Media treatment of Bernie Sanders: a story in pictures

[Harry Bosch]

Sanders has his work cut out for him, it's true. The Republicans will of course do what they always do, which is to attack in bad faith, but the mainstream media will as well, they are just more subtle about it. All in the name of the status quo. Sanders (and others) like many Americans, wants to end the legal bribery in this country, and bring big money to heel. They will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening - even if in the end it's even good for them in the long run.

Damn right. Very frustrating that it just isn't handed to Sanders. All those meanies out there with different ideas - wish that they'd just go away...

 

[braces_for_impact]

Sanders has his work cut out for him, it's true. The Republicans will of course do what they always do, which is to attack in bad faith, but the mainstream media will as well, they are just more subtle about it. All in the name of the status quo. Sanders (and others) like many Americans, wants to end the legal bribery in this country, and bring big money to heel. They will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening - even if in the end it's even good for them in the long run.

Damn right. Very frustrating that it just isn't handed to Sanders. All those meanies out there with different ideas - wish that they'd just go away...

Despite the sarcasm (I think?) the frustrating issue isn't that Sanders (or anyone for that matter) has to fight for their vision, it's frustrating because those big money interests that are being fought are of course used in the fight itself. Corporate donors don't just influence policy after the politicians have won, they have several less than sporting advantages in getting their politician elected in the first place.

Legal bribery isn't just a Republican problem, it infests our entire democracy. So much so that people complain about it. "All politicians are corrupt." "It doesn't matter who wins, it's more of the same. " Etc. These are complaints of the people not bring listened to in government. Despite the protestations of so many politicians and the Supreme court, people know corruption when they see it. Just because it's been legalized doesn't make it right.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Sanders has his work cut out for him, it's true. The Republicans will of course do what they always do, which is to attack in bad faith, but the mainstream media will as well, they are just more subtle about it. All in the name of the status quo. Sanders (and others) like many Americans, wants to end the legal bribery in this country, and bring big money to heel. They will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening - even if in the end it's even good for them in the long run.

Damn right. Very frustrating that it just isn't handed to Sanders. All those meanies out there with different ideas - wish that they'd just go away...

Despite the sarcasm (I think?) the frustrating issue isn't that Sanders (or anyone for that matter) has to fight for their vision, it's frustrating because those big money interests that are being fought are of course used in the fight itself. Corporate donors don't just influence policy after the politicians have won, they have several less than sporting advantages in getting their politician elected in the first place.

Legal bribery isn't just a Republican problem, it infests our entire democracy. So much so that people complain about it. "All politicians are corrupt." "It doesn't matter who wins, it's more of the same. " Etc. These are complaints of the people not bring listened to in government. Despite the protestations of so many politicians and the Supreme court, people know corruption when they see it. Just because it's been legalized doesn't make it right.

First off, everyone has to fight to get their vision aired. There are millions of different ideas out there. I just find it amusing that people just assume that anyone with a different opinion is corrupt or blinded by corporate overlords! Secondly, how many people even get their news from the major news outlets anymore?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Despite the sarcasm (I think?) the frustrating issue isn't that Sanders (or anyone for that matter) has to fight for their vision, it's frustrating because those big money interests that are being fought are of course used in the fight itself. Corporate donors don't just influence policy after the politicians have won, they have several less than sporting advantages in getting their politician elected in the first place.

Legal bribery isn't just a Republican problem, it infests our entire democracy. So much so that people complain about it. "All politicians are corrupt." "It doesn't matter who wins, it's more of the same. " Etc. These are complaints of the people not bring listened to in government. Despite the protestations of so many politicians and the Supreme court, people know corruption when they see it. Just because it's been legalized doesn't make it right.

First off, everyone has to fight to get their vision aired. There are millions of different ideas out there. I just find it amusing that people just assume that anyone with a different opinion is corrupt or blinded by corporate overlords! Secondly, how many people even get their news from the major news outlets anymore?

Sure, there's some competition for views, clicks, airtime etc. but it's far from a level playing field yes? Because there's a normal baseline for this activity, doesn't mean some don't have it much harder than others. So maybe explain your bemusement to me?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Despite the sarcasm (I think?) the frustrating issue isn't that Sanders (or anyone for that matter) has to fight for their vision, it's frustrating because those big money interests that are being fought are of course used in the fight itself. Corporate donors don't just influence policy after the politicians have won, they have several less than sporting advantages in getting their politician elected in the first place.

Legal bribery isn't just a Republican problem, it infests our entire democracy. So much so that people complain about it. "All politicians are corrupt." "It doesn't matter who wins, it's more of the same. " Etc. These are complaints of the people not bring listened to in government. Despite the protestations of so many politicians and the Supreme court, people know corruption when they see it. Just because it's been legalized doesn't make it right.

First off, everyone has to fight to get their vision aired. There are millions of different ideas out there. I just find it amusing that people just assume that anyone with a different opinion is corrupt or blinded by corporate overlords! Secondly, how many people even get their news from the major news outlets anymore?

Sure, there's some competition for views, clicks, airtime etc. but it's far from a level playing field yes? Because there's a normal baseline for this activity, doesn't mean some don't have it much harder than others. So maybe explain your bemusement to me?

Well, there will never be a level playing field. Some people have it worse than others, but they let the adversity guide them to a larger win. Obama was a nobody when he first ran. He ran against incredible odds. And yet he won. I'd argue that some of the adversity that he faced made his stronger. Bernie has enormous name recognition. People know him and know what he stands for. If someone beats him in the democratic primary, it's because more people like the ideas of the other person better. There isn't any grand conspiracy out to get Bernie!

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There isn't any grand conspiracy out to get Bernie!

Well, there is in that the "conspiracy" is his campaign strategy. Poor poor pitiful Bernie. He's the "underdog" the "outsider" the "anti-establishment" blah blah blah that is so "feared" that they have to keep him down. It's the exact same strategy he ran with in 2016 (and the exact same strategy Trump used as well). This is all just a continuance of that original strategy. It's calculated and deliberate and, of course, a massive load of horseshit.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Sure, there's some competition for views, clicks, airtime etc. but it's far from a level playing field yes? Because there's a normal baseline for this activity, doesn't mean some don't have it much harder than others. So maybe explain your bemusement to me?

Well, there will never be a level playing field. Some people have it worse than others, but they let the adversity guide them to a larger win. Obama was a nobody when he first ran. He ran against incredible odds. And yet he won. I'd argue that some of the adversity that he faced made his stronger. Bernie has enormous name recognition. People know him and know what he stands for. If someone beats him in the democratic primary, it's because more people like the ideas of the other person better. There isn't any grand conspiracy out to get Bernie!

In a way I agree with what you say, and in a way I disagree.

Well, there will never be a level playing field

And there will always be racism, most likely poverty, and other facts of life we don't like. Does this mean we should stop trying to minimize it? Try to make things better? I wouldn't think this answer would be at all acceptable for well, anything.

Some people have it worse than others, but they let the adversity guide them to a larger win

Some are able to overcome the odds, sure. Many are not, and of course because their story never got told, we know very little about them don't we? This reminds me of discussion on modern systemic racism where someone points out the issue and is countered by a few examples of rich black people. This in no way invalidates the point.

I'd argue that some of the adversity that he faced made his stronger.

Sure.

Bernie has enormous name recognition

I suppose for a politician he does.

People know him and know what he stands for.

Absolutely not. I have met SO many people that have NO clue what he stands for. You and I may pay careful attention to politics, but most people don't. What I do see is many people have a characterization of him that comes from either the far right media or the "mainstream" media. Everything from the awful "socialist" angle to communism to wanting the nationalize virtually everything. Also, many other ridiculous things that simply don't deal with the merit of his ideas, and are not criticisms made in good faith. These range from the outright lies of FOX to the more subtle jabs and misleading information from Politco, Washington Post, etc. There were some fine examples in the beginning of this thread.

There isn't any grand conspiracy out to get Bernie!

No, and many people like to react in bad faith to accusations of bias by pointing to Bernie supporters and simply calling them crazy conspiracy theorists. There are shades of nuance here, and frankly, most of these detractors know this, even if they pretend not to get it. These come from the mainstream media not properly reporting the facts under the guise of neutrality, when what they should be is objective, and there is a difference. You don't just have people on from both sides and throw your hands up in the air and say "Who knows what's true?" Frankly, most media is biased in two ways: obviously biased, like FOX or MSNBC (although they are NOT to the same degree) or they are biased towards the status quo, the establishment as it exists. It is also systemic, in that no, there's no secret cabal of media execs meeting to out Sanders. Jeff Bezos doesn't march down the aisles in The Washington Post, demanding that his reporters write bad faith Sanders articles. But the media ownership by money interests themselves, combined with a profit motive does affect the news that reaches us.It affects who's hired, what's editorialized, what's printed, and what is seen as acceptable and what is seen as extremist views. In some ways this HAS improved. Some of the Trump investigative journalism has been excellent, which is why he hates it so much. In other ways it's been awful. Not just in regards to Trump but many areas of news reporting.

So no, I don't think there's a grand conspiracy against Sanders by the media, but nevertheless he does suffer from a media bias and often doesn't get a fair shake. He's not the only one this happens to, but he is a high profile example.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The supposed "left wing media" overwhelmingly attacked Hillary Clinton throughout the primaries and then the general. Sanders and Trump were the darlings of the media coverage, with Sanders winning the most favored nation status of all. Why? Because he was also supported by the right, because they hated and feared Clinton--and rightfully so considering the fact that she won--and wanted to instead run against Sanders.

A fact that Sanders supporters keep avoiding. Why would Trump have preferred to run against Sanders if in fact Sanders was the all-powerful-Oz that every single Sanders supporter keeps claiming would have easily beaten Trump?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There isn't any grand conspiracy out to get Bernie!

Well, there is in that the "conspiracy" is his campaign strategy. Poor poor pitiful Bernie. He's the "underdog" the "outsider" the "anti-establishment" blah blah blah that is so "feared" that they have to keep him down. It's the exact same strategy he ran with in 2016 (and the exact same strategy Trump used as well). This is all just a continuance of that original strategy. It's calculated and deliberate and, of course, a massive load of horseshit.

It was based on truth in 2016. Not as much so today. Today the same forces are working against Gabbard and Yang. Corruption and power are real and exist in the DNC.

 

[PyramidHead]

DNC throws Iowa, Nevada caucuses into confusion

Democrats in Iowa and Nevada were steaming Friday after the Democratic National Committee recommended scuttling proposals intended to make caucuses in both states more accessible and increase turnout in 2020.

While leaders with both the Nevada and Iowa state parties said they were confident the DNC decision would not disrupt the timing of their 2020 presidential caucuses, five officials close to caucus preparations in both states privately expressed dismay over the late decision to scrap the plans for so-called “virtual caucuses,” which had been in the works — with the DNC’s input — since the early spring.

[...]

“What’s surprising is that the DNC insisted on expanding access to the caucus, and then when the state party comes up with a plan for expanding access, they use leaks and innuendo to tube the process,” said Jeff Link, an Iowa-based Democratic consultant who has long helped run the Iowa caucuses.

Link accused the DNC of leaking a narrative last week out of a closed committee in San Francisco. “This whole notion that their system was hacked and it was a security risk — there was no system in place yet,” he said.

One Nevada Democrat, who asked not to be named, noted that the DNC had advance viewing of the state’s plan before it was made public in March.

“To say this is unbelievable would be an understatement,” the person said.

A DNC spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

This CBS News survey was conducted by YouGov between August 28 and September 4, 2019. A representative sample of 16,525 registered voters was selected in 18 states expected to hold early primaries and caucuses (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia). This sample includes 7,804 self-identified Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents. This sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, and education based on the American Community Survey, conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, as well as 2016 presidential vote. The margin of error is +/- 1.8 points.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is it in a nut (from the Harvard report linked previously):

Why was Trump’s coverage so favorable? Why did the watchdog press say so many positive things about Trump’s candidacy? The reason inheres in journalists’ tendency to build their narratives around the candidates’ positions in the race. This horserace focus leads them into four storylines: a candidate is “leading,” “trailing,” “gaining ground,” or “losing ground.” Of the four storylines, the most predictably positive one is that of the “gaining ground” candidate, particularly when that candidate is emerging from the back of the pack. It’s a story of growing momentum, rising poll numbers, and ever larger crowds. The storyline invariably includes negative elements, typically around the tactics that the candidate is employing in the surge to the top. But the overall media portrayal of a “gaining ground” candidate is a positive one.
...
Name recognition is a key asset in the early going. Unless poll respondents know of a candidate, they’re not going to choose that candidate. Out of mind translates into out of luck for a presidential hopeful in polls and in news coverage. Nor is name recognition something that can be quickly acquired. Sanders had one big advantage over some of the other no-names in recent elections. His Vermont base gave him extraordinary high name recognition—90 percent—in neighboring New Hampshire, the site of the first primary.[25] But even as late as August of 2015, two in five registered Democrats nationally said they’d never heard of Sanders or had heard so little they didn’t have an opinion.[26]

Sanders’ initial poll position meant that, when he was reported in the news, the coverage was sure to have a negative component. He was in the unenviable position of a “likely loser.” At the same time, his initial poll standing proved advantageous as the year unfolded. As his poll numbers ticked upward, he was portrayed as a “gaining ground” candidate, a favorable storyline buttressed by reports of increasingly large crowds and enthusiastic followers. “The overflow crowds Sanders has been drawing in Iowa and New Hampshire,” said USA Today, “are signs that there is ‘a real hunger’ for a substantive discussion about Americans’ economic anxieties . . . .” The “real hunger” extended also to journalists, who are drawn to a candidate who begins to make headway against an odds-on favorite. It’s a David vs. Goliath story, the same story that helped propel Gary Hart’s challenge to Walter Mondale in 1984 and John McCain’s challenge to George W. Bush in 2000. A challenger also gives journalists what they relish most—a competitive race. “Hillary Clinton can’t afford to ignore Bernie Sanders any longer,” said a CNN piece. “She has a serious problem on her hands. Sanders is showing that his campaign poses a genuine threat. He is drawing massive crowds months before the caucuses and primaries begin and without much of a staff to speak of.”

Combine that with the fact that Sanders bots routinely complained on social media about how there was no msm coverage of Sanders' rallies when in fact that was not the case:

Sanders’ media coverage during the pre-primary period was a sore spot with his followers, who complained the media was biased against his candidacy. In relative terms at least, their complaint lacks substance. Among candidates in recent decades who entered the campaign with no money, no organization, and no national following, Sanders fared better than nearly all of them. Sanders’ initial low poll numbers marked him as less newsworthy than Clinton but, as he gained strength, the news tilted in his favor. On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, Sanders had achieved what was unthinkable in early 2015. He was positioned to make a credible run at the Democratic nomination.

For her part, Clinton might have wished that the Democratic race received even less attention than it did, given that her coverage was the least favorable of the leading contenders, Democratic and Republican. Month after month, as Figure 6 indicates, her coverage was more negative than positive. There was only one month in the whole of 2015 where the tone of her coverage was not in the red and, even then, it barely touched positive territory. During the first half of the year, excluding neutral references, it averaged three to one negative statements over positive statements. Her coverage in the second half of the year was more favorable, but still damning. The ratio for that period was more than three to two negative over positive.

Sanders engaged Revolution Messaging two days after he announced his candidacy. For those who don't know, the people behind RM were the geniuses behind Obama's success.

Their own "case study"--complete with its own confirmation bias, of course--on how they did it can be found here: Case Study: Bernie 2016. Snippet:

The Sanders campaign spent more on digital advertising than all federal races combined in 2008. And with good reason. Since Bernie had never run for office nationally, he started at a significant disadvantage in terms of name recognition, familiarity with his positions and the size of his supporter list. With Bernie‘s digital advertising placements, we were able to quickly and cost-effectively assist in record-breaking fundraising, grow Bernie‘s base, persuade key targets, and turn out voters. Our strategy was to focus our early advertising efforts on digital, connect with voters early and often, mobilize online quickly during key moments, experiment frequently, and not overcomplicate our message or tactics.

The key, especially in the first months of our campaign, was focusing on what worked best. For example, in the early days of Bernie’s candidacy, many journalists and insiders were quick to write him off. The press argued that Bernie’s attempt to put the focus on certain issues was futile. So, we targeted the millions of progressives who cared about those issues most. Those same people were targeted with ads encouraging them to join Bernie‘s rallies, which built the foundation for what would become a political phenomenon.

The campaign raised more than $61 million and acquired more than three million email addresses from digital ads.

The campaign was marked by many firsts in the political advertising space. We were the first Presidential campaign to employ Facebook Canvas ads, Twitter conversational video ads and YouTube bumper ads. The campaign ran the first-ever political takeover on the homepage of the New York Times. Bernie Sanders was also the first presidential candidate to employ sponsored content with publishers like Buzzfeed, The Hill and Politico.

We placed a series of Snapchat filter ads for the nine days leading up to, and including, the Iowa caucus. It was the first Snapchat ad placement for a Democratic candidate ever, and the first time Snapchat ran a geotargeted campaign for that many consecutive days. The series of filters featured a cartoon Bernie counting down the days to the caucus and asking Iowans if they were ready to “Feel the Bern.” The ads were viewed more than 3 million times.

And before the usual suspects start unpuckering their sphincters, it's not just me who noted this:

By some key measures, Sanders was even drawing larger crowds than Obama did in 2008. The sizes of the crowds–tens of thousands of people at a time–had everyone asking, including the Washington Post, “How does he do it?”

While theories varied–“It’s his charisma!” “It’s his populist appeal!”–depending who you asked, many professional campaign watchers on both sides of the aisle, including the Washington Post, who posited the question, gave much of the credit to Sanders’s social media team.

“Sanders’ social media campaign gets a solid A-,” says Nikki Usher Layser, assistant professor at the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, whose latest book is Making News at The New York Times. “#FeeltheBern has got to be one of the most creative hashtags I’ve ever seen for a campaign. That’s got to be one of the best turns-of-phrases for strategic communication–in just one hashtag, you can rally the troops, celebrate an accomplishment–it’s everything.”

The man behind it all, Scott Goldstein, gave the praise to Bernie, of course, but then the piece notes:

Still Goodstein does acknowledge that his team’s understanding of how social media campaigning has changed since Obama’s 2008 campaign first leveraged the then-new medium, as well as its willingness to embrace new tools and social media platforms before other candidates, has given the Sanders campaign an edge. Here’s his top takeaways from running one of the most talked-about social media campaigns in recent memory.

THIS ISN’T OBAMA’S SOCIAL MEDIA

In 2008 Obama’s presidential campaign was one of the first to dip its toes into the relatively unknown world of political campaigning on social media. But in terms of the capabilities of social media, eight years ago is a lifetime. And if anyone is qualified to talk about the differences between then and now, it’s Goodstein, because he was the external online director of the 2008 Obama campaign, which saw him in charge of all social media and mobile initiatives in Obama’s new media department.

“That social media, it was sort of experimental, trying to figure out how these things work,” says Goodstein. “I mean that was a time when we were creating local organizing MySpace pages and Facebook didn’t allow you to have more than five thousand friends in any way, shape, or form. It was very hard to organize a national fundraising day when the most you could have in your one group was five thousand people.”

Goodstein also points out that back then there was no advertising on Twitter–even Facebook didn’t have a robust ad network. That’s not even to mention that the number of social media networks were relatively few and the limited types of media those networks let you share meant there wasn’t always an optimal way to engage supporters.

“In 2008 [social media] was just a giant microphone where you took a part of the press release and put it on Facebook,” says Goodstein. “Today platforms are so much more powerful. There’s an advertising component to these platforms, and you can actually engage with hundreds of thousands [of people]. You have more robust tools on places like Facebook that allow you to create quick events and, inside just Facebook alone, appoint different persons in an organizing channel. It’s more than just experimental.”

Case in point: In March the Sanders campaign decided to hold a last-minute rally in downtown Los Angeles in just a few days’ time. Using little more than its Facebook assets, email blasts, and text messaging, the social media team was able to organize thousands of supports to show up on short notice.

“You know how big a task it is to move the rally accordingly based on estimated turnout for attendance, and doing it in two days’ time in a city where nobody likes driving in [to downtown] at five o’clock, to go see a 74-year-old man speak for two hours?” Goodstein says.

But the team pulled it off so well, there were reportedly more than a thousand people waiting outside trying to get into the rally.

“That happened because A, his message was resonating with folks and people did want to go and see him speak, and B, we were able to quickly go and engage the right amount of people and the right people who would potentially go and hear him speak through all these different digital channels.”

What they did was use social media in a way that forever changed its purpose; it became the mainstream source for "news" precisely because they pushed it up digitally on google search and then, very cleverly, pointed out to any reporters that would listen that they should be paying attention to the google search spikes in regard to people wanting to find out more information about Bernie Sanders.

Now refer back to the four categories in the Harvard piece and you've completed the loop.

Before Sanders--or rather, before Revolution Messaging--fringe candidates were rightfully discarded rather quickly in past primary campaigns. But RM was intent on creating a mythology--a digital mythology--that in turn played directly into the underdog/likely loser scenario.

Instead of the press being the ones that set the google search spikes, they became followers of the google search spikes, mistakenly believing--again, thanks to RM pushing the narrative that Bernie was the most searched candidate--that they had found some secret insight into mainstream data, when what they were actually looking at was fringe non-voter interest (i.e., college kids, basically). But it was a story.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Addendum edit (after time alotted due to real life): I should have noted in the second to last paragraph "that in turn played directly into the underdog/gaining ground scenario."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Once again, the "Bernie" fans consisted of only around 5-6% of the Democratic voters, which, normally (when there isn't a massive clandestine influencing campaign being conducted by a foreign nation) is statistically irrelevant. As it stood and in the end, the overwhelming majority of them voted for Clinton. But of note is the fact that 12% of Bernie voters voted for Trump. That's the company you keep.

And the company you keep https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016

Pray tell, though, why you think those votes were Clinton's birthright - since, well, most are not registered Democrats.

And wasn't she similarly unable to surmount that obstacle among her own alleged constituents? Pray tell how Sanders 12% defection of his some 13 million primary voters is a failure, when Clinton's 8% defection of registered Democrats, against the actual evil in the race, is a resounding success.

That 8% is typical in elections. It was 6% (for Romney), 9% (for McCain), 6% (for W!!!) in 2012, 2008, and 2004, respectively.

Regarding Sanders, what, 50,000 or 70,000 votes combined, in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, so the number of grumpy Sander supporters isn't insignificant. But reading into the article, it sounds like they were less supporters of Sander's policies and more of his spirit of being outside the system. IE, these people were idiots / the god bless 'em independent voters.

 

[PyramidHead]

Just to add to that: if you think Bernie voters who switched to Trump were what cost Hillary the election, and all the other Dem voters will vote blue no matter who, nominating Bernie Sanders is the only rational conclusion. You're essentially conceding that his base, whatever you imagine it to be, was and is necessary to defeat Donald Trump. So if you want to take that line of attack, you can't simultaneously make noises about Sanders being unelectable in the general; if every Hillary voter from 2016 votes for the Dem nominee in 2020 (since they will vote for whoever the Dems nominate, right?), PLUS every Bernie voter who stayed home or voted Trump in 2016 (since they're petulant children who need to be pacified, right?), Sanders easily beats Trump. He wouldn't need to convert a single Republican.

Ergo, if all the exasperation about "just wanting someone who can beat the orange menace!!!!!!!" is actually in good faith, you should throw all your weight behind the candidate who can do that. But of course, that's not really what you want. In the end, you prefer Trump to Sanders, which puts you in the camp of the never-Trump Republican pundits and columnists like David Brooks who want the entire electoral process to revolve around their needs. That's fine. You're in a tiny minority.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Just to add to that: if you think Bernie voters who switched to Trump were what cost Hillary the election

Certainly a significant part of it.

and all the other Dem voters will vote blue no matter who

That's not how it works as the 2016 election ironically and horrifically demonstrated.

You're essentially conceding that his base, whatever you imagine it to be, was and is necessary to defeat Donald Trump.

You're not very good at this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Certainly a significant part of it.

But they weren't liberal Sanders supporters. They were likely more like anarchists that want to strip the system because they think it is easy to take things apart and put it back together again... but better.

That's not how it works as the 2016 election ironically and horrifically demonstrated.

No it didn't. Dems that voted Trump was in line with previous elections. There are some Dems that just never bothered to switch parties in the 90s and early 00s.

Just to add to that: if you think Bernie voters who switched to Trump were what cost Hillary the election, and all the other Dem voters will vote blue no matter who, nomJust to add to that: if you think Bernie voters who switched to Trump were what cost Hillary the election, and all the other Dem voters will vote blue no matter who, nominating Bernie Sanders is the only rational conclusion. You're essentially conceding that his base, whatever you imagine it to be, was and is necessary to defeat Donald Trump. So if you want to take that line of attack, you can't simultaneously make noises about Sanders being unelectable in the general; if every Hillary voter from 2016 votes for the Dem nominee in 2020 (since they will vote for whoever the Dems nominate, right?), PLUS every Bernie voter who stayed home or voted Trump in 2016 (since they're petulant children who need to be pacified, right?), Sanders easily beats Trump. He wouldn't need to convert a single Republican.

That isn't the math as it lacks the ability to see how many independents that voted Clinton would have voted Trump instead of voting Sanders. It'd be difficult to prove, but after the right-wing was done with Joseph Stalin Sanders, the Indie vote would have been trashed.

Remember, the GOP successfully convinced enough independents that the guy that served in Vietnam, betrayed the US, while the guy who dodged the draft was a hero. Sanders would have been low hanging fruit.

 

[PyramidHead]

But they weren't liberal Sanders supporters. They were likely more like anarchists that want to strip the system because they think it is easy to take things apart and put it back together again... but better.

No it didn't. Dems that voted Trump was in line with previous elections. There are some Dems that just never bothered to switch parties in the 90s and early 00s.

Just to add to that: if you think Bernie voters who switched to Trump were what cost Hillary the election, and all the other Dem voters will vote blue no matter who, nomJust to add to that: if you think Bernie voters who switched to Trump were what cost Hillary the election, and all the other Dem voters will vote blue no matter who, nominating Bernie Sanders is the only rational conclusion. You're essentially conceding that his base, whatever you imagine it to be, was and is necessary to defeat Donald Trump. So if you want to take that line of attack, you can't simultaneously make noises about Sanders being unelectable in the general; if every Hillary voter from 2016 votes for the Dem nominee in 2020 (since they will vote for whoever the Dems nominate, right?), PLUS every Bernie voter who stayed home or voted Trump in 2016 (since they're petulant children who need to be pacified, right?), Sanders easily beats Trump. He wouldn't need to convert a single Republican.

That isn't the math as it lacks the ability to see how many independents that voted Clinton would have voted Trump instead of voting Sanders. It'd be difficult to prove, but after the right-wing was done with Joseph Stalin Sanders, the Indie vote would have been trashed.

The independent vote is routinely overestimated by Democrats every time and it kicks them in the ass every time. You'd be saying exactly the same thing about Obama right now if Clinton ran against McCain and was beaten

Remember, the GOP successfully convinced enough independents that the guy that served in Vietnam, betrayed the US, while the guy who dodged the draft was a hero. Sanders would have been low hanging fruit.

Interesting hypothesis. I guess we'll just have to run somebody who has no characteristics that could ever be used to cynically tar them in the minds of gullible voters. Do you ever stop and ask yourself why the GOP was so successful in smearing Kerry? Could it be that he had no redeeming qualities other than his reputation, thus making it incredibly easy to take him down by calling his one advantage into doubt?

You need to stop posting for a minute and admit to yourself that it's not "the electorate" or "the independents" who will have a problem with Bernie's socialism--it's you. And that's fine, vote for whoever you think represents your preferences. But by far, the most energized and militant sector of the Democratic base has zero problems with it and if they come out in the numbers that have been routinely packing every Sanders campaign event, and take their reluctant blue-ballot centrist friends with them, Trump is toast and the independents can go back to being the irrelevant political force they've always been.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The independent vote is routinely overestimated by Democrats

Nonsense.

Do you ever stop and ask yourself why the GOP was so successful in smearing Kerry?

They lied and paid off veterans to lie about his record! Their strategy has even become a term of art ffs describing exactly that. Iow, they swiftboated him.

Could it be that he had no redeeming qualities other than his reputation

Wow. And, just for fun, how exactly did he get "his reputation" if he had no redeeming qualities?

But, more importantly, are you seriously suggesting that Bernie Sanders is a saint? Or that he's beyond being swiftboated? Love him or loath him, Eichenwald put it best:

It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach.

When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn't mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don't attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there's the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont's nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words "environmental racist" on Republican billboards. And if you can't, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, "Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,'' while President Daniel Ortega condemned "state terrorism" by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was "patriotic."

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don't know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored.

And that's just how he might fare against the Trump/GOP noise machine, leaving out the effect of the Russian clandestine warfare and barely touching on the negative effects on the 75 million Democrats who wanted Hillary, not Sanders had he ever had even a ghost of a chance in the primaries and miraculously won against her.

Or do you have it as part of your fantasy that all Democrats rose up against Hillary and everyone voted only for Sanders in the primaries?

Yes, the vast majority of Dems would have voted for him in the general in the unlikely event he had managed to beat Hillary in the primaries--because unlike turncoat Sanders' supporters, Hillary supporters followed their heads not their dreams because it's a fucking job interview, not Church--but there's no way in hell anyone could just say, "He would have received exactly the same number of votes--or MORE--than Hillary did, therefore he would have beaten Trump." She holds the third place record ffs, having almost matched Obama's 2012 second place record and having received more raw votes than any white President in US history.

Blacks, Hispanics, Women and untold millions of the exact middle class whites in the heartlands that Sanders bots think would have just automatically voted for him in droves in the same numbers they voted for Hillary (because they've convinced themselves that no one--not one single Dem--voted for Hillary without holding their nose--would be the exact ones targeted to either vote against Sanders or just not to vote at all and it would have been a VERY easy sell by simply painting Sanders as he comes across; a "New York Commie Jew" out to steal your money.

And that's before he started advocating that the Democratic party ignore blacks and hispanics and instead focus primarily on under educated white rural males and threw all Democratic women under the bus by seriously arguing that we dump abortion in order to attract pro-lifers!

Again, why do you think the Trump camp, the GOP and the Russians all supported Sanders against Clinton?

That fact alone should tell you all you need to know about who they thought would be the easier opponent to defeat in the general, but you always avoid addressing that simple fact.

You need to stop posting for a minute and admit to yourself that it's not "the electorate" or "the independents" who will have a problem with Bernie's socialism--it's you.

Jimmy has never struck me as someone who has a problem with socialism, but I most definitely have no problem at all with anything Bernie proposed--because, as I've pointed out many times previously--it's not socialism, it's just the DNC platform that we've always run. Regardless, if you can't comprehend how Sanders would have been attacked by the right--and how easy it would have been to defeat him accordingly--then you're just following your messiah and have left the planet.

And that's fine, vote for whoever you think represents your preferences.

WRONG! It's not about YOU, it's a fucking job! It was exactly that idiotic mindset that caused many slivers to fuck us all and take their vote OFF of the solution and onto Trump!

But by far, the most energized and militant sector of the Democratic base has zero problems with it and if they come out in the numbers that have been routinely packing every Sanders campaign event, and take their reluctant blue-ballot centrist friends with them, Trump is toast

Yeah, when have we heard that exact same tautology? Oh, right, in the 2015 primaries. How did that work out?

and the independents can go back to being the irrelevant political force they've always been.

Independents outnumber Dems.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The independent vote is routinely overestimated by Democrats every time and it kicks them in the ass every time. You'd be saying exactly the same thing about Obama right now if Clinton ran against McCain and was beaten

The indie vote gave Obama Indiana and almost Montana.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But they weren't liberal Sanders supporters. They were likely more like anarchists that want to strip the system because they think it is easy to take things apart and put it back together again... but better.

And they were in large part correct. Just look at the debate stage in the Democratic primary to see it. The big three are Biden, Warren, and Bernie, with Biden on top but in steady decline. That would never have happened had Hillary won. It would be politics as usual. The reaction to Trump has spawned people like AOC getting elected, who would have had little chance otherwise too. It threw a bomb on the Democrats and they had to scramble to rebuild with new ideas. Trump very much has disrupted politics as usual and has opened doors for people from all over the place to push their messages of change. Yang would not have run had it not been for Trump either, and what Biden, Buttigeig, DeBlasio and others are now saying about automation threat would still be left in the dark.