Amy Klobuchar rejects idea that moderate Democrats are trying to crush Sanders

[pnwmom]

And I agree with her. The idea is an insult to Biden. They have plenty of reason to support him that has nothing to do with Sanders.

The moderates prefer a candidate who isn't as moderate as they are, but isn't as far left as others. And they prefer someone who works well with people and might even attract some centrist support.

And they want a person they believe will beat Donald Trump.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/amy-klobuchar-rejects-idea-moderate-dems-are-trying-crush-sanders-n1147756?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR3BhFj8Sz0wYrFXJZmtMxXp6POpbj5jq6M6wHApXneHJXtOwSf6hBd6nLU

A day after endorsing former Vice President Joe Biden for president, Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Tuesday rejected the notion that she and other Democrats are trying to crush Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“You want a candidate that not just builds a coalition of fired-up Democrats, which we've got, but also brings in independents, moderate Republicans. That's how we won back the House of Representatives, and that's what Joe Biden can do,” Klobuchar said in an interview with Savannah Guthrie on "TODAY" as voters head to the polls on Super Tuesday when 14 states and American Samoa hold primary contests.

SNIP

“I don't look at the mayor and Beto O'Rourke and myself as establishment. I look at us as new leaders for the party, fresh faces for the party. And we're basically saying, 'We've got to win here, and that's why we're supporting Joe Biden,'” Klobuchar said Tuesday.

Asked to react to President Donald Trump’s impression that she and other Democrats were staging a “coup” against Sanders, Klobuchar said that none of them had even spoken to each other before endorsing Biden.

[C_U_L8R]

1. Yes. Inclusion not Exclusion.

[DanTex]

2. Umm, they are though, it's not really a secret.

It's politics, it's not "unfair" or anything like that. But, obviously, the centrists are joining up to beat Bernie.

[pnwmom]

9. That's only true from the perspective of "the world revolves around Bernie." But it doesn't.

Everything isn't about him.

All of these people realized they didn't have a personal path forward so, in that case, they endorsed their second choice.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

13. They've said as much.

I agree with the person you responded to that is isn't really unfair and it's politics, but let's not pretend that isn't what's happening.

[pnwmom]

16. Klobuchar said it wasn't true. When did Buttigieg and O'Rourke

say this was all about Sanders, and not about their support for Biden?

[Cha]

46. Exactly.. Pete and Amy want trump out and that's

what they see as the more viable solution!

[jimfields33]

52. Although it's kind of weird that an 8 year Vice President

Needs all this to get him to the finish line. Yesterday he was asked if president Obama should encore him. He said, “I want to win this on my own”. I almost fell out of my chair. Who carried him in South Carolina? Representative clayburn. Without him, he could not do that on his own. And now others are trying to revive his campaign. Let’s not kid ourselves here.

[pnwmom]

53. Let's not kid ourselves here. Bernie has a ceiling in the 30's -- even lower than last time.

So that's why even though Bernie 1.0 insisted that having a MAJORITY of pledged delegates wasn't enough to declare victory, Bernie 2.0 thinks he should be made the nominee if he only gets a PLURALITY.

[jimfields33]

54. Least he doesn't need to be carried.

He also has supporters that are regular people. Biden wishes.

[pnwmom]

55. Oh, right. Rep. Clyburn isn't "regular people."

[ehrnst]

17. You mean like Sanders supporters wanted Warren to quit to join up against

"the centrists?"

I see it's called 'strategy' when it benefits one's candidate, and it seems that it's something nefarious when it works against one's candidate.

[DanTex]

18. Yes, exactly like that!

[ehrnst]

19. That's rather self-aware!

I hope I had something to do with that.



I mean if Sanders was able to form a coalition like that during the Democratic primaries, he'd have more basis to claim that he'd be one as POTUS.

[LanternWaste]

21. Or, exactly like this?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9915212

[obamanut2012]

34. ooooo nice find

[ehrnst]

41. Alrighty then.

[ehrnst]

40. Or maybe they're being honest, and they really think Biden is a good candidate...

Perhaps Biden inspires them, and he had more of path forward when they didn't, and ganging up on Bernie isn't the reason they make their campaign and endorsement decisions...

[Codeine]

56. No, several candidates with no hope of winning

stopped fighting the inevitable.

[beachbumbob]

3. any narrative to diminish Joe's comeback. Any comment by trump is always to enhance HIS chances

[LongtimeAZDem]

5. Just like Bernie worked with Republicans to shield gun manufacturers

[Cuthbert Allgood]

14. I hear this a lot. Why was that a bad vote?

I'm very much not a gun guy, but why should gun manufacturers be the only industry that is held responsible for consumers that use their product recklessly? We don't let people sue car manufacturers when someone uses a car to commit vehicular homicide.

[ehrnst]

20. Well, it's no push for legislation to build Sierra Blanca nuclear waste dump in a minority community

but you must admit, a yes vote on that was one the NRA was certainly happy with.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

24. Well, he didn't vote to have it built in that specific place, but you know that.

But, setting aside your deflection to a different topic, why should gun manufacturers be responsible when other manufacturers aren't? Should car manufacturers be able to be sued when someone commits vehicular homicide?

[ehrnst]

26. Yes, he did. Facts matter. It looks like you don't have the facts.

Sanders did support a proposal in which Maine and Vermont could dispose of low-level nuclear waste a proposed site in Sierra Blanca, Texas, which is a predominantly Latino and relatively poor community.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-sierra-blanca-nuclear-waste/



He also benefited from it financially until at least 2014.

We were talking about legislation that caused harm to people, yes? Sierra Blanca caused economic damage., to the point that Paul Wellstone went to bat for those Texas residents, and called the legislation "economic racism."

Environmental Justice Case Study: The Struggle for Sierra Blanca, Texas Against A Low-Level Nuclear Waste Site

Sen. Wellstone has been the only Congressmen to truly vocalize his opposition to the dump, calling it a part of a "national pattern of discrimination in the location of waste and pollution." For three years, he single-handedly blocked Congress from passing the compact. While maintaining "no agenda or ulterior motives of his own", he has been resolute about calling this "an issue of environmental justice."

[Cuthbert Allgood]

27. From your first link:

From a Sanders spokesperson:

The bill did not endorse a specific site — in fact, it did not mention Sierra Blanca at all. Nor did the bill override the local and state approval process. In the end, the Texas agency in charge of permitting ruled against the Sierra Blanca site, choosing another site in Texas instead. So, the process worked.

From Snopes proper:

Sanders’ spokesperson is right to point out that the text of H.R. 629 did not mention Sierra Blanca, but the town was widely known and discussed as the proposed location of the disposal site throughout the time that Sanders and others supported the bill.

So, yes, that was one site being discussed at the time, but, it ultimately is and was in the hands of the Texas agency.

Personally, I was more on the Wellstone side of the argument at the time (and now), but, yes, facts do matter and the bill was to give Texas the ability to dispose of it and not to specifically put it in that one community. Which they didn't, btw, since facts matter.

[ehrnst]

29. Has Sanders ever expressed regret for pushing that legislation, or how he treated

residents who tried to talk to him about it?

?1454896731


Or having profited from it financially?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

35. Your red herring about this is kind of odd. The point was gun manufacturers. Remember?

I do.

But as to your point, I don't know if he has ever talked to them again. I'm sure you can research it if you are interested.

But to the original point, why should gun manufacturers be held liable when someone uses their product to do something illegal when no other manufacturer is? Should Toyota be able to be sued when someone commits vehicular manslaughter with one of their cars?

[ehrnst]

36. We were was talking about legislation that had the potential to harm people.

Yes?

I'm sure you can research it if you are interested.

I have. I have found no mentions of regret. Perhaps you have? If so, please share.

You know, if votes that make the ones that appear to be fighting democracy and justice happy is an issue when it comes to Biden, then why isn't voting for something that makes the NRA happy (or are called "environmental racism" by progressive icons) suddenly not an issue? Because Bernie?

Did Biden ever treat those who were directly affected by his vote on the Iraq War Resolution like this? And Biden didn't fast track that legislation, or profit from it financially.

[Cha]

49. Booom

Thank You!!

[pnwmom]

11. We know why Biden voted for the War Powers resolution. In that fall, the Democrats

knew that the Republicans would be able to write a War Powers resolution as soon as they swept into office in January -- one without any limits on the President at all. They hoped that by approving a more limited act, Bush would abide by it. It was worth a shot, but it didn't work.

We also know that DOMA was part of a successful effort to head off a Constitutional Amendment against marriage equality. That would have been almost impossible to overturn. Instead, same sex marriage was found Constitutional by the Supreme Court just a few years later.

On the other hand, Sanders has never explained why he voted against the Magnitsky act; or against holding gun manufacturers liable for their products, as are other manufacturers.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

15. Other manufacturers are not responsible for when their products are misused.

Last edited Tue Mar 3, 2020, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)

One cannot sue a car manufacturer is a car is used for vehicular homicide.

[Reader Rabbit]

6. Not to join one side or the other, but...

...does anyone ever say, "Yeah, that was totally my plan," when they are accused of something?

Well, Warren might do it if it was Bloomberg who accused her of trying to destroy him. But other than that, the average human is gonna say, "Uh...no," aren't they?

[ehrnst]

30. Perhaps those doing the "accusing" are the ones trying to create something

nefarious where there is none.

[Mersky]

7. It was a foregone conclusion that such would happen

Has just been a question of who and when. It’s not a conspiracy for separate campaigns to read the numbers, and then look to back the strongest candidate who doesn’t flatten Democratic successes for political convenience.

And don’t forget, Warren is still in the race, and I’m glad, as she is a strong candidate. If she exited, and backed Biden at this point, then their argument of rigged coup, conspiratorial bunk might look more plausible on the surface.

[Chainfire]

8. Hang on a second

Isn't the point of these contests to see who can beat who for the nomination? It is all about building a team of allies and supporters. I wonder if people would rather the people who dropped out of the race just sit back and remain silent? Come on, that is not the way it works. If Sanders can't gather the support of other Democratic presidential hopefuls, perhaps he should examine his own campaign and policies and not worry about who is ganging up on him. Sanders greatest strength comes from going way out on the limb, unfortunately, that is also his greatest weakness.

[LizBeth]

12. Exactly. Someone was saying they should have stayed neutral. Who says? Endorsements all

over the place, but these influential people are suppose to stay quiet? No. Because Dems who cannot win stepped out, dems are cheating because they are no longer splitting the vote making it easy for Sanders.

[Mike Nelson]

10. Yeah, that is strange...

... Amy is allowed to endorse, just as AOC is allowed to endorse... right? People are allowed to vote and talk about their vote, if the want... Bernie wants to "crush" Biden as much as Biden wants to "crush" Bernie. We don't just anoint someone... you need to get the delegates to win. The candidate getting 1,991 wins.

[corbettkroehler]

22. Rolling Stone Headline: "Operation Bernie Block Is In Full Effect"

Link to tweet

[pnwmom]

23. Yeah, that's their headline, the purpose of which is to sell copies. nt

[ehrnst]

51. Some candidates can't inspire or facilitate coalitions.

That doesn't mean those who can are 'bullies," or somehow otherwise nefarious.

[pampango]

25. If Sanders were not doing well so far, obviously Pete and Amy would not be dropping out before

Super Tuesday after they both had good showings in Iowa and New Hampshire.

If Bernie were polling in 'Tulsi country' (low, very low, single digits), not many of us think that Amy and Pete would be withdrawing after 1 caucus and 2 primaries in fairly small states with Super Tuesday about to happen. Nor should they. Conceding a nomination to another candidate after just 3 of 56 primaries and caucuses to a candidate who did poorly in the first two and very well in the third, is not how normal Democratic nomination decisions are made..

She is smart enough to know that you don't say that you don't say you are out to 'crush' the supporters of another candidate when you will be asking for their votes in a few months.

[pnwmom]

32. They dropped out because their own numbers weren't working. If Amy REALLY wanted to hurt Bernie

then she should have stayed in and denied him delegates from Minnesota. Because she got out, some of her voters will probably vote for him.

[pampango]

38. Pete was doing quite well other than in South Carolina. Amy was doing surprisingly well.

If Bernie were low in the polls, there is no way that they would have disappointed their supporters while they were doing better than they could have anticipated. Why withdraw just before Super Tuesday? Most serious candidates who were doing reasonably well would wait a day or two and see how they fared in the 15 states at play today.

The GOP has decided on its presidential candidate after 0 primaries. I see no reason that the Democratic Party has to anoint a winner after just 4 with 52 more on the schedule.

[pnwmom]

39. You're not going to do well in Democratic primaries without significant support

from black voters. SC showed neither of them had that.

Like I said, if Amy REALLY wanted to hurt Bernie, she would have stayed on for the Minnesota race. She didn't because this wasn't all about Bernie, even though Bernie wants to paint it that way.

[pampango]

42. So they both decided to end their campaigns a day or two before Super Tuesday rather than

see how their months of campaigning would play out today and then make a decision about their futures. Most folks knew that Joe would do well in South Carolina, yet Pete and Amy were so dispirited afterwards that they stopped their campaigns rather than wait a couple of days?

How is Warren doing among Black voters? If not well, should she have withdrawn as well? (I know it is better for Joe if she stays in the race.)

Does Warren not know that she cannot win the nomination 'without significant support from black voters'? Or does she think that it is early in the process and attitudes may change in the months to come?

[pnwmom]

45. It's NOT a conspiracy so Warren's decision had nothing to do with their decision.

They each decided they wanted to bow out, after letting the results of SC sink in, and taking a look at their finances going forward.

Warren did not. That was her decision and it had nothing to do with Bernie, either.

The world doesn't revolve around Bernie Sanders.

(I also disagree with you that it's better for Joe if Warren stays in the race. If she leaves, I think most of her supporters will go to Joe, not Bernie.)

[pampango]

47. Then we disagree on many things. Fair enough.

[ehrnst]

50. Perhaps it's because some people trust Democratic women running for office more than

others.

[ehrnst]

43. Or maybe she's actually being honest

and doesn't see a way forward and Biden is the one she thinks will be the one that she agrees with the most.

[pampango]

44. Certainly possible. Just odd that she did not wait until the results from today were in

to make the determination that she has no way forward.

Hard to imagine that, after months of tough campaigning, a loss in a small state like South Carolina would be so convincing that one could not wait another 48 hours to see how 15 states voted.

[ehrnst]

48. Why is that "hard to imagine" that she's being honest about not spending

money and time that would not be productive to the Democratic Party effort to beat Trump, and that she actually thinks Biden would be a good candidate?

[Frances]

28. Will someone send a message to the Sanders campaign?

Please stop making it so hard for me to support you if you win the nomination

[TwilightZone]

31. Sanders campaigned heavily in MA and MN to send a message.

Who was trying to crush whom?

[Fla Dem]

33. Well of course they are. Isn't that the whole concept of elections?

You vote for the person who supports your ideas. If those are Left / Center Left you vote for/support the moderate candidate. If you're far left, then you vote for the candidate that espouses your positions. How ridiculous for Sanders to think that Klobuchar, Buttigieg and O'Rourke would support him when they can support a very viable Left/Center Left candidate in Joe Biden who is aligned with their positions.

I don't get his outrage. Don't be a crybaby.

[Iggo]

37. LOL. She doesn't read DU.