2026 Midterm Elections

[Paine]

I was comparing Crockett to Bernie in her plan to attack Talarico much like Bernie did in the 2016 primary. The link below indicates that there is little if any difference in where Crockett stand on the issues and there is little difference in where they are in the polls vs GQPer candidates.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think Crockett should drop out and campaign for Talarico at this point. That will burnish her standing in the Democratic party and she will not be set up to be blamed when Talarico loses in November.

Q&A: Democratic candidates in Texas’ 2026 Senate primary

To help primary voters differentiate between the two, we asked Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico where they fall on major issues, ranging from international policy to taxes. See where they stand, and how they differ.

www.texastribune.org

So, you’re just defining the Bernie–Crockett similarity as “attacking another candidate in a primary”? That’s not what made Bernie Bernie. Maybe that’s all you remember from 2016, but every competitive primary has attacks, including 2008, where Clinton was famously not running a positivity campaign.

What mattered in 2016 was how the attacks were made.

Bernie attacked systems, donors, and power structures. Clinton attacked his coalition, his supporters, and implicitly his legitimacy often through identity-coded arguments about who “represented” the party. Crockett’s attacks on Talarico resemble that pattern far more than anything Bernie did. Bernie never questioned Clinton’s identity or background in the way Crockett is doing here.

For me, the biggest red flag with Crockett is judgement, not tone. Taking AIPAC money for a Tel Aviv trip and then lying about it is bad politics and worse instincts.

If we’re mapping roles from 2016, the dynamic actually runs the opposite direction of what you’re saying. I’m really not even sure what your position is if you’re advocating for Crockett to drop out now to preserve her position. She already torched her position by implicitly calling Talarico racist.

TL;DR: Crockett’s move is identity-coded delegitimization, a Clinton 2016 tactic, not a Sanders one. If “they both attacked opponents in a primary” is the comparison, then it’s analytically useless.

 

[heelinhell]

That image pretty much symbolizes American politics over the past decade.

Back in 1933 Will Rogers said that he did he did not belong to any organized political party. He said he was a Democrat.

And for the most part that is how it has been ever since.

 

[heelinhell]

So, you’re just defining the Bernie–Crockett similarity as “attacking another candidate in a primary”? That’s not what made Bernie Bernie. Maybe that’s all you remember from 2016, but every competitive primary has attacks, including 2008, where Clinton was famously not running a positivity campaign.

What mattered in 2016 was how the attacks were made.

Bernie attacked systems, donors, and power structures. Clinton attacked his coalition, his supporters, and implicitly his legitimacy often through identity-coded arguments about who “represented” the party. Crockett’s attacks on Talarico resemble that pattern far more than anything Bernie did. Bernie never questioned Clinton’s identity or background in the way Crockett is doing here.

For me, the biggest red flag with Crockett is judgement, not tone. Taking AIPAC money for a Tel Aviv trip and then lying about it is bad politics and worse instincts.

If we’re mapping roles from 2016, the dynamic actually runs the opposite direction of what you’re saying. I’m really not even sure what your position is if you’re advocating for Crockett to drop out now to preserve her position. She already torched her position by implicitly calling Talarico racist.

TL;DR, identity-coded delegitimization is straight from the Clinton 2016 playbook. That’s why I react viscerally to your suggestion that an identity-coded deligitimization attempt by Crockett resembles Sanders in any way. If all you’re saying is they both attack people in primaries, then that’s not a useful insight.

Bernie called her corrupt and a corporate shill and never gave her a meaningful endorsement once she won the primary.

But I concede

 

[Paine]

Bernie called her corrupt and a corporate shill and never gave her a meaningful endorsement once she won the primary.

But I concede

Fine to concede, but I’d like receipts for Bernie calling Clinton corrupt or a corporate shill.

He absolutely criticized her donor base and her ties to Wall Street, but that’s not the same thing as a personal attack on her character. If you’re claiming he crossed that line, you’ll need to cite it.

In fact, Bernie went out of his way to keep the campaign focused on systems and issues rather than personal delegitimization. He repeatedly said Clinton was qualified to be president and famously shut down email attacks with “nobody cares about your damn emails.”

Sanders officially endorsed Clinton about a month after the California primary, nominated her at the convention, and campaigned for her in multiple swing states. Whatever people felt about his tone, the historical record doesn’t support the claim that he refused to support her or ran a character-based smear campaign.

 

[Kingpin]

100% accurate

I haven’t read the article but it reminds me of Al Franken. And Ds are the first to attack one another. Look back at Al Franken. Rs leaked the photo of him playfully putting his hands above the breasts of a sleeping friend. He actually did nothing and the friend said so. But Ds forced him to resign while the Rs laughed at us while Trump actually DID awful things. Rs knew that is exactly what would happen. Ds hold one another accountable, Rs ignore and fall in line. A blatant double standard

 

[superrific]

Bernie never questioned Clinton’s identity or background in the way Crockett is doing here.

Leaving aside the part about "in the way Crockett is doing here," as that is too vague to address, I'll make a couple of points:

1. Bernie absolutely did attack Clinton. It's true that he phrased it in terms of power rather than personal corruption, but that's a distinction without a real difference, I think. If you say, "the system is corrupt" and "Hillary is embedded within the system," you don't have to complete the syllogism to make the point. There was a LOT of harping on HRC's Goldman Sachs talk, which was really, really overblown. I doubt she said anything really controversial.

2. Attacking primary opponents is basically unavoidable in our current situation. In 2008, HRC did go negative against Barack and it wasn't pretty. On the other hand, what was she going to do? Their policy positions were more or less identical (remember that primary debate where they went on for thirty minutes about whether the health care plans should or shouldn't have an individual mandate, just to find a way to put some distance between them). And the overriding momentum in the party was "We've got to win because Bush is trashing the country." So they both wanted to beat Bush; they both had nothing positive to say.

And HRC is looking across the debate table from a guy who is younger, better looking, more charismatic and without baggage. She can't possibly win without going negative. To her credit, she didn't go very negative; it was less negative than Bernie and both were nowhere near as negative as the GOP has been for quite a while.

This is why I'm skeptical of the value of contested primaries in this age.

3. Subsequent events, I think, have validated HRC's 2016 approach to "the system" for better or worse. From long experience, not only in the US but globally through CGI and Sec of State -- she knew what real corruption looked like. Let's say that the worst fears about the Goldman Sachs talk were true. At most that is soft corruption. I also think that HRC knew billionaires better than Bernie. Obama was able to keep them on the Dems' side by focusing more on policy and on social issues than economic redistribution. OK, you disagree, you think that's a bad choice, you think that's betraying the working class. And fine, I get all that.

But look what happened when we lost the billionaires. Now there is so much corruption, it's just staggering. Obama, of course, famously didn't have any corruption issues; his administration had the most integrity (and transparency!) in a very long time. He kept the Benioffs and the Musks around in the coalition by not going hard for a wealth tax or some other eat-the-rich policies (which, by the way, I don't necessarily oppose), and again you might think the result was bad policy, it at least tamped down the corruption.

Now we have a fucking feeding trough in Washington. And the billionaires aren't content with giving money. They are buying and destroying media -- after suing some media into bankruptcy. Everything is transactional. Every single thing happening in the government is wrapped around the logic of personal gain to the government official and the president. In other words, there are worse things than the president being part of a softly corrupt system.

 

[superrific]

Fine to concede, but I’d like receipts for Bernie calling Clinton corrupt or a corporate shill.

He absolutely criticized her donor base and her ties to Wall Street, but that’s not the same thing as a personal attack on her character. If you’re claiming he crossed that line, you’ll need to cite it.

In fact, Bernie went out of his way to keep the campaign focused on systems and issues rather than personal delegitimization. He repeatedly said Clinton was qualified to be president and famously shut down email attacks with “nobody cares about your damn emails.”

Sanders officially endorsed Clinton about a month after the California primary, nominated her at the convention, and campaigned for her in multiple swing states. Whatever people felt about his tone, the historical record doesn’t support the claim that he refused to support her or ran a character-based smear campaign.

1. I don't think Bernie should bear any criticism for his endorsement. I think you can say he hung on too long and used his last two months of the primary to vent grievances and that turned out to be more harmful than he expected. I think after the convention he was fine.

2. This hypothetical conversation, while nominally focuses on power, is also an attack:

Alice: What do you think of Jimmy Hoffa?
Bob: He's a union boss, you know?
Alice: Do you mean he sells out his rank and file?
Bob: I mean, big labor and capital are pretty close these days, way too close. And it costs capital not a dime for the unions to be mobbed up, if you know what I mean.

There's no way to hear that and think, "good thing Bob isn't attacking Jimmy Hoffa for being corrupt." He's being more polite than "Jimmy Hoffa is a swamp monster" but it's the same in effect.

 

[heelinhell]

Fine to concede, but I’d like receipts for Bernie calling Clinton corrupt or a corporate shill.

He absolutely criticized her donor base and her ties to Wall Street, but that’s not the same thing as a personal attack on her character. If you’re claiming he crossed that line, you’ll need to cite it.

In fact, Bernie went out of his way to keep the campaign focused on systems and issues rather than personal delegitimization. He repeatedly said Clinton was qualified to be president and famously shut down email attacks with “nobody cares about your damn emails.”

Sanders officially endorsed Clinton about a month after the California primary, nominated her at the convention, and campaigned for her in multiple swing states. Whatever people felt about his tone, the historical record doesn’t support the claim that he refused to support her or ran a character-based smear campaign.

Receipts:

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Brawl Over His "Insinuation" That She's Corrupt

Sanders and Clinton went head to head Thursday night over the effects of taking massive amounts of money from corporate special interests.

theintercept.com

Op-Ed: Sanders calls Clinton's fundraising 'obscene,' but it's more nuanced -- influence isn't corruption

Despite Bernie Sanders' repeated accusations, there's no real evidence that Hillary Clinton has been corrupted by large campaign contributions.

www.latimes.com

Bernie Sanders tried to explain how Hillary Clinton was corrupted by the banks. He failed.

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week

theweek.com

And when I say Bernie's endorsement was not meaningful after the primary it did not stop the Bernie bros from booing Clinton throughout the convention and during her acceptance speech. I would love to know if Bernie was genuinely perturbed by the behavior of his supporters.

but again, I concede

 

[Paine]

Receipts:

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Brawl Over His "Insinuation" That She's Corrupt

Sanders and Clinton went head to head Thursday night over the effects of taking massive amounts of money from corporate special interests.

theintercept.com

Op-Ed: Sanders calls Clinton's fundraising 'obscene,' but it's more nuanced -- influence isn't corruption

Despite Bernie Sanders' repeated accusations, there's no real evidence that Hillary Clinton has been corrupted by large campaign contributions.

www.latimes.com

Bernie Sanders tried to explain how Hillary Clinton was corrupted by the banks. He failed.

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week

theweek.com

And when I say Bernie's endorsement was not meaningful after the primary it did not stop the Bernie bros from booing Clinton throughout the convention and during her acceptance speech. I would love to know if Bernie was genuinely perturbed by the behavior of his supporters.

but again, I concede

Nothing in those articles supports your assertion that Bernie called Hillary corrupt or a corporate shill.

 

[Paine]

1. I don't think Bernie should bear any criticism for his endorsement. I think you can say he hung on too long and used his last two months of the primary to vent grievances and that turned out to be more harmful than he expected. I think after the convention he was fine.

2. This hypothetical conversation, while nominally focuses on power, is also an attack:

Alice: What do you think of Jimmy Hoffa?
Bob: He's a union boss, you know?
Alice: Do you mean he sells out his rank and file?
Bob: I mean, big labor and capital are pretty close these days, way too close. And it costs capital not a dime for the unions to be mobbed up, if you know what I mean.

There's no way to hear that and think, "good thing Bob isn't attacking Jimmy Hoffa for being corrupt." He's being more polite than "Jimmy Hoffa is a swamp monster" but it's the same in effect.

If any kind of structural critique automatically equals character assassination, then discussion of political economy itself is off-limits. If Bernie saying we have a corrupt campaign finance system led some voters to distrust Clinton, that’s just basic politics. News flash: structural critiques change how people evaluate candidates, that doesn’t make them personal smears.

Is saying “capitalism produces inequality” an attack on everyone who participates in capitalism?

Is saying “the military–industrial complex exists” an attack on every defense official?

Is saying “racism is structural” a personal accusation against every white person?

Bernie didn’t create the salience of Wall Street, donor influence, or elite entanglement, those issues already existed after 2008. If pointing to them landed as a judgment on Clinton’s character, maybe that’s because the structural critique was accurate, not because it was a smear.

 

[GoHeelsweeeehoooo]

I don't live in Texas but I do agree with Talarico that Allred was a lackluster candidate - I really like both Talarico and Crockett and I hate that their primary race is getting ugly

 

[heelinhell]

Nothing in those articles supports your assertion that Bernie called Hillary corrupt or a corporate shill.

trying to concede, but are you really denying Bernie called her corrupt and a corporate shill beholden to the big banks ?

I could google his campaign speeches and find his direct quotes that roused the Bernie bros, but please allow me to concede

 

[Paine]

trying to concede, but are you really denying Bernie called her corrupt and a corporate shill beholden to the big banks ?

I could google his campaign speeches and find his direct quotes that roused the Bernie bros, but please allow me to concede

Again, I said it’s fine if you concede. But you made a direct accusation that he called Hillary a corrupt, corporate shill. That’s just revisionist history. Go ahead, find the campaign speech. I’ll wait.

 

[superrific]

If any kind of structural critique automatically equals character assassination,

But it wasn't just any kind of structural critique. It was a structural critique that also included constant references to HRC being paid $200K to speak to Wall Street (I don't know if that sum was actually true). He would include Clinton in his talk about the corrupt system regularly. It's like saying, "I'm not accusing X of being a pedo, I'm just talking about all the rich people who were on Epstein Island along with X."

And if asked if HRC was corrupt, he could have said, "no, not personally corrupt." But he didn't. True, he also didn't say, "yes, she is" but he did say, "this isn't about Hillary's character" which is a way of saying that actually it kinda was. Again, this type of negativity can be sort of inevitable in primaries. Barack didn't exactly go negative against HRC in 2008, but he could have said, "Hillary, you're likeable, I like you," but instead he said, "you're likeable enough."

And attacking the DNC as he did was a terrible idea and truly harmful. The fact is that the Democrats didn't actually have to open their primaries to non-party members. There is no law forcing Democrats to associate politically in a way that includes non-party members. And historically, it would have been unprecedented, as far as I know, for a major party to nominate as presidential candidate a person who wasn't a member of the party.

The surprise wasn't that it was "rigged" against Bernie. The surprise was that Dems didn't insist he join the fucking party before trying to carry its mantle. Bernie free-rode on the Dems structure, never doing the unglamorous work expected of members but happy to associate with Dems. His biggest sin was attacking the Dems.

 

[Paine]

But it wasn't just any kind of structural critique. It was a structural critique that also included constant references to HRC being paid $200K to speak to Wall Street (I don't know if that sum was actually true). He would include Clinton in his talk about the corrupt system regularly. It's like saying, "I'm not accusing X of being a pedo, I'm just talking about all the rich people who were on Epstein Island along with X."

And if asked if HRC was corrupt, he could have said, "no, not personally corrupt." But he didn't. True, he also didn't say, "yes, she is" but he did say, "this isn't about Hillary's character" which is a way of saying that actually it kinda was. Again, this type of negativity can be sort of inevitable in primaries. Barack didn't exactly go negative against HRC in 2008, but he could have said, "Hillary, you're likeable, I like you," but instead he said, "you're likeable enough."

And attacking the DNC as he did was a terrible idea and truly harmful. The fact is that the Democrats didn't actually have to open their primaries to non-party members. There is no law forcing Democrats to associate politically in a way that includes non-party members. And historically, it would have been unprecedented, as far as I know, for a major party to nominate as presidential candidate a person who wasn't a member of the party.

The surprise wasn't that it was "rigged" against Bernie. The surprise was that Dems didn't insist he join the fucking party before trying to carry its mantle. Bernie free-rode on the Dems structure, never doing the unglamorous work expected of members but happy to associate with Dems. His biggest sin was attacking the Dems.

You could save yourself a lot of typing by just admitting that structural critiques make you uncomfortable and you don’t think they belong in Democratic primaries.

 

[superrific]

Again, I said it’s fine if you concede. But you made a direct accusation that he called Hillary a corrupt, corporate shill. That’s just revisionist history. Go ahead, find the campaign speech. I’ll wait.

ChatGPT attributes the following quotes to Bernie, and I'm not sure if it's a literal word-for-word pull, but Gemini confirms that he said it.

“The establishment is terrified of our campaign because they know we are going to change a corrupt system that works for the wealthy and powerful — and Secretary Clinton is part of that establishment.”

"If you are giving speeches to Wall Street behind closed doors for $225,000 a speech, the American people have a right to know what you said.”

“It is hard to believe that you would say the same things to a room full of bankers as you say to working families.”

"If you are dependent on big money interests, you represent those interests — not the American people" (this is particularly silly because obviously HRC was dependent on both groups).

Those are attacks on her character and integrity.

 

[Paine]

ChatGPT attributes the following quotes to Bernie, and I'm not sure if it's a literal word-for-word pull, but Gemini confirms that he said it.

“The establishment is terrified of our campaign because they know we are going to change a corrupt system that works for the wealthy and powerful — and Secretary Clinton is part of that establishment.”

"If you are giving speeches to Wall Street behind closed doors for $225,000 a speech, the American people have a right to know what you said.”

“It is hard to believe that you would say the same things to a room full of bankers as you say to working families.”

"If you are dependent on big money interests, you represent those interests — not the American people" (this is particularly silly because obviously HRC was dependent on both groups).

Those are attacks on her character and integrity.

None of those quotes are character attacks, and it should be embarrass you to think they are. Structural arguments about incentives and representation are NOT character attacks. Don’t be mad that voters understand how power works when Bernie lays it out.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Supreme Court Clears Way for California Voting Map​

The state’s Republican Party had asked the justices to step in and block the new congressional maps, which give an advantage to Democrats, before the midterms.

Supreme Court Clears Way for California Voting Map

The state’s Republican Party had asked the justices to step in and block the new congressional maps, which give an advantage to Democrats, before the midterms.

www.nytimes.com

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I haven’t read the article but it reminds me of Al Franken. And Ds are the first to attack one another. Look back at Al Franken. Rs leaked the photo of him playfully putting his hands above the breasts of a sleeping friend. He actually did nothing and the friend said so. But Ds forced him to resign while the Rs laughed at us while Trump actually DID awful things. Rs knew that is exactly what would happen. Ds hold one another accountable, Rs ignore and fall in line. A blatant double standard

Yep. That was the dumbest thing and Franken absolutely regrets it. I hope the people that pressured him to resign regret it as well.

This was during the "me too" movement and the "believe her" stuff. Democrats were using it as a cudgel on Roy Moore and Trump and a host of other folks. Democrats knew they would be characterized as hypocrites if they didn't push Franken out, and they were hoping that standing strong on that sort of principle would ensure a better result in the 2018 midterms. They got crushed anyway and Minnesota lost a pretty good senator other Democrats did hang on to that seat.

 

[superrific]

You could save yourself a lot of typing by just admitting that structural critiques make you uncomfortable and you don’t think they belong in Democratic primaries.

You could maybe do without the smug dismissal. Listen, I've been involved in politics since before you were born. Hell, since before I could even vote. Literally. Over the years I have made many a structural critique and do so here quite often.

What makes me more than uncomfortable is a structural critique coming from a supposed Democratic presidential candidate that places Democrats and the Democratic opponent in the middle of the corruption. The Dems gave Bernie the loudest microphone he had ever had, by far, and he used it to trash them. That's not acceptable.

There were lots of ways he could have made his points without attacking Hillary. He chose not to, even after he was obviously going to lose. He spent a month or two at the end railing about the corrupt system instead of accepting that he lost a contest that he had no actual chance of winning from the outset, which he knew.