LogFAQs > #932960778

okay i am apologizing in advance for this post but in my defense a psuedo-migraine yesterday knocked my sleep schedule out of wack and my mind is both wandering and lingering on this way too much

Now, if you want to just declare that one of them is a lying liar who is lying to make the simplest possible explanation, then fine, I can't stop you but I also don't agree with you and don't have any real interest in arguing that scenario.

I do, however, think if the situation went something like this both the actual actions/statements made and the political game theory checks out so I'm feeling increasingly confident something like this is what happened.

2018
Warren and Sanders are discussing 2020 politics
Warren: What if the Democratic Party nominates a woman [in 2020]?
Sanders: I think they'd lose.

a few days ago
Staffer (probably a Warren staffer but maybe just some anti-Sanders person with knowledge of that meeting): *Runs to media* "hey want to hear a story from 2018?"

Media: *relates exchange with the scope of 2020*
Media/Punditry: Sanders says a woman can't win the presidency!
Media (to Sanders): Did you say that a woman can't win the presidency?
Sanders: Uh, no. Check my record.
Media/Twitter/Pundit/Social Media buzzing grows to the point where Warren can't realistically dodge this
Warren (through a statement, not in person): The exchange as reported happened.
Media: oh. em. gee. someone's l-y-i-n-g~~~~ fight fight FIGHT!

Debate
Moderator: Hey did you say a woman can't win?
Sanders: No, that's absurd.
Moderator: Hey, Warren, how did you feel when Sanders said a woman couldn't win??? (Note that this would technically fit the truth of a 2020 exchange even though it was exhaustively primed to come with the implication of the general sense that Sanders just refuted)
Warren: I disagreed. *spins it into a pro-woman candidate message*

~~~

Now, if the initial exchange went down more or less like that I think everyone else actually falls into place. Sanders giving a political punditry prediction that in the 2020 environment a woman would lose, while not a take I agree with, is one I think that can come from a rational place. If you think the election is going to be extremely uphill to start and that the sexism that would be brought in makes the incline one that's impassable that's not an irrational argument. Again, I think a woman can beat Trump and win in 2020, but I don't think that the counter-argument has to come from a bad faith place.

So moving up to the initial reporting phase. I'll admit I ignored this story mostly at the start, but didn't the first reporting include the context that showed they were discussing 2020? I think this is where things go south for everyone. If we assume the exchange happened as I hypothesize no one is in a good place once the discussion is leaked. So let's say they go to Sanders for comment. Saying the exchange didn't happen at all is a lie and a dangerous one that Warren can call him on. It's actually probably Sanders's best move to pivot the issue to the general case and refute that because that is a ridiculous idea. Unfortunately it's also the exact framing that anti-Sanders people would want to push to damage Sanders and the one the media would want for max drama so rather than bury the issue the circus just gets started. Meanwhile, Warren can't just ignore this is all playing out like she isn't paying attention. Heck, I saw criticism that she didn't say anything fast enough. From her perspective the initial report is technically accurate so saying it was made up would be a lie. No one could/would call her on it but expecting her to just lie to cover would be gross. So all she can do is say, "Yeah, it happened. I disagreed. Let's move on." Well now the media is in full drama mode because now they can sell a "someone has to be lying~" story along with the "FRIENDSHIP ENDED" narrative they're pushing.

So then moving to the debate. They both have to know the question is coming. Sanders's best move - and only move at this point - is to keep to his line from before. Moving from it would be disastrous. Meanwhile, Warren's in a bad place too. Providing clarification that they were talking about 2020 just isn't helpful to either of them. It would be a clear shot at Sanders because regardless of what was meant in that initial discussion it'd still be a bad look for him to have her effectively say, "Guys, Sanders didn't say a woman couldn't win the presidency. He just said a woman couldn't win this election." I mean that framing (which no matter how she might articulate it would be the way the media would reframe it) is basically a textbook example of sexism. Meanwhile, it'd be a bad look for her too because it would 100% come off as political opportunism even if technically correct. You think she's being attacked for it the way things happened in reality? Imagine that. So her only play is to also repeat her previous response that it happened. However, since going any further is going to be bad for both and if she just cuts her answer there you no the moderator asks a follow-up her best move is to just try to spin it into a generic positive message for women. It's the least harmful way to proceed for all parties involved and hey... she is still running.

tl;dr: The moment this story leaked to the media, assuming it happened, Sanders and Warren were put in an awful spot and they actually have played it as best they could and in a way that sought to minimize the damage to either.

and that is all for my sleep-distorted political game theory storytime

---

xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?