Bernie Sanders thanks Iowa in Political Soapbox speech for 'transforming politics'

[Uncle Joe]

Standing in front of an overflowing crowd at the Iowa State Fair on Sunday, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders began with a thank you to Iowans.

(snip)

Most of his Soapbox speech was spent championing his policies of workers' rights, fighting climate change and, with the most direct through-line of his philosophy, hammering inequality between the majority of people and the wealthiest corporations and people. He asked Iowans to again propel his campaign forward.

(snip)

He also blasted President Donald Trump as racist, a xenophobe, sexist, religious bigot and a pathological liar in a state where Trump finished 9 percentage points over Clinton in the general election. That wasn't apparent by the crowd, however. A handful of pro-Trump signs shot up in the sea of people, but cheers often punctuated Sanders' speech.

(snip)



(snip)

"We do not have the luxury of becoming depressed, the luxury of throwing our hands up in despair," Sanders said. "This is the moment history will judge us by. This is the moment we stand up to racism and divisiveness. This is the moment we bring our people together and create an economy and a government not dominated by the billionaires, but an economy and a government that works for all of us."

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/08/11/bernie-sanders-election-2020-iowa-state-fair-soapbox-caucus-us-senate-vermont-independent-democrat/1881509001/

[TexasTowelie]

1. I have an issue with Bernie's praise saying that Iowa has transformed politics

when Iowa voted for a Republican in the last general election. It was certainly a transformation for the worse.

My apologies to Iowa Democrats who had no part in that transformation. Those are the people who are worthy of praise.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Bernie was a largely unknown candidate from a small state

(snip)

Iowa caucusgoers in 2016 propelled Sanders to within a third of a percentage point of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's showing in the first-in-the-nation caucuses. In nearly four years since, he said the Democratic Party and the 2020 field have moved decisively toward his politics as a Democratic socialist.

(snip)


https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/08/11/bernie-sanders-election-2020-iowa-state-fair-soapbox-caucus-us-senate-vermont-independent-democrat/1881509001/

[TexasTowelie]

3. Okay, the headline was inaccurate then.

The inclusion of the paragraph above clarifies that Bernie's praise was directed to his group of supporters in the 2016 primary rather than to all Iowans, or all Iowan Democrats for that matter.

[Uncle Joe]

5. ...

[TexasTowelie]

7. So pointing out that Bernie was speaking to a subset rather than an entire group is nitpicking?

[bluewater]

10. Yes, nitpicky. No statewide election is EVER unanimous.

[TexasTowelie]

15. It looks like I made another newbie upset.

[bluewater]

16. No need to get personal.

Check your DU recs sometimes, I usually am one of the first to rec your posts.

Can't we disagree sometimes without being disagreeable to each other?

[TexasTowelie]

17. Please follow your own advice.

No need to get personal.

You called me nitpicky--if that isn't personal, then what is?

And yes, I can respect differences of opinions without getting personal. You might want to provide the same advice to the OP since he posted a meme calling me nitpicky.

BTW, I do on occasion give DU recs to people I disagree with if I believe that it leads to a worthwhile discussion. I don't have much to give to anyone, but DU recs don't cost me anything so I'm usually pretty generous giving them.

[bluewater]

20. I was chacterizing your argument, you asked a question about it and I answered.

You: "So pointing out that Bernie was speaking to a subset rather than an entire group is nitpicking?"

And I replied:

"Yes, nitpicky. No statewide election is EVER unanimous."

You then went and made it personal:

"It looks like I made another newbie upset.
"


Again, no need to get THAT personal. lol you even threw in a sad violin!



That all said, your argument WAS nit picky, no statewide election is ever unanimous.

[bahrbearian]

24. Wow, I haven't seen that since 2011, calling a poster a Newby

but thats before your time. We used to call out that shit, everyone was considered equal. But that was before your time here.

[TexasTowelie]

26. I've seen newbies called out here numerous times since I joined in 2011.

I surprised that you haven't seen it also, but I don't know which threads you were reading. I can even recall that I was called a newbie after I was here for a few years and had several thousand posts by that time.

[bahrbearian]

27. I'm surprised you think its OK

I know Post counts are also very important to You.

[TexasTowelie]

29. The information about post counts are visible for everyone to see

unless they selected the "mobile" mode under their profile. I don't see anything wrong with mentioning it. You're welcome to have your own opinion.

[Uncle Joe]

12. No this is much bigger than Burger King

but we will have it our way.

[bluewater]

8. You have been rockin the gifs lately, Uncle Joe!

[Uncle Joe]

13. ...

[LanternWaste]

59. And you simply don't realize the absolute irony of you alleging as such, do you?

[thesquanderer]

21. Iowa did change the political landscape with that caucus vote.

And his exact quote was:

"Let me begin by thanking the people of Iowa for playing an extraordinary role in transforming politics in America." Which, as a whole, they did. And he went on to explain how it was the beginning of bringing his ideas ($15 minimum wage, free public college, universal health care, etc.) into the mainstream.

So I'd say the headline is accurate, if not complete in all the subtlety, which is about all you can ask of a headline.

[Princetonian]

18. Excellent summary. Is there video of Bernie's speech? Wish I had been there all day...

Very true!

Iowa caucusgoers in 2016 propelled Sanders to within a third of a percentage point of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's showing in the first-in-the-nation caucuses. In nearly four years since, he said the Democratic Party and the 2020 field have moved decisively toward his politics as a Democratic socialist.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/08/11/bernie-sanders-election-2020-iowa-state-fair-soapbox-caucus-us-senate-vermont-independent-democrat/1881509001/

[Uncle Joe]

19. Thank you Princetonian, I haven't seen one yet

but I will let you know should I come across one.

Peace to you.

[thesquanderer]

23. There is a link on that page. It's at...

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/videos/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/08/11/bernie-sanders-iowa-state-fair-soapbox-replay-2020-election-us-senate-vermont-iowa-caucus-caucuses/1982785001/

[Princetonian]

60. Thanks so much! I was at a family dinner last night and everyone watched the available videos.

It was very enjoyable getting our many kids involved in political discourse.

[George II]

39. Bernie is a native of the biggest city in the country.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Of course you do!

[TexasTowelie]

9. So I guess that transforming Iowa into a state that voted for a Republican in 2016

is hunky-dory for you?

[questionseverything]

6. iowa transformed politics when obama came in 1st followed by edwards and then hc

we owe the entire Obama presidency to iowa caucuses

[TexasTowelie]

11. I doubt that Bernie was referring to Obama with his comments considering that he wanted

Obama primaried in 2012, but if that's what you want to believe...

[questionseverything]

14. i was reacting to what u said and you were wrong

wether Bernie and I were thinking same thing I don't know

[thesquanderer]

25. No, he was referring to how their vote forced people to take Sanders seriously in 2016. But...

...as for primarying Obama, a good article putting that in context is at

https://www.thenation.com/article/yes-bernie-sanders-wanted-obama-primaried-in-2012-heres-why/

It was about influencing policy, not about trying to defeat Obama, and the details in that article are worth reading.

[TexasTowelie]

28. Thanks for confirming my point.

Bernie was not thanking all Iowans. Bernie was only thanking those that voted for him in the previous primary.

[thesquanderer]

31. He was thanking Iowa as a whole for its role in mainstreaming his ideas.

Of course that doesn't mean he was thanking each and every Iowan (even though his actual words were "the people of Iowa&quot . There's a limit to what a headline can do, and eliminating ridiculous possible alternate interpretations is not one of their purposes. I mean, he wasn't literally thanking Iowa, which, speaking literally, is an inanimate entity which has no feelings or potential awareness of being thanked. Does that make the headline false? It's just as silly to think he was thanking each and every Iowan, many of whom supported Hillary or didn't participate in any caucus at all, or who may never have cast even a general election vote for their entire life (every state has those, too). Similarly, when some candidate wins Texas, are we to say it's wrong for them to say in their acceptance speech "Thank you Texas!"?? Must they say "Thank you Texas... and by that I mean, just the people who voted for me"? The only person I can imagine saying something like that is Donald Trump, and I hope to never hear those words out of his mouth.

[TexasTowelie]

32. It doesn't make the headline false.

However, the headline is misleading. I'm merely the poster that pointed out that the headline is misleading and had to be qualified from what was originally stated in the OP.

[Lordquinton]

34. There is a total of one person in this thread who found any issue

Headline is fine.

[TexasTowelie]

35. Aw geez.

I'm all alone--I'm going to have to take some time to cry.

[thesquanderer]

45. There's nothing wrong with being the only one who has a certain perspective...

...but it also might provide some motivation to at least consider the possibility that maybe you're missing something.

Or not.

[TexasTowelie]

49. I'm not blind and I don't believe I'm missing anything.

I know who most of those people supported in the previous primary so I'm well aware of their motivations.

Nope, I haven't missed a damn thing.

[thesquanderer]

51. It's not about any candidate, it's about understanding the verbiage/context/purpose of a headline.

I did go back and add a carriage return to the TL;DR big paragraph response.

[TexasTowelie]

52. I actually do know something about writing headlines.

I spent time working on the college newspaper as a layout editor along with writing headlines and captions, and proofreading articles. I also know how to write misleading headlines, provide statistical analysis to support varied viewpoints, and write unmaintainable computer programming code. Therefore, I'll stick with my statement that the headline for this thread was misleading.

I also feel comfortable stating that nearly all of the responses to me are about the candidate. Any effort to convince me otherwise is futile.

[Autumn]

37. Of course. It's Bernie

[TexasTowelie]

43. Aw shucks.

Did I hurt Bernie's feelings?

[Autumn]

58. He doesn't know you and wouldn't care what you say about him,

it's just you being you

[TexasTowelie]

61. Yes, I know it's just me being me.

How dare me for speaking up about Bernie because I don't agree with most of his policies. After all, I'm only an American who is expressing his First Amendment rights. Obviously, in your mind you think that is humorous. The best that you (and others) can come up with is "because it's Bernie." What a weak and lame response. It's Bernie being Bernie with his unrealistic proposals that has persuaded me not to vote for him in the primary.

It will be interesting to see who has the last laugh since I'm 99% certain that Bernie will never be president.

I'll go ahead and bookmark this thread to review it a year from now.

[Autumn]

62. I have no fucks to give if you speak up about Bernie. I really haven't seen you go after

Bernie.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287235874#post15

You do harangue about DU members that like or have supported Bernie Sanders as you did in the post above. Or as in the case of this thread, you disrupt and go after the headline, not the content of the OP. Save and review it to your heart's content in a year from now. I don't care now and I won't care then

[George II]

42. Not true.

[betsuni]

54. Not anymore.

[thesquanderer]

38. I don't find the headline misleading. Headlines are not about literal precision.

Last edited Sun Aug 11, 2019, 11:46 PM - Edit history (1)

For the reasons I mentioned, I think almost no one would interpret the headline to mean that Bernie was thanking each and every Iowan. Nor that he was thanking an inanimate chunk of land. COULD someone interpret it in one of those alternate ways? Yes, in that I suppose the grammar supports it. A Martian might be confused. But realistically, those are not reasonable, logical interpretations, and a headline writer needs to assume some background understanding on the part of the reader. S/he would assume readers have the knowledge that people of a state never vote monolithically, and that states themselves are inanimate and don't vote at all. If you are aware of those two facts, then an interpretation that does not contradict those things is the only kind that can make sense.

In this case, it was that taken as a whole, the caucus-goers of Iowa who gave Bernie essentially as much support as they gave the once presumed runaway victor created a turning point for having his ideas taken seriously. And if you were unclear about that, the idea is further explained in the text and accompanying video. That's where you find the full clarity, the headline serves to give you the general idea in a very small number of words. And that's what the headline did here. There are tons of misleading headlines on the internet. (Clickbait!) This ain't one of 'em.

[TexasTowelie]

41. I'm allowed to have my opinion, just like you are allowed to have yours.

I think that the headline is misleading--there's no point in discussing it further. I'm definitely not going to write a TLDR paragraph about it. Have a good night.

[George II]

47. A state with less than 1% of the nation's population and 90+% Caucasian, "mainstreamed" his ideas?

I don't think so.

[betsuni]

55. I still don't understand what he "mainstreamed."

[George II]

46. It goes without saying that BS wanted Obama primaried in 2012. No amount of splaining....

...will change that. There were no Democrats in 2012 who wanted to do so.

[thesquanderer]

48. Splaining provides context. Without context, facts can be misinterpreted.

The article I linked to provides context. It doesn't mean I expect people will read that and agree with what BS said, but at least they could understand why he said it, what the motivation was, what the goal was. (Hint: The goal was NOT to defeat Obama.)

[George II]

50. Are you telling us that BS didn't want Obama primaried? "Understanding why" someone says something..

...doesn't take away the fact that someone said it.

[thesquanderer]

56. It's absolutely true that he at least expressed seriously looking into the possibility.

But my point isn't whether he took it "this far" or "that far." He did support the idea, however briefly, there is no disputing that. But understanding why someone said something is often essential for anything but the most simplistic grandstanding.

I bet I could find something your preferred candidate (whoever it may be) said or did that sounds bad, and maybe even IS bad, but is at least more understandable if you look at the circumstances of what else was going on at the time s/he said or did it. Because that is the nature of politics. And to ignore context is to ignore serious conversation of the issue, and settle for just scoring points.

Short version (but it's worth reading the article): Sanders wanted some force to start to pull Obama to the left, because he seemed to be looking to appease the right. Remember chained CPI? Raising the Medicare age to 67? BS was looking to make a statement and exert political pressure from the other side. You might not agree with the tactic, of suggesting it could be good if he were to be primaried, but it was not said in an attempt to actually prevent Obama from being re-elected, which is the implication if you don't understand the context.

[George II]

40. That's what he does. If helping to elect the worst president in history is "transformative"....

....give me the status quo, PLEASE.

Why is a "Democrat" heaping praise on a state that voted for trump?

[betsuni]

53. I agree.

[roody]

30. I was there!

[Autumn]

33. Lucky you! Was it awesome?

[roody]

44. I was near the front. I had no idea that the crowd was so big.

[brush]

36. I'm with him on the trump critiques but caucuses are archaic and undemocratic.

[questionseverything]

57. hard to rig a caucus