 Hi everyone! Do you like quirky YouTube videos with lots of unfunny puns and unnecessary jump cuts? Me too! But what makes these types of videos even better is when a middle-aged man does it in order to make propaganda more palatable to young people. Ha ha ha ha! Vote! Five, ten! Probably, probably, probably, probably, probably, 2020! You know, when he raises his voice to a really high pitch like that, I think it just, you know, it really helps to drive home the point. Now I know exactly what you're thinking, Mike. You probably aren't the best person to be criticizing someone else for having an annoying voice, and I hear you, that's absolutely true, but understand something. I am self-aware. I realize that my voice is nasally and annoying, so what I try to do is make my voice less annoying, try to make my pitch, you know, more constant, so that way it's actually tolerable for extended listening periods. Whereas someone like Chris Aliza actually thinks that being overly annoying in shrill makes his content more endearing and personable. So it's just bad, but you know, aside from his delivery being insufferable, the substance itself is still lacking. So what he's going to talk about in a video that I'm about to show you is Elizabeth Warren surpassing Bernie Sanders in polls, and I have no issues with, you know, the data that he presents, because it is true that according to real clear politics averages, Warren now has a slight edge over Bernie Sanders. But what I dislike about this video, aside from the delivery, of course, is the fact that he draws inferences about Sanders supporters based on assumptions that he clearly pulled out of his ass. Now, as you're going to see from the like to dislike ratio, some of his assertions were disagreeable to say the least. In fact, people hated this, and you're going to see why. Burned out, not feeling the burn, slow burn. I got thousands of these. Literally, I wrote them in a notebook. Something has happened to Bernie Sanders over the last few months in the 2020 presidential race, or more accurately, something has not happened. Sanders, the Vermont Democratic Socialist, is stuck in neutral, and that's a very bad place to be with the day when actual voters will cast actual votes getting closer and closer. So what explains Warren's rise on what is, for all intents and purposes, Sanders' longtime message? Well, voters like new faces. Sanders ran already in 2016, and lots of Democratic voters flocked to him. But for many of those same voters, it may be a been-there-done-that situation. Warren is, in their minds, burning 2.0, the same proposals in a more voter-friendly and electable package. And that gets at the more fundamental problem here for Sanders. The people who love him. Love him exactly because he doesn't care about how he looks, perennially unkempt, or what he sounds like. Very, very shouty. Those traits make him authentic and different to them. But those same Sandersian traits may be the thing that is keeping him from growing his support in the race in any meaningful and statistically significant way. So if you're a Democrat and you are relentlessly focused on nominating someone who can beat Donald Trump in November 2020, and all polling I've seen suggests that is the dominant motivation for a majority of Democratic voters, then Sanders' profile may keep you from jumping on board his campaign. And there's evidence outside the world of polling that Sanders' stall in the numbers is having an impact. In mid-September, he replaced his New Hampshire state director, which is never a great sign with the primary now set for mid-February. And around that same time, he also lost the endorsement of the Working Families Party to Warren. It's important to note, working families endorsed Sanders in 2016. Now, take a breath. That was very cleansing. It's better to have these struggles in the fall of an off year, rather than the middle of a primary season in late winter and early spring of next year. Because of the loyalty of Sanders' core backers, it is hard to imagine him slipping from relevance totally anytime real soon. But his struggle to attract support beyond that hardcore core is real, and responsible for the current Sanders' stagnation. And that is the point. Even if it were the case that Chris Saliza actually made decent points in that video, I would still hate him. It'd still be unbearable because of the delivery. 20. 20. But let's get to the arguments he makes. He says Warren, in their minds of the voters, is Bernie 2.0. The same proposals in a more voter-friendly and electable package. So much wrong with that. First of all, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren do not have the same basis of support. There are a couple of polls that indicate that maybe that's starting to change a little bit. But overall, Warren has the support of college-educated white liberals. Bernie Sanders has the support of lower socioeconomically disadvantaged people. His support is more multiracial. These are not the same support bases. So it's not like there's a bunch of Sanders supporters who supported him in 2016, but are now saying, you know what, I like this new and improved version of Bernie Sanders better. I'm going to switch to Elizabeth Warren. You know, maybe some people are saying that, but to say that that is or suggest that that is a large portion as to why Elizabeth Warren is surging, I think that that is not really based on anything. A part of the reason why I think Warren is surging is because she has recently become the media darling, because the establishment clearly wants anyone but Bernie Sanders. And they realize that there is that appeal among progressives. People want to change candidate. Elizabeth Warren is that type of change candidate to a much lesser extent than Bernie Sanders, but she is a change candidate nonetheless. So they're trying to use Elizabeth Warren to take down Bernie Sanders. That's the goal, essentially. That's what I would guess anyways. But to think that people are jumping ship because Elizabeth Warren is somehow Bernie 2.0, new and improved, that's just not correct. Bernie Sanders still outflanks Elizabeth Warren to the left on virtually every single issue with the exception of getting rid of the filibuster. He then says the people who love him love him exactly because he doesn't care how he looks, perennially unkempt, or what he sounds like, very, very shouty. Those traits make him authentic and different to them. Actually, no, Bernie Sanders supporters don't care about these things. These are superficial traits about the candidates that we don't care about. I don't care if Bernie Sanders was too quiet. I don't care if Bernie Sanders was too loud. What matters is the substance. And I get the irony in talking about how substance matters more, you know, hearing what someone says as opposed to how they say it is more important after I just criticized Crystal Liz's delivery. But I mean, the point is that Bernie Sanders is proposing policies, structural changes to the system that would literally reshape our country for the better for generations potentially. Get us on a trajectory of social democracy. He's proposing policies that would change the lives of Americans, save lives literally if we get Medicare for all codified into law. So for you to say we like him because he has messy hair and he yells and that seems authentic. No, that's bullshit. But of course, Crystal Liz is someone who thinks that if you be quirky and act like a 12 year old YouTube makeup tutorial guru, that that's going to get people to like him. So to him, in his mind, he thinks that superficiality is important. But in actuality, people don't actually care about that. But he then goes on to say those same Sandersian traits, maybe what's keeping him from growing his support in the race in any meaningful and statistically significant way. He also says that if you're a Democrat concerned about beating Trump, which most Democrats are concerned with, that's their top priority. You know, Bernie Sanders profile, the way that he talks, the way that he's unkempt may keep you from jumping on board because that makes him seem un-electable. Except why was Donald Trump able to get elected when he was not a conventional candidate? Because he just spoke off the cuff. He had the vocabulary, still has the vocabulary of a third grader and people like that. It seems like he's not in an elitist. It seems like he's not trying to be patronizing or condescending. That comes across to voters as someone who is authentic. So if anything, the fact that Bernie Sanders doesn't give a shit about these things, that should theoretically make him not less appealing, but maybe more appealing, but it's not going to be the determining factor. And to suggest that Elizabeth Warren is more electable than Donald Trump, when poll after poll shows that Bernie Sanders defeats Donald Trump by one of the widest margins, when he defeats Donald Trump in the rust belt by double digits in some of those states, according to some polls. I mean, you're just making this up. That's why there's so many dislikes, Chris. You get that, right? Because you are saying these things. You're making these assertions, but you don't have the data to back it up. You're not talking to voters. You're not basing this off of even anecdotal evidence. You're just saying what you feel. And that's not a really good way to do political commentary, because if people see that you don't have your finger on the pulse of America, they're going to realize that you're full of shit. And you're just a pay propagandist for CNN, who does these quirky segments that are intended, I'm assuming, to appeal to younger people. But this just comes across as patronizing and irritating, to be honest. So at the end of the day, I don't know what else to say about this. Anytime Christeliza comes out with a video about Bernie Sanders or some type of policy, I cringe because I don't know what type of misinformation or bogus assertions he's going to make that are harmful. He pedaled the idea in a video about Medicare for All recently that was also heavily disliked, that claims people don't really like Medicare for All. When most polls show that Medicare for All is in fact overwhelmingly popular, especially among the Democratic Party base. So, I mean, this is misinformation. We should be relying on news agencies to educate voters, especially if you are appealing to youth voters, right? These are impressionable people who are getting into politics. So if you're literally designing, I'm assuming, your content to appeal to those voters who like these quirky YouTubers, then I mean, you've got to do better, educate people. If you're going to say, well, maybe people are turned off by Bernie Sanders, you know, in the way that he has his hair messy or whatever, you have to at least back it up with something. You can't just say it and expect people to take you out your word, at least give us an anecdotal example for the love of God. But I mean, this is the type of laziness and sloppy hackery that we've come to expect from mainstream media. And Chris Selyza is one of the worst, to be honest, as of late. He just, he bases his opinions off of nothing. Nothing. I mean, it's so frustrating. He starts with the data and then he just falls off a cliff by saying, well, the data, you know, the reason why it's panning out this way, the reason why, you know, the polls are going in this direction is because, and then he inserts some insane bogus opinion in the most unbearable and sufferable way imaginable. Trust me, I'd have way more supporters on Patreon if that was my podcast said.