• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Media treatment of Bernie Sanders: a story in pictures

Neoliberal Democrats from the managerial class should be honest about why they don't like Bernie. It's not electability, because he's the 2nd place candidate behind a declining frontrunner and has among the best numbers for general favorability, success versus Trump overall and in key states, and support for the policies he advocates. It's not popular support, as he has broken Obama's individual donor record with 14 months until the general election, and has raised more funds from more people than any other candidate, even those with corporate and big finance in their corner.

It's not his record with minorities, who are represented in high frequency in his base of support and polling demographics compared to almost any other candidate in the running. Please stop repeating this meme.

The reason they don't like Bernie is because the focus of his candidacy, and the purpose of his life, is to enfranchise people who are uneducated, poor, and work all the time for not enough money. The comfortably middle class segment of meritocratic policy wonks gravitate towards Buttigieg and, yes, Warren because they see in those candidates a reflection of the same system that worked for them: the Ivy League education leading to petty bourgeois success in one or another sector of law, finance, consulting, business, or marketing. What is expressed as concerns about electability and age is, and I am not happy to say it, a real disdain for people who lack marketable skills and live in poverty--unless those people can be rescued from irrelevance by their superficial identity characteristics.

I echo all you wrote above. I think Bernie gets dislike for three reasons. First, because he ran against Hillary (with actual progressive policies) and Hillary was regarded as royalty people were loyal to. Second, because he speaks against the corporate Democrats as well as the Republicans and sides against both when they screw over the American people. Third, because he is an old white man, putting him at the bottom of the progressive stack.

They see in Warren, for example, someone who fulfills a shallow identitarian requirement while remaining fully committed to the technocratic vision of a future run by smart, politically savvy, financially successful people who make life-altering decisions on behalf of the rabble. Bernie rejects that entire picture of reality and is a material threat to it.

What do you mean by this? Bernie isn't an anarchist, nor will he keep the smart and educated from driving policy. It will just be more progressive policy.
 
They see in Warren, for example, someone who fulfills a shallow identitarian requirement while remaining fully committed to the technocratic vision of a future run by smart, politically savvy, financially successful people who make life-altering decisions on behalf of the rabble. Bernie rejects that entire picture of reality and is a material threat to it.

What do you mean by this? Bernie isn't an anarchist, nor will he keep the smart and educated from driving policy. It will just be more progressive policy.

Bernie is an advocate for mass mobilization of trade unions, minimum wage workers, and public servants to organize and win concessions from their bosses and political representatives. They absolutely are intended to be the central policy drivers for the country he envisions. It's why none of his ideas are original to him, a fact that is strangely lobbed as an insult against him, as if we should pick the person with the most novel and creative spin on the same problems our country has faced for decades over a movement that channels popular discontent directly into policy. Politicians did not invent universal health care, free college tuition, higher wages, or protection against predatory lending. Workers did, back when there was a vibrant union presence in American politics that was actually responsive to its membership. These ideas are perennial, and appear wherever and whenever the levers of society are tilted away from the elite and towards the masses of people--revolutionary governments, eras of social and economic activism, and in times of large inequality, to name a few instances. Bernie is just their spokesperson, and not a perfect one, but the one we've got.
 
Anyone who thinks Bernie can't mobilize large numbers of people needs their head examined, and should be provided with a laminated copy of his donor map.

View attachment 23186

Or they could just look at his turnout in Iowa the other day, despite everybody in the media saying he didn't talk to anybody

View attachment 23185

Neoliberal Democrats from the managerial class should be honest about why they don't like Bernie. It's not electability, because he's the 2nd place candidate behind a declining frontrunner and has among the best numbers for general favorability, success versus Trump overall and in key states, and support for the policies he advocates. It's not popular support, as he has broken Obama's individual donor record with 14 months until the general election, and has raised more funds from more people than any other candidate, even those with corporate and big finance in their corner.

It's not his record with minorities, who are represented in high frequency in his base of support and polling demographics compared to almost any other candidate in the running. Please stop repeating this meme.

The reason they don't like Bernie is because the focus of his candidacy, and the purpose of his life, is to enfranchise people who are uneducated, poor, and work all the time for not enough money. The comfortably middle class segment of meritocratic policy wonks gravitate towards Buttigieg and, yes, Warren because they see in those candidates a reflection of the same system that worked for them: the Ivy League education leading to petty bourgeois success in one or another sector of law, finance, consulting, business, or marketing. What is expressed as concerns about electability and age is, and I am not happy to say it, a real disdain for people who lack marketable skills and live in poverty--unless those people can be rescued from irrelevance by their superficial identity characteristics. They see in Warren, for example, someone who fulfills a shallow identitarian requirement while remaining fully committed to the technocratic vision of a future run by smart, politically savvy, financially successful people who make life-altering decisions on behalf of the rabble. Bernie rejects that entire picture of reality and is a material threat to it.

What it boils down to is the fear of political and economic irrelevance, the fear of a political movement that does not have the upper middle class business owner or TED Talk junkie as its central beneficiary.

I’ve been quite clear about why I am hoping that Sanders is not the Democratic nominee. First: He’s too old. And he’s really showing his age. If I knew nothing else about him, that would give me a good reason to look elsewhere. That’s also a strong reason to be concerned about Biden and also about Warren. Of those 3, Warren has aged far better. If you don’t think that’s an issue: Listen to Trump. Never mind that he’s a self aggrandizing racist sexist egomaniac. He’s always been that. But he cannot speak with focus and meaning or an eighth grader vocabulary for a complete sentence. Twenty years ago, he was still a racist, sexist egomaniac but he was pretty articulate and could express more complex ideas.

Age matters and that’s the biggest and maybe only good argument against Warren.

Bernie doesn’t play well with others. That works well enough for provocateurs but not for leaders. Look at how poorly Trump works with his own party which holds a majority or his own handpicked cabinet. I don’t see Sanders as someone who could work well with foreign leaders.

Sanders is only a Democrat when he wants to run for POTUS. He lacks the leadership skills to form his own party. He lacks the character or self discipline to work within a party structure. He’s a blowhard who has served in Congress and the senate for 28 years and has not only failed to move the government left, he’s failed to stem the tide of the rightward movement.

He’s only effective, if one could call it that, as a provocateur. That’s not a leader.
 
Irony. Big fan.

First of all, the NYT tweet is referencing the fact that Sanders evidently did not speak to people on the ground; ie., he didn't "press the flesh" as the saying goes:

DES MOINES -- Bernie Sanders examined the butter cow. He power-walked by the Ferris wheel. He gobbled a corn dog.

He spoke to almost no one.

Most presidential candidates use the 10-day Iowa State Fair to showcase their retail campaigning skills, because it is one of the best opportunities to meet a wide cross-section of voters before the caucuses in February. Mr. Sanders’s approach to the event on Sunday — stride briskly, wave occasionally, converse infrequently — underscored how he has grounded his campaign in championing ideas rather than establishing human connections.

It's not a reference to him giving a speech, it's a reference to the fact that when he's NOT giving a speech--ie., when he's off of the soapbox--he didn't seem to engage with people around him, like other candidates do. Like other human beings do. And it was a reflection of the voters themselves:

It is a dynamic that was perhaps most evident last weekend at the state fairgrounds: As voters talked up first-time presidential candidates like Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Kamala Harris and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Mr. Sanders was often an afterthought.

Some voters cited Mr. Sanders’s age. Others said they wanted to elect a woman. Many praised his ability to push the party to the left but said it was time for someone else to claim the progressive mantle.

Second, the Iowa Starting Line tweet implies that the crowd is only that large because they were all there just to hear Sanders, which is also misleading. Aside from the fact that Sanders did well in Iowa in the 2015nprimaries (and therefore a natural draw regardless of the current situation), as the Des Moines Register noted:

Sanders drew thousands to hear him speak, though the Soapbox format doesn’t allow for exact counts. The crowd appeared comparable in number to the one U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts drew on Saturday.

So, congrats, PyramidHead. You've just engaged in the exact kind of misleading perspective shifting you've been accusing everyone else of committing.

:thumbsup:
 
I’ve been quite clear about why I am hoping that Sanders is not the Democratic nominee. First: He’s too old. And he’s really showing his age. If I knew nothing else about him, that would give me a good reason to look elsewhere. That’s also a strong reason to be concerned about Biden and also about Warren. Of those 3, Warren has aged far better. If you don’t think that’s an issue: Listen to Trump. Never mind that he’s a self aggrandizing racist sexist egomaniac. He’s always been that. But he cannot speak with focus and meaning or an eighth grader vocabulary for a complete sentence. Twenty years ago, he was still a racist, sexist egomaniac but he was pretty articulate and could express more complex ideas.

Age matters and that’s the biggest and maybe only good argument against Warren.
I would vote for Sanders if he was 102 and so should anybody who cares about the working poor, the unemployed, and the oppressed of America and the rest of the world. Prove me wrong with something of actual substance, not this tired bullshit about age.

Bernie doesn’t play well with others. That works well enough for provocateurs but not for leaders. Look at how poorly Trump works with his own party which holds a majority or his own handpicked cabinet. I don’t see Sanders as someone who could work well with foreign leaders.
Bernie doesn't play well with the bad actors in our society, and that's a very good thing. He plays well with community organizers, teachers, bus drivers, and fast food workers. Also a very good thing. You're missing the point of his candidacy, which is expressed in its slogan. No president will be able to do anything legislatively in 2020, no matter how nicely they play with others, because the official institutions of American politics are irreparably broken, period. The only way anything changes is how it always has changed, by masses of people prying control of our future from the grasp of the malefactors who are mishandling it. It's the only way we beat Russian meddling, gerrymandering, and voter suppression by Republicans: overwhelm them with angry people. Either you acknowledge that as the only real solution to every problem our nation faces, or you settle for someone who can play ball with the powers that be while the public remains basically passive and the United States is largely a dust bowl by 2050.

Sanders is only a Democrat when he wants to run for POTUS. He lacks the leadership skills to form his own party. He lacks the character or self discipline to work within a party structure. He’s a blowhard who has served in Congress and the senate for 28 years and has not only failed to move the government left, he’s failed to stem the tide of the rightward movement.

He’s only effective, if one could call it that, as a provocateur. That’s not a leader.
If you care one iota about party membership and use it as an indicator of political capital, rather than using political capital as a bellwether of where the party called "democratic" should place its priorities, then you will fail to recognize the disconnect between the current makeup of Democratic politicians and the needs of their constituents and the populace at large. When that's the reality, and it is, expect and welcome provocateurs (who, like FDR, can make exceptional leaders).

To say he hasn't moved the government left is to concede that the government is broken and needs to be transformed from the bottom up, and ignores the fact that he has moved the policy conversation considerably to the left. If a candidate for Democratic nomination posted this today, it would be considered remarkably out-of-touch and behind the times:

hwm2thc331g31.png
 
To say he hasn't moved the government left

I'm sorry, what? You believe Bernie Sanders has moved the government left?

and ignores the fact that he has moved the policy conversation considerably to the left.

Oh, the "policy conversation." By proposing something Hillary Clinton first proposed over two decades ago and Obama tried in 2008 and failed to achieve. Oh, and raising the minimum wage. Because no Democrat has ever promised to raise the minimum wage! Or to help the working poor. Or find jobs for the unemployed. Such a RADICAL LEFTIST (that has always moved to the right).

Tell us, why again is Sanders running with the Democrats if he's such a radical leftist?

It's truly astonishing how ignorance poisons.

ETA: Btw, the student debt crisis exploded under Obama during the recession, and it was he (and his administration, which included Clinton in State) that first started the conversation:

President Obama was air-dropped into a crisis when he was sworn into office. A recession had hit, and it was changing the ways Americans lived, worked, and, as it would happen, went to college. Enrollments exploded at state universities, private colleges, and for-profit colleges—and so did the number of Pell recipients. From 2006 and 2011, total college enrollment grew by 3 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Two-year-college enrollments grew by 33 percent during that same time.

Meanwhile, state funding for universities began shrinking dramatically. At the peak of the recession, state appropriations per student were down, on average, more than 13 percent, which meant colleges relied more heavily on tuition for revenue. That, in turn, meant that students had to pay more for their education, at the precise moment they had less money to do so. And middle- and high-income students who could no longer borrow on their parents’ home-equity lines to pay for college turned to bank-based student loans. “If you just look at the trends in borrowing from the pre- to postrecession, it’s a massive swing,” Miller said. “We added millions of [student] borrowers so quickly.”

By 2010, after the recession had ended and the economy had begun to pick up again, President Obama had moved on to more proactive legislation: namely, his campaign promise to get rid of bank-based lending to students, and to replace it with direct loans from the federal government. In March of that year, he succeeded. Congress approved an overhaul of the student-loan system, barring private banks from issuing loans with federal money, implementing a federal-lending program, and, as The New York Times put it, “ending one of the fiercest lobbying fights in Washington.” Ending that fight meant higher-education policy makers could think about the next one.

By March 2011, the administration was looking for its next big thing in higher education, and it had its eyes on affordability. That’s when Zakiya Smith Ellis, who now serves as the secretary of education for the state of New Jersey, joined the White House as a senior policy adviser. “The president was wondering: How do we actually make a dent in this?” she recalls. “You’re not going to get there by only focusing on increases to Pell.”

The initial results of the administration’s efforts focused on transparency. It launched the College Scorecard, which lets students compare costs of institutions, and created the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet, now known as the College Financing Plan, a tool designed to more clearly show students what their financial-aid packages would look like.

The 2012 election had few higher-education fireworks, partly because when politicians run for reelection, they run on their record. President Obama focused on increases to Pell, the switch to direct lending, and changes to income-driven repayment of loans. It was messaging that connected with voters because it was simple, Smith Ellis told me. “If you don’t earn that much, you don’t have to pay that much. That makes so much sense,” she said. “Simplicity matters when you’re talking about politics to people… If people can’t explain it, then they don’t understand what your policy is and what it does to them in a very clear way.”

As politicians were trying to suss out a clear way of addressing student debt, it was growing. By 2013, the student-loan portfolio had reached $1 trillion, and it was rising rapidly. This was not a result of Obama-era policies, but rather the natural outcome of 3 million additional students who were borrowing more money as states were spending fewer and fewer dollars on higher education.

What the federal government was struggling with, some state and local leaders were addressing. Across the country, a handful of state and local governments had been creating “college promise,” or as they’re commonly known, “free college,” programs. Tennessee launched the Tennessee Promise in 2014; the city of Chicago launched a free-two-year-community-college program. And in January of 2015, as President Obama stood before Congress and delivered his annual State of the Union address, he brought the idea to a national stage. “I want to spread that idea all across America, so that two years of college becomes as free and universal in America as high school is today,” he said. The president began pushing for his America’s College Promise proposal, which would have offered two years of community college free to “responsible students.” This was, at the time, an ambitious idea, but four months later, Obama was one-upped. Senator Bernie Sanders, who was vying for the presidency in 2016, announced his plan to make public colleges and universities tuition-free for all.

As with everything Sanders did, it was the Wheel Of Fortune strategy. If someone bids $100, raise it to $101.

The problem, also with everything Sanders proposes, was how to pay for it (aside from the fact that it already existed; all public higher education is tax subsidized for those who can't otherwise afford it).

So there are two issues; one is why should those that can afford to pay tuition not have to pay tuition? Second is that it can only apply to public schools, not private universities, a point Sanders never made clear and deliberately obfuscated by always referring to his plan as "free college" or "free public college and universities" (letting the fact that the "public" part also applied to public universities just sort of get left off there).

This divide was put on display in February 2016 during the fifth Democratic debate, where Hillary Clinton and Sanders squared off. “I … believe in affordable college, but I don’t believe in free college,” Clinton said, “because every expert that I have talked to says, ‘Look, how will you ever control the costs?’ What I want to do is make sure middle-class kids, not Donald Trump’s kids, get to be able to afford college.” Sanders retorted that he knew a way to control the costs. “It’s an expensive proposition,” he said. “We pay for it, in my view, by a tax on Wall Street speculation. The middle class bailed out Wall Street in their time of need. Now it is Wall Street’s time to help the middle class.”

A great soundbite, but the problems, of course were that (a) "Wall Street" had already repaid its bailout and then some (including a significant profit in fact) and (b) (again with every Sanders proposal), there would be no way that Republicans would pass such a plan.

But actually getting anything implemented is never Sander's concern--and never any of his followers' concern either, evidently--so he can just keep bidding a dollar more and promising magical ponies and be the messiah and some on the left just will never care.
 
Last edited:
I would vote for Sanders if he was 102 and so should anybody who cares about the working poor, the unemployed, and the oppressed of America and the rest of the world. Prove me wrong with something of actual substance, not this tired bullshit about age.

The very sad fact is that at 102, almost no one has sufficient stamina to carry out the duties of POTUS. I write this as an extremely staunch admirer and supporter of the Notorious RBG. Even if entering the job, he had the mental capacity and physical stamina to serve a 4 year term without showing more impairment than he does now. I am not writing this because of him personally or what I think of his contributions or abilities NOW. I've written the same about Biden and almost the same about Warren, who seems to have aged far better than either man or Trump.

Sadly, age is an issue.

Bernie doesn't play well with the bad actors in our society, and that's a very good thing.
But it's not. Despite our current Fearless Cheeto, America is actually a democracy. One must be able to work with others in order to accomplish anything.

What I think you mean is that he's good at standing up and pontificating about positions you agree with. So what?

He plays well with community organizers, teachers, bus drivers, and fast food workers. Also a very good thing.

He's good at telling other people what he thinks and what he thinks they should think. Not the same thing.


You're missing the point of his candidacy, which is expressed in its slogan.
There is no 'Us' for Bernie Sanders anymore than there's an 'us' for Trump. He's literally the flip side of the same counterfeit coin that is Trump.

No president will be able to do anything legislatively in 2020, no matter how nicely they play with others, because the official institutions of American politics are irreparably broken, period.

Oh, bullshit. Bernie wouldn't be able to do anything with an entire congress full of democratic socialists.

That old 'it's broken' crap is cowardly, immature and lacks any kind of context or vision for the present or the future or knowledge of the past. You don't like how something is running? Declare it broken and throw it away! And I bet you consider yourself a staunch environmentalist.

The only way anything changes is how it always has changed, by masses of people prying control of our future from the grasp of the malefactors who are mishandling it.

Change is slow; change is hard. Bernie is one of the malefactors you speak of. Plus break the word down: male + factor. It's time for a woman.

It's the only way we beat Russian meddling, gerrymandering, and voter suppression by Republicans: overwhelm them with angry people.

The problem with mob rule is that you can't control who faces the guillotine and also it leaves a mess with no grown ups to fix it.

Either you acknowledge that as the only real solution to every problem our nation faces, or you settle for someone who can play ball with the powers that be while the public remains basically passive and the United States is largely a dust bowl by 2050.



If you care one iota about party membership and use it as an indicator of political capital, rather than using political capital as a bellwether of where the party called "democratic" should place its priorities, then you will fail to recognize the disconnect between the current makeup of Democratic politicians and the needs of their constituents and the populace at large. When that's the reality, and it is, expect and welcome provocateurs (who, like FDR, can make exceptional leaders).

Bernie ain't no FDR and I don't give a rat's ass what name's on the party.

To say he hasn't moved the government left is to concede that the government is broken

Wah wah wah! Things are not going poor little Pyramid's way so it's broken! BAD America! BAD BAD BAD! Let's just throw the whole thing out!

(currently renovating and restoring a lovely old home that is a was an old home when I was a baby and I'm retired now.)


and needs to be transformed from the bottom up, and ignores the fact that he has moved the policy conversation considerably to the left. If a candidate for Democratic nomination posted this today, it would be considered remarkably out-of-touch and behind the times:

Clinton isn't running; relieving student debt did not originate with Bernie. I know he's older than Methusela but not every good idea originated with Sanders. Or any. Very little of what he espouses now wasn't mainstream REPUBLICAN platform 60 years ago.
 
...
I’ve been quite clear about why I am hoping that Sanders is not the Democratic nominee. First: He’s too old. And he’s really showing his age. If I knew nothing else about him, that would give me a good reason to look elsewhere. That’s also a strong reason to be concerned about Biden and also about Warren. ...

Sanders demonstrates more stridency and lack of equivocation than any other of the upstarts. Warren is a close second. I hope I have that much energy when I'm their age (or even when I wake up tomorrow morning). Biden's the one who worries me.

Bernie doesn’t play well with others. That works well enough for provocateurs but not for leaders. ...

Sanders doesn't play nice with corporations that want to control congress. So yeah, that could become an issue for him. With Warren riding shotgun as his VP things might actually get changed.

I don’t see Sanders as someone who could work well with foreign leaders.

From where we stand now simply having a President who doesn't shove other heads of state out of the way might earn him the Nobel prize. His solution to the border crisis is to reach out instinctively to meet with the leaders of Central American countries.

Sanders is only a Democrat when he wants to run for POTUS. He lacks the leadership skills to form his own party. He lacks the character or self discipline to work within a party structure. He’s a blowhard who has served in Congress and the senate for 28 years and has not only failed to move the government left, he’s failed to stem the tide of the rightward movement.
...

Yes he is a maverick and having gone up against Hillary he's the defacto leader of the progressive movement. Without his untiring initiative the Dems wouldn't now be calling for the $15 min wage or UHC. In fact neither would it have been enacted in several states. He's gotten more individual donations from a broader swath of the country than any other candidate by far. Both the left and the right want a fighter and Bernie's just that. And he'll attract Trump voters because he's all that and stands on principles shared by the common man.
 
But it's not. Despite our current Fearless Cheeto, America is actually a democracy. One must be able to work with others in order to accomplish anything.
Then you should support the candidate with the highest favorability ratings, the most democratic policy ideals that are supported by the largest percentages of voters, and the largest base of donors from the broadest geographic distribution across the nation. But of course, by "work with others" you mean "validate the existence and relevance of people from the same economic stratum as myself."

What I think you mean is that he's good at standing up and pontificating about positions you agree with. So what?
No: he's good at mobilizing large groups of people to demand better conditions for themselves and their families.

There is no 'Us' for Bernie Sanders anymore than there's an 'us' for Trump. He's literally the flip side of the same counterfeit coin that is Trump.
Here I can only sigh and hope that the brain worms that have populated your skull at least take you on walks once in a while. There is no help for you.

Oh, bullshit. Bernie wouldn't be able to do anything with an entire congress full of democratic socialists.

That old 'it's broken' crap is cowardly, immature and lacks any kind of context or vision for the present or the future or knowledge of the past. You don't like how something is running? Declare it broken and throw it away! And I bet you consider yourself a staunch environmentalist.
Yes, in that I support an actual green New Deal and back the candidate who knows there is no choice but to do it, and no way to do it but to get the majority of people to settle for nothing less.

Change is slow; change is hard. Bernie is one of the malefactors you speak of. Plus break the word down: male + factor. It's time for a woman.
What in the actual fuck

BAD America! BAD BAD BAD! Let's just throw the whole thing out!
This, but unironically

(currently renovating and restoring a lovely old home that is a was an old home when I was a baby and I'm retired now.)
That parenthetical explains so, so much. Not just in the way it places you in the exact demographic that is rapidly losing power and influence in society and will do anything to retain it, not just because the same condescension toward radical transformation of society has been leveled by people like you at every turn, but also because the image of the United States as a fixer-upper that just needs some TLC to restore it to its previous "lovely" state is exactly the worldview that needs to be roundly defeated in this election or the next. You have framed the problem in better terms than I could have, bravo.

Clinton isn't running; relieving student debt did not originate with Bernie. I know he's older than Methusela but not every good idea originated with Sanders. Or any. Very little of what he espouses now wasn't mainstream REPUBLICAN platform 60 years ago.
You didn't read my post, then, where I specifically mentioned that Bernie's ideas are largely not his and it doesn't matter if good ideas are originated by individual people who should be elected to power for originating them, it matters whether they are good.
 
...
If you care one iota about party membership and use it as an indicator of political capital, rather than using political capital as a bellwether of where the party called "democratic" should place its priorities, then you will fail to recognize the disconnect between the current makeup of Democratic politicians and the needs of their constituents and the populace at large. When that's the reality, and it is, expect and welcome provocateurs (who, like FDR, can make exceptional leaders).

Bernie ain't no FDR and I don't give a rat's ass what name's on the party.
...

You're right. More rightly like Teddy than Franklin, but without his fascination with warfare.
 
Left: donors for each candidate
Right: income distribution

You can't make it up, it fits so perfectly

income.JPG
 
Left: donors for each candidate
Right: income distribution

You can't make it up, it fits so perfectly

View attachment 23192

Is the message here that it is people who have disposable income that can donate to political parties? Would we see the same distribution of "number of TV's owned" as "dollars contributed to a political party" maybe?
 
...
If you care one iota about party membership and use it as an indicator of political capital, rather than using political capital as a bellwether of where the party called "democratic" should place its priorities, then you will fail to recognize the disconnect between the current makeup of Democratic politicians and the needs of their constituents and the populace at large. When that's the reality, and it is, expect and welcome provocateurs (who, like FDR, can make exceptional leaders).

Bernie ain't no FDR and I don't give a rat's ass what name's on the party.
...

You're right. More rightly like Teddy than Franklin, but without his fascination with warfare.

Hahahahahaha.

Bernie ain't no Teddy, either.

Seriously, he's all bluster.
 
Irony. Big fan.

First of all, the NYT tweet is referencing the fact that Sanders evidently did not speak to people on the ground; ie., he didn't "press the flesh" as the saying goes:



It's not a reference to him giving a speech, it's a reference to the fact that when he's NOT giving a speech--ie., when he's off of the soapbox--he didn't seem to engage with people around him, like other candidates do. Like other human beings do. And it was a reflection of the voters themselves:

To be fair, meet and greets at state fairs are really taxing. Plus, they involve at least pretending to listen to the person whose vote you want.
 
To be fair, meet and greets at state fairs are really taxing. Plus, they involve at least pretending to listen to the person whose vote you want.

They are taxing, but at least you get pork chops to help you power through.

Unless you are Cory Booker or Tulsi Gabbard, of course. :)
 
Is the message here that it is people who have disposable income that can donate to political parties? Would we see the same distribution of "number of TV's owned" as "dollars contributed to a political party" maybe?
I think the message is that the rich Manhattanites love Mayor Pete while the poors in Queens and Brooklyn go for Bernie and Warren respectively.
1isT.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom