't think I need to explain anything there.

As far as never compromising on economic issues, one could easily look at his nonsupport of Jon Ossoff. Which he did rectify, even if I think the damage was done.

It's become a common occurrence and Bernie et al need to start thinking before they speak and alienate the Democratic base.

 

[FyreWulff]

Bernie can't even be bothered to look up that our legislature is unicameral and officially nonpartisan..


... and threw women under the bus in a mayoral race that statistically resembles a coin flip between the two parties.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Yep. The message that keeps being sent by Bernie, Ellison, and now Perez is that we can compromise on social issues that are important to women and minorities, but we absolutely cannot compromise on economic issues.

Given women and minorities are the backbone of the party, this is not a good message for Bernie and others in leadership to send.

Other than his comment on Ossoff (which he then issued the statement over, again, he fucked up but he apologized and tried to make up for it) where have they said it's impossible to compromise on economic issues? Bernie was out doing rallies for the ACA even though it's a huge compromise on what he wants, he campaigned for Hillary and supported Obama. Bernie talks about the need for the Democrats to move left on economic issues but I haven't seen him call Ossoff part of the failed establishment or anything. Ossoff certainly has gotten more support from the establishment than Thompson did or Quist will. Their messaging seems to basically be the same as Pelosi's.

I don't even like Mello and I don't think we need shitty candidates like him!

 

[freeofgreed]

I didn't compare him to Le Pen! I said that if you're willing to compromise on social issues, people like Le Pen are your natural allies if you're on the extreme ends of the economic spectrum.

This still doesn't make any sense. What politician doesn't compromise on social issues? by this logic every politician ever is a natural allie of Le Pen. Also I think it's a huge stretch to take what he's saying here as proof of him compromising on social issues.

An very vocal supporter brought up Bernie and Hillary, and I made a little counter-point. Truce? Cool.

That post was in reply to someone who said he never compromised on economic issues. So the poster used his endorsement of Hilary as an example of when he did compromise on economics.

 

[Maxim726X]

If Mello adopts the Kerry/Biden/Kaine view on abortion and pro-choice policy, then you're right, no concessions will be made. But so far he has no history of doing so legislatively and instead has a history of taking explicitly anti-choice actions, so accepting him on those grounds alone now is a compromise.

I see your broader point but I disagree with the conclusion.

A concession would be tapping someone who has a history of pro-life support who promises to continue this support if he wins the Democratic nomination as a means of reaching across the aisle.

Instead, what we have is a vow to never let his personal views interfere with how he votes again, and it would be political suicide to go back on that if elected.

They are not remotely the same, IMO.

 

[Blader]

I still want to know, how this is him compromising on social issues, and how he never compromises on economic issues. People keep asking but no one is answering.

Because Bernie is campaigning for a candidate who was, until very recently, explicitly anti-choice. How is that not a compromise?

I see your broader point but I disagree with the conclusion.

A concession would be tapping someone who has a history of pro-life support who promises to continue this support if he wins the Democratic nomination as a means of reaching across the aisle.

Instead, what we have is a vow to never let his personal views interfere with how he votes again, and it would be political suicide to go back on that if elected.

They are not remotely the same, IMO.

Well, do you believe Bernie supporters compromised their anti-TPP views when they were asked to vote for Hillary Clinton who, just in that campaign, announced her opposition to TPP? I believe her opposition was genuine, even if only because, as you say, it'd be political suicide to go back on it after being elected. But from the views of Bernie supporters being asked to trust a candidate who had been in a favor of that trade deal for years already, wouldn't taking her at her word on her new position be a compromise?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Other than his comment on Ossoff (which he then issued the statement over, again, he fucked up but he apologized and tried to make up for it) where have they said it's impossible to compromise on economic issues? Bernie was out doing rallies for the ACA even though it's a huge compromise on what he wants, he campaigned for Hillary and supported Obama. Bernie talks about the need for the Democrats to move left on economic issues but I haven't seen him call Ossoff part of the failed establishment or anything. Ossoff certainly has gotten more support from the establishment than Thompson did or Quist will. Their messaging seems to basically be the same as Pelosi's.

Even if he eventually did come out with a statement in support of Ossoff, it's been a reoccurring thing with him (identity politics, etc). At some point he needs to just learn to not say anything or at least really sit down and reevalulate why people are upset with him when he says certain things.

 

[Platinumstorm]

I am a Democrat and am also pro-life. In every sense of the word. Anti-death penalty, pro-birth control, pro-sex education, pro-WIC and every other social and economical policy designed to make having and raising children as easy as possible.

I just don't think babies deserve to be aborted. YMMV, and I would never run a platform on removing that protection. Democratic leadership should be extremely inclusive of this ideal if they want to actually win state houses, governorships, etc. across the country and not just in the most populous of areas.

For the Democratic side of things, if there were a Constitutional convention abortion would be banned within the Constitution itself, so the Democratic position is the weak link right now, and they need to make up significant governorship positions.

 

[KingV]

Sanders is the most wishy washy, spineless Democrat to ever get a movement of people following him. Never stands up for what's difficult, always finds ways to sell out the weak.

Throwing moderate Dems to the wolves is what created the current balance in Congress and especially the Senate. We need blue dog Dems in certain states.

I live in Nebraska. I thought Ben Nelson was pretty shitty, and doesn't really reflect my beliefs, but he was a damn sight better than Deb Fischer. Without Ben Nelson you don't have the ACA, even if he supported a constitutional limit on abortion.

A 50 state strategy requires you to get the best Dem you can get in every position you can in each state. Many will be compromises, but you can come together to get some of the big votes through.

Red state Dems aren't pro life "just because", their positions reflect the values of the residents of their state.

 

[boiled goose]

A few points.

1. I don't agree.

2. Why is this framed as anti abortion? No one is pro abortion. If they are anti choice then say anti choice

3. To those criticizing this, I hope you don't ever bring up purity tests or single issue voter nonsense. Disagree on policy and strateg, but Don't be a hypocrite.

 

[freeofgreed]

Because Bernie is campaigning for a candidate who was, until very recently, explicitly anti-choice. How is that not a compromise?

1. He is not compromising, I doubt he's going to be voting for any pro life legislation any time soon.

2. What he said was it's fine to support candidates who are pro-life as long as they don't vote that way. That's extremely tame and as long as it doesn't happen no compromise happens.

3. How does he not compromise in economics in a similar fashion? He's constantly endorsing candidates who don't align with his economics policy.

 

[royalan]

I still want to know, how this is him compromising on social issues, and how he never compromises on economic issues. People keep asking but no one is answering.

Just two weeks ago, Bernie openly refused to endorse a Democratic candidate who sits rather far to the left in a hotly contested Republican seat because he wasn't sure if he was "progressive enough."

Then the next week he turns around and not only openly endorses an anti-abortion candidate, he holds him up as an example of progressiveness, despite holding some stances on social issues that are without a doubt not progressive.

That's what people are talking about.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Even if he eventually did come out with a statement in support of Ossoff, it's been a reoccurring thing with him (identity politics, etc). At some point he needs to just learn to not say anything or at least really sit down and reevalulate why people are upset with him when he says certain things.

I mean I agree with this and it gets tiring to see him keep fucking it up but I'm not getting where the message that it's not okay to compromise on economic issues comes from. Maybe his rhetoric sometimes come across that way but his actions have shown him willing to compromise on them all the time in the past. I haven't seen Perez or Ellison say that economic issues are off limits but social issues are.

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

Accept and try to appeal to anti abortion, racists, misogynists, nazis. At that point what makes you actually a Democrat again?

 

[freeofgreed]

Just two weeks ago, Bernie openly refused to endorse a Democratic candidate who sits rather far to the left in a hotly contested Republican seat because he wasn't sure if he was "progressive enough."

Then the next week he turns around and not only openly endorses an anti-abortion candidate, he holds him up as an example of progressiveness, despite holding some stances on social issues that are without a doubt not progressive.

That's what people are talking about.

He never "refused" to endorse him. His statement was stupid sure, but he later rescinded it and endorsed him anyways.

And do you think pro-life/moderate democrats shouldn't be endorsed/supported by the party?

 

[Kite]

I agree that the Democrats need to soften on one or two points.. but abortion is not it. The stupidity about "assault rifles" is a far better choice.

 

[shamanick]

2. What he said was it's fine to support candidates who are pro-life as long as they don't vote that way. That's extremely tame and as long as it doesn't happen no compromise happens.

Yeah and it's been really rich to see all the centrists demanding this particular purity test, when every Democrat from Pelosi to Clinton to Kaine have always maintained this exact view.

 

[FyreWulff]

I still want to know, how this is him compromising on social issues, and how he never compromises on economic issues. People keep asking but no one is answering.

Anti-abortion is inseparable from anti-woman.

Bernie also shat all over Planned Parenthood during his campaign solely because they were endorsing or where about to endorse Hillary Clinton, which 100% needs "progressives" to not be helping the conservatives put them under, but since it favored him at the time with the brogressives, he went and fucking did it.

Or how he flipped flopped on nevada vs berkely.

Yeah and it's been really rich to see all the centrists demanding this particular purity test, when every Democrat from Pelosi to Clinton to Kaine have always maintained this exact view.

none of those people annointed themselves as the gatekeeper to progressivism...

 

[kirblar]

Yeah and it's been really rich to see all the centrists demanding this particular purity test, when every Democrat from Pelosi to Clinton to Kaine have always maintained this exact view.

Mello historically has NOT held this view.

 

[Maxim726X]

Well, do you believe Bernie supporters compromised their anti-TPP views when they were asked to vote for Hillary Clinton who, just in that campaign, announced her opposition to TPP? I believe her opposition was genuine, even if only because, as you say, it'd be political suicide to go back on it after being elected. But from the views of Bernie supporters being asked to trust a candidate who had been in a favor of that trade deal for years already, wouldn't taking her at her word on her new position be a compromise?

No, I do not. She gave a very well-reasoned, logical explanation as to why she reversed her opinion on TPP.

A concession would be voting for her even if she continued to support TPP.

Ultimately, I care about results and I honestly don't care what a candidate's personal opinion is of abortion. As long as you never vote to restrict access/treatment, then believe what you will.

 

[Blader]

1. He is not compromising, I doubt he's going to be voting for any pro life legislation any time soon.

2. What he said was it's fine to support candidates who are pro-life as long as they don't vote that way. That's extremely tame and as long as it doesn't happen no compromise happens.

3. How does he not compromise in economics in a similar fashion? He's constantly endorsing candidates who don't align with his economics policy.

But that is a compromise! Like when Joe Biden says he's personally opposed to abortion but still supports a woman's right to choose, that is a compromise from being strictly pro-choice. And don't get me wrong, it's a good compromise. I like compromise! But if the opposite of compromising is purity tests, and a purity test on abortion demands pro-choice views, then a compromise would be the mix between the two that politicians like Kerry, Biden, and Kaine -- and maybe Mello -- have adopted: personal opposition, but policy support.

No, I do not. She gave a very well-reasoned, logical explanation as to why she reversed her opinion on TPP.

A concession would be voting for her even if she continued to support TPP.

Ultimately, I care about results and I honestly don't care what a candidate's personal opinion is of abortion. As long as you never vote to restrict access/treatment, then believe what you will.

Agreed.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Now is not the time to work with conservatives. We are at war with them. Stop playing nice, they sure as hell are not.

Why is it the Republicans play dirty, but we always have to play by the rules. They don't.

 

[innervision961]

Good ol' Bernie, sure knows how to over stay his welcome.

 

[KingV]

Because Bernie is campaigning for a candidate who was, until very recently, explicitly anti-choice. How is that not a compromise?

I am not aware of any Nebraska politician that was not pro life in a statewide office. There might be one or two in the state legislature but this is a very common position here.

Saying we will only support pro-choice candidates is effectively ceding the entire state to republicans.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

1. He is not compromising, I doubt he's going to be voting for any pro life legislation any time soon.

2. What he said was it's fine to support candidates who are pro-life as long as they don't vote that way. That's extremely tame and as long as it doesn't happen no compromise happens.

3. How does he not compromise in economics in a similar fashion? He's constantly endorsing candidates who don't align with his economics policy.

He has voted that way, and sponsored anti-women bills. That's what Mello's actually done. His future promises are nice and all, and compromises have to be made for a 50 state strategy to work in these assbackwards deep red states, but again, don't decry people for being pissed off and/or annoyed.

 

[shamanick]

Mello historically has NOT held this view.

I was referring to the fact that they have all stated publicly that it's fine to be a pro-life Democrat. EDIT: they meaning the party leaders, not Mello. I'm not familiar with Mello.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Good to see that the established left media still trying to go after Bernie.

 

[freeofgreed]

Anti-abortion is inseparable from anti-woman.

Bernie also shat all over Planned Parenthood during his campaign solely because they were endorsing or where about to endorse Hillary Clinton, which 100% needs "progressives" to not be helping the conservatives put them under, but since it favored him at the time with the brogressives, he went and fucking did it.

Or how he flipped flopped on nevada vs berkely.



none of those people annointed themselves as the gatekeeper to progressivism...

I agree, and judging by his voting recording he does too. Now the question is do you think pro-life/centrist democrats shouldn't be endorse/supported by the party?

 

[BreezyLimbo]

What are dems who dislike what bernie said gonna do

Vote repub or 3rd party? Yes, throw your vote away!

Wasnt the VP pick, Tim Kaine, pro life as well? His personal views atleast?

 

[freeofgreed]

He has voted that way, and sponsored anti-women bills. That's what Mello's actually done. His future promises are nice and all, and compromises have to be made for a 50 state strategy to work in these assbackwards deep red states, but again,don't decry people for being pissed off and/or annoyed.

When Have I done this? I already explained to you what my issue was.
I haven't made a single comment about people being upset with Mello.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I agree. As long as their votes reflect an anti abortion stance, i don't care what their personal viewpoints are.

a politician can personally believe whatever they want as long as they support what i want.

I wish most of the democrats defended anti corruption members of their party and didn't trash them at every turn honestly.

I know Bernie's record and that's why i support him in general.

*EDIT*

To be clear, i don't know anything about what this guy supports that they are defending, just the principle of the notion.

 

[Platinumstorm]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from what precedes it. If things are being more and more defined on wedge/social issues, it stands to reason that economic ones aren't going to be enough to bridge the gap.

What I'm trying to say is that redefining wedge issue positions is an attempt to make inroads into different demos. I have friends that vote explicitly based on pro-choice, friends that vote explicitly on anti-abortion. "Larger" doesn't mean "largest". Redefining positions on wedge issues allows inroads with some political flack. Republicans that take a more abortion soft position in an anti-abortion community probably aren't going to see as big of a threat from a more moderate Dem on that position. A fiscally responsible Dem in that same district could do damaging inroads if the Republican party continues to grow as a party that doesn't understand financial necessities.

If the populist movement is the meta, then mildly redefining positions on wedge issues allows the parties to have mobility with shifts in populism, and to defend against the party that comes out with a better economic empowerment for the working class.

My post is very subjective, and I admit as much to that, so I respect that you might not agree with it.