>> There was an opinion piece written over
at Jezebel that caught my attention.
The writer is Ashley Reese and I wanna preface
this by saying, she's not a bad guy, she's
a good guy, okay?
She seems to be a Bernie Sanders supporter
and she wants to, at least the feel that I
get, encourage Bernie Sanders supporters to
avoid provoking some of the centrist Democrats
who have been smearing him and his supporters.
And what she references is the Bernie Would've
Won line which I think is a completely accurate
line.
But she thinks that it's actually causing
more harm than good.
So the title of her piece's The End of Bernie
Would've Won.
And I wanna give you a few excerpts and then
we can discuss it.
Because again, I think she's well meaning,
but I think that she hasn't been hit with
everything that's made me super jaded about
about this country and about centrist Democrats
specifically.
>> By the way, an alternate headline that's
also online.
Is Bernie Would've Won is canceled.
Okay, that sounds even more obnoxious.
But a lot of times the writers don't write
the headlines just to be fair.
>> Right, so let me give you a few excerpts
from Ashley Reese's article.
Out of the anger, the dismay, the fear that
followed November 8, 2016, came a bitter refrain
repeated by those who supported Bernie Sanders,
Clinton's main competitor in the Democratic
party, Bernie Would've Won.
Effectively poured salt on the post-election
wound.
Its central argument drew from early stats.
Sanders gained more votes than Clinton in
crucial states like Michigan and Wisconsin
during the primary, which later turned red
during the general.
Additionally, Sanders was considered the anti-establishment
candidate during a year when being anti-establishment
was en vogue.
Trump ran and won on it, and though he didn't
get the popular vote, Clinton should have
won, his anti-establishment messaging proved
victorious in a slew of swing states.
Now, this is where it starts to get maybe
a little shaky where people could disagree.
>> Hold on, before we get to that part-
>> Yeah.
>> Let me just both agree and disagree already.
So you can tell she's a good guy because she
gets that there was an anti-establishment
vibe.
She gets that that's why Trump won.
Already that makes her leagues above all the
mainstream media who have never acknowledged
that because it would mean that there's an
anti-them vibe, right?
So she's correctly deduced that, that was
the driving force.
And I don't disagree with Clinton should've
won.
We shouldn't have the Electoral College in
the first place, so it's not about bitterness
at all.
In fact, I am bitter at the Electoral College
because she got 3 million more votes and she
should have been president.
But the part that I disagree with and it's
really problematic is, just that little phrase
she had said in the beginning, effectively
poured salt on a post-election wound.
No, that's not the point.
So folks on the other side, in the corporate
Democrats said, you guys you're being mean.
This is really hurtful, you're trying to pour
salt on the wound.
At least from our point of view, and I think
from the overwhelming majority of Bernie Sanders
supporters, that's not the point at all.
The point is to say let's not make that mistake
again.
>> Yes, exactly, especially when centrist
emocrats like Joe Biden, are really relying
on this message of electability to win the
Democratic nomination.
But the fact of the matter is he is certainly
not more electable than someone like Bernie
Sanders, because Biden represents more of
what Hillary Clinton represented.
In fact, I think he even goes further in talking
about his willingness to work with Republicans.
In fact, recently he noted that he would be
open to choosing a Republican as his VP.
Disaster, right?
So if you think that that makes you more electable,
you're insane.
And so that's the reason why the Bernie would
have won line gets used so often.
Because there are progressive voters in this
country who are hoping that that message gets
across.
That someone who is progressive, who actually
cares about fixing this rigged economic system
is more electable than someone who wants the
status quo.
>> Yeah, so my main beef with this piece is
that Ashley is not acknowledging that progressives
and the whole country is being gaslit by corporate
Democrats and the mainstream media saying,
remember, the establishment candidate, the
so-called moderate centrist candidate, is
more electable.
But that's what you told us last time, and
she didn't win.
She's not president.
It's not about putting salt on the wounds,
it's that they're gaslighting us just like
they did last time.
Look, I will go further.
The mainstream media is engaging in a lie,
it's on a mass scale.
They are saying even though it is the most
obviously provable lie, the person you told
us who was more likable last time has the
same policies as Joe Biden is the more establishment
candidate and she lost.
But you turn around and go, nope, nope, nope,
nope, nope, nope.
Bernie's not electable, just like we told
you last time.
Populism doesn't work even though Trump won.
Anti-establishment doesn't work even though
Trump won.
No, you shouldn't believe your lying eyes.
You should believe our propaganda.
But the establishment candidate is more electable.
And they've repeated it a million times, a
billion times until it drilled into people's
heads.
I was talking to friends and family recently,
and they're like, I don't necessarily agree
with Biden, but I gotta vote for him.
Cuz he's more electable.
God damn it, their propaganda worked.
That's the whole point here.
>> Yes, exactly, exactly.
So, I'm gonna skip ahead to where she kind
of talks about why she wants to cancel that
line, right?
The Bernie should have won line.
As much as I largely agree with the ethos
behind Bernie would have won, I'm canceling
it for 2019.
Too many people are losing the plot.
A useful identifier like neoliberal has become
so abused that is has become trite, and criticizing
milquetoast Democrats for supporting centrists'
policies or policy agendas is now grounds
for being called a Russian bot.
And then later in the piece she kinda talks
about how well, Bernie has managed to build
this diverse coalition.
The reputation is that they're a bunch of
Bernie bros, right?
That there isn't diversity, that it's a bunch
of white males who are super aggressive on
Twitter, and maybe we should move away from
lines like Bernie would have won so the centrist
Democrats don't go after us so hard.
But this is my biggest issue with her piece
because, don't make the mistake that I think
a lot of people make.
They're not the good guys.
The centrists that go after Bernie Sanders
supporters and smear them and put out propaganda
against them and propaganda against Bernie
Sanders, they have no interest in playing
fair or speaking the truth.
They are ruthless, they play dirty, and they
have no interest in telling the truth.
So don't allow them to frame the discussion.
And don't allow them to influence the way
you behave.
Now, obviously, be respectful, be civil, but
I think that making arguments like Bernie
would have won are important arguments to
make, especially when it comes to all the
misinformation about electability.
>> This centerpiece, Ashley is clearly smart
and has the actual facts.
That's why it's frustrating that I think she's
accidentally helping the propoganda of the
wrong side.
So let me explain what I mean by that.
She also talked about avoiding the mistakes
of last time, so it's not like she doesn't
know that.
She does and she did put it in the piece,
so that's important to note.
But when she talks about the Sanders' people,
she says they have a reputation.
Well, okay and she says they have a reputation
of being surly white leftist dudes.
Then she goes on to say that's not an accurate
representation of Sanders base.
So she knows and acknowledges in the piece,
but so then why did you repeat it?
>> She repeated it because she's trying to
make a point about how, hey, let's get rid
of that reputation.
And one way to get rid of that is by avoiding
phrases like, Bernie would've won.
>> Yeah, and so that gets to the very heart
of this.
So the last paragraph she says, there's too
much work to do to get caught up in the same
skirmishes on loop for another three years.
No, so those skirmishes are not a sideshow,
are not counterproductive.
They're actually the real battle.
I don't mean like being too vituperative online,
etc.
No, I'm talking about, you have to acknowledge
that the corporate media is on the side of
the corporate Democrats.
And even those words might be offensive to
some, but they are, in fact, the corporate
media.
They're all multibillion dollar corporations
who wanna maximize profit including the money
they get from money and politics being spent
on ads in their stations, okay?
And the access that they get to politicians.
Those corporate Democrats are corporate.
They do take money from corporations and do
serve their interests.
So those folks are the ones that are together,
gaslighting the whole country and telling
them remember the Bernie supporters are all
bros and surly white leftist dudes.
And something about Bernie Sanders makes me
sick to my stomach even though I don't know
what it is.
But I'm gonna do propaganda on the so called
left wing channel of MSNBC.
And so Ashley, they're all doing that in unison
and so then they turn around and go, is it
reminds me of, I'll use an old, old analogy.
Rowdy Rowdy Piper in the old WWF.
He was a bad guy wrestler.
He'd hit somebody over the head with a chair.
When they turn around to hit him, he's go
whoa, whoa, whoa, what, right?
And that's what the media does.
They smash us over the head, say, you guys
are just all white males.
You're only the like minorities, all these
slur, smears, etc, right?
None of a base, in fact, as Ashley recognizes,
etc.
Then when we turn around and go, that's not
true.
Everybody goes, there goes the Bernie Bros.
Guys, now, you're starting the skirmish.
Why are you doing this skirmish, we're on
a loop.
>> They're actually in bad faith.
>> Because we're trying to desperately get
our message out that they're lying to you,
they're lying to you that populist is more
electable.
Independents don't want corporate politicians
that are Democrats or Republicans.
They want someone who is actually gonna fight
for them.
That is an honest politician, then that's
more populist independents inside the election.
These are facts and I can back it up with
polling, so why do I raise my voice to try
to get past the din of the corporate media
that oppresses us all with their propaganda
that is based on lies?
Those are facts.
So don't take it out on us when we fight back.
We didn't start the fight.
They started the fight.
And they did it in 2016 when they said Hillary
Clinton is already leading, she has an overwhelming
lead.
When they hadn't done a single vote, they
did it based on super delegates who hadn't
even voted yet and who were part of the corrupt
establishment.
They're doing it this time by saying on a
loop a million times over, Biden is more electable.
Biden is more electable, establishment is
more electable, moderate and centrist is more
electable, even though it's empirically incorrect,
right?
So just all I'm saying is, don't bash us for
trying to fight back against this giant machine
that is spewing lies and propaganda.
>> Right, and the establishment wants to intimidate
you from speaking the truth.
Really, that's at the bottom of all of this.
They want to dissuade you from telling the
truth about the candidates, from speaking
the truth about what actually happened in
2016, and don't let them do that.
Don't give them that kind
of power.
