This Is How Trump Would Destroy Bernie Sanders

[ZiprHead]

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/

He’s back—with a vengeance.

Bernie Sanders is having yet another political moment, this time the result of a belated realization that his 2020 campaign is sturdier and more strategically balanced than the insurrection of 2016—auguring trench warfare through the primaries all the way to the convention.

He is, in short, the Democrats’ waking nightmare: Sanders remains more likely to split the party than win its nomination. And in the unlikely event that he does, Democrats would then be tethered to the candidate of Donald Trump’s most ardent dreams.

Beyond that, his staggering grassroots fundraising should propel him through the Super Tuesday states and then deep into the rest of the calendar. He has pockets of strength in battleground states such as Michigan and Wisconsin. On the stump and in debates, Sanders is built to last. He translates as authentic because he is: It’s easy to remember what you’ve believed without surcease for roughly half a century.

But that’s where Sanders hits the wall: ideology.

Sanders is America’s least supple politician, captive to an unyielding inner vision which brooks no compromise. His candidacy is rooted in the unwavering belief that America is about to awaken to the rightness of his unwavering beliefs.

Take the crowd-pleasing title of his major campaign address: “How Democratic Socialism Is the Only Way to Defeat Oligarchy and Authoritarianism.” Here self-solemnity meets opacity, the instinct to hector rather than seduce.

All of which is why, according to the New York Times, “Trump’s advisors see . . . Sanders as their ideal Democratic opponent in November and have been doing what they can to elevate his profile and bolster his chances of winning the Iowa caucuses.” They seek to build Sanders up now so that, come autumn, they can pivot to accusations that Sanders is a candidate gripped by the desire to plunge America into freedom- throttling socialism—and worse.

A week after the 2016 election, Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek noted that, of strategic necessity, Hillary Clinton had treated Sanders with extreme gentility. Trump would not have been so kind,

 

[J842P]

Just like Trump.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think that's the point.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Absolute bullshit.

 

[laughing dog]

https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/

All of which is why, according to the New York Times, “Trump’s advisors see . . . Sanders as their ideal Democratic opponent in November and have been doing what they can to elevate his profile and bolster his chances of winning the Iowa caucuses.” They seek to build Sanders up now so that, come autumn, they can pivot to accusations that Sanders is a candidate gripped by the desire to plunge America into freedom- throttling socialism—and worse.

A week after the 2016 election, Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek noted that, of strategic necessity, Hillary Clinton had treated Sanders with extreme gentility. Trump would not have been so kind,

I am confused, I thought Trump was afraid of Sanders.

 

[southernhybrid]

Everything I've read suggests that Trump wants to run against Sanders, because right or wrong, he and his campaign managers believe he would be the easiest candidate to beat.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/us/politics/trump-sanders-bloomberg-2020.html

The above link is what the OP link is referring to when it mentioned the NYTImes.

President Trump’s advisers see Senator Bernie Sanders as their ideal Democratic opponent in November and have been doing what they can to elevate his profile and bolster his chances of winning the Iowa caucuses, according to Republicans familiar with the plans.

Most of Mr. Trump’s advisers see his biggest looming threat as Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has maintained a steady level of support despite an onslaught of attacks from the president and his team. But there is often a divide between how Mr. Trump and his aides view opponents.

Over the past few weeks, aides to the president in a series of conversations have discussed how to keep the focus on Mr. Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist who favors a significant expansion of government health programs and who is currently at the top of some Iowa polls. They see attacking him as a way to excite his base and draw attention away from other Democrats.

Such efforts tend to be haphazard and revolve around Mr. Trump’s comments at rallies and on his Twitter feed, as does much of the messaging of his campaign. The president, his advisers say, has been in need of a clear target for months, and he believes he is actually hurting Mr. Sanders.

Mr. Trump’s advisers do not necessarily share that view. But they find utility in trying to elevate Mr. Sanders, and aides are discussing ways to keep attention on Mr. Sanders in the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 3.

They sound conflicted, but this is the most screwed up primary election cycle that I've ever seen. I am very concerned about the lack of unity among Democratic voters.

 

[PyramidHead]

Richard North Patterson
Richard North Patterson is a lawyer, political commentator and best-selling novelist. He is a former chairman of Common Cause, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and serves on the board of the Renew Democracy Initiative, a bipartisan group dedicated to defending the principles of liberal democracy at home and abroad.

This is literally a propaganda piece by a spokesman for capital, corporate power, imperialism, and the military-industrial complex, and he doesn't like Bernie Sanders one bit, color me surprised.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Richard North Patterson
Richard North Patterson is a lawyer, political commentator and best-selling novelist. He is a former chairman of Common Cause, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and serves on the board of the Renew Democracy Initiative, a bipartisan group dedicated to defending the principles of liberal democracy at home and abroad.

This is literally a propaganda piece by a spokesman for capital, corporate power, imperialism, and the military-industrial complex, and he doesn't like Bernie Sanders one bit, color me surprised.

Do you have a link that supports your assertion that RNP is a spokesman for capital, corporate power, and imperialism?

 

[PyramidHead]

Richard North Patterson
Richard North Patterson is a lawyer, political commentator and best-selling novelist. He is a former chairman of Common Cause, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and serves on the board of the Renew Democracy Initiative, a bipartisan group dedicated to defending the principles of liberal democracy at home and abroad.

This is literally a propaganda piece by a spokesman for capital, corporate power, imperialism, and the military-industrial complex, and he doesn't like Bernie Sanders one bit, color me surprised.

Do you have a link that supports your assertion that RNP is a spokesman for capital, corporate power, and imperialism?

Not one that will convince a spokesman (or dupe, ruse, useful mouthpiece) for the same interests. If you think Common Cause, J Street, the Council on Foreign Relations, the SEC, and the Renew Democracy Initiative are all basically neutral with respect to everything Bernie has fought against his whole life, and that Patterson's giving his innocent, good-faith opinion on beating Trump with no biases one way or another, start small with Michael Parenti's Inventing Reality and let's hope some of it sticks.

 

[TSwizzle]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention comrade.

 

[PyramidHead]

Anybody who thinks all of these articles from war-profiteering blobs of scum are all being published in the same week purely by coincidence is a handy idiot for American empire, pass it on





So a race realist and two cheerleaders of the Iraq war add their purely benevolent and honest voices to the political discourse. Too little, too late

 

[ZiprHead]

Absolute bullshit.

I wouldn't call it bullshit but it was a little shy of substance as to how Trump beats Bernie.

 

[PyramidHead]

Reminder that Trump won with independents in 2016. In 2020:

Among independent voters nationally:

Bernie 54% (+12)
Trump 42%
*CNN*

Bernie 52% (+12)
Trump 40%
*SurveyUSA*

Bernie 52% (+14)
Trump 38%
*Quinnipiac*

In battleground states that Trump won in 2016 unexpectedly, Bernie beats Trump just as well as Biden does according to polls collected this month.

What articles like these are telling you is: everybody is as jaded and bitter as me, so you can't have anything you want, including a dignified life in a normal country where everybody prospers

 

[PyramidHead]

Trump's biggest and most pervasive narrative about his rivals and their party is that they are all crooked and corrupt, all duplicitous and phony, all spineless and weak, and the thing nobody seems to be pointing out is how precisely zero of these apply to Bernie Sanders to anyone who has ever heard of him

 

[southernhybrid]

Richard North Patterson
Richard North Patterson is a lawyer, political commentator and best-selling novelist. He is a former chairman of Common Cause, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and serves on the board of the Renew Democracy Initiative, a bipartisan group dedicated to defending the principles of liberal democracy at home and abroad.

This is literally a propaganda piece by a spokesman for capital, corporate power, imperialism, and the military-industrial complex, and he doesn't like Bernie Sanders one bit, color me surprised.

I have no idea who this person is, but he's not the only one saying that Trump wants to run against Bernie because he thinks he will be the easiest one to defeat. He may be wrong, but I do think it will quite easy to use the scary socialist label on Bernie and scare the moderates who would otherwise vote for the Democratic nominee.

WE get it. You adore Bernie, but try to be objective and come to terms with the fact that most of the country isn't as far left as you and Bernie claim to be.

The polls have been close to meaningless in this race. Neither you or I have a clue as to who is going to win the nomination or who can beat Trump. So, let's stop pretending that we do.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Absolute bullshit.

I wouldn't call it bullshit but it was a little shy of substance as to how Trump beats Bernie.

Honestly, I didn't understand how.

 

[PyramidHead]

Richard North Patterson
Richard North Patterson is a lawyer, political commentator and best-selling novelist. He is a former chairman of Common Cause, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and serves on the board of the Renew Democracy Initiative, a bipartisan group dedicated to defending the principles of liberal democracy at home and abroad.

This is literally a propaganda piece by a spokesman for capital, corporate power, imperialism, and the military-industrial complex, and he doesn't like Bernie Sanders one bit, color me surprised.

I have no idea who this person is, but he's not the only one saying that Trump wants to run against Bernie because he thinks he will be the easiest one to defeat. He may be wrong, but I do think it will quite easy to use the scary socialist label on Bernie and scare the moderates who would otherwise vote for the Democratic nominee.

WE get it. You adore Bernie, but try to be objective and come to terms with the fact that most of the country isn't as far left as you and Bernie claim to be.

The polls have been close to meaningless in this race. Neither you or I have a clue as to who is going to win the nomination or who can beat Trump. So, let's stop pretending that we do.

It's nice how you provide an analysis that depends upon imagining what large groups of people think about something (Bernie's favorability among moderates, for example) and immediately follow it with a blanket dismissal of the only kind of information that would refute your point (polls showing Bernie with the highest approval among moderates). Objectivity MEANS scrutinizing all available sources of data, looking at who they represent, and trying to get to the bottom of an issue. Just because the conclusion is one that robs you of your ability to scry the intentions of the electorate while simultaneously dispensing with polls as meaningless, it doesn't make you somehow free of bias.

 

[J842P]

Anybody who thinks all of these articles from war-profiteering blobs of scum are all being published in the same week purely by coincidence is a handy idiot for American empire, pass it on

<snipped for clarity>

So a race realist and two cheerleaders of the Iraq war add their purely benevolent and honest voices to the political discourse. Too little, too late

Haha. This is like who's who of terrible people who have been catastrophically wrong on so many things, not the least of which is an understanding of the electorate outside of a small, out-of-touch think-tank bubble.

 

[southernhybrid]

I have no idea who this person is, but he's not the only one saying that Trump wants to run against Bernie because he thinks he will be the easiest one to defeat. He may be wrong, but I do think it will quite easy to use the scary socialist label on Bernie and scare the moderates who would otherwise vote for the Democratic nominee.

WE get it. You adore Bernie, but try to be objective and come to terms with the fact that most of the country isn't as far left as you and Bernie claim to be.

The polls have been close to meaningless in this race. Neither you or I have a clue as to who is going to win the nomination or who can beat Trump. So, let's stop pretending that we do.

It's nice how you provide an analysis that depends upon imagining what large groups of people think about something (Bernie's favorability among moderates, for example) and immediately follow it with a blanket dismissal of the only kind of information that would refute your point (polls showing Bernie with the highest approval among moderates). Objectivity MEANS scrutinizing all available sources of data, looking at who they represent, and trying to get to the bottom of an issue. Just because the conclusion is one that robs you of your ability to scry the intentions of the electorate while simultaneously dispensing with polls as meaningless, it doesn't make you somehow free of bias.

I'm basing what I think, on the many different articles that I read as well as the fact that I know lots of Democrats, but not one who currently supports Sanders. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But. unlike you, I'm willing to admit that we don't really know exactly what is going to happen in this race. Unlike you, I'm willing to compromise if I must. I'm guessing that unlike you, I live in a conservative city where the majority of white voters are conservatives. And, probably unlike you, I live in a black majority city, and none of my black friends currently support Sanders. Black Democrats are an important part of the Democratic base and so far, Sanders hasn't been very successful in attracting a high percentage of them.


I really don't understand your unwillingness to come to terms with the well known fact that more than half of Democrats are moderates, and although in the past you have accused me of being an enemy and of being right of center, the fact is that I'm mid left of center and I know that the only way that progress is accomplished is through thoughtful compromise. But, I'm not sure my country is capable of doing that anymore, considering that both parties seem to thrive on divisiveness and hatred these days.

 

[PyramidHead]

I have no idea who this person is, but he's not the only one saying that Trump wants to run against Bernie because he thinks he will be the easiest one to defeat. He may be wrong, but I do think it will quite easy to use the scary socialist label on Bernie and scare the moderates who would otherwise vote for the Democratic nominee.

WE get it. You adore Bernie, but try to be objective and come to terms with the fact that most of the country isn't as far left as you and Bernie claim to be.

The polls have been close to meaningless in this race. Neither you or I have a clue as to who is going to win the nomination or who can beat Trump. So, let's stop pretending that we do.

It's nice how you provide an analysis that depends upon imagining what large groups of people think about something (Bernie's favorability among moderates, for example) and immediately follow it with a blanket dismissal of the only kind of information that would refute your point (polls showing Bernie with the highest approval among moderates). Objectivity MEANS scrutinizing all available sources of data, looking at who they represent, and trying to get to the bottom of an issue. Just because the conclusion is one that robs you of your ability to scry the intentions of the electorate while simultaneously dispensing with polls as meaningless, it doesn't make you somehow free of bias.

I'm basing what I think, on the many different articles that I read as well as the fact that I know lots of Democrats, but not one who currently supports Sanders. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But. unlike you, I'm willing to admit that we don't really know exactly what is going to happen in this race. Unlike you, I'm willing to compromise if I must. I'm guessing that unlike you, I live in a conservative city where the majority of white voters are conservatives. And, probably unlike you, I live in a black majority city, and none of my black friends currently support Sanders. Black Democrats are an important part of the Democratic base and so far, Sanders hasn't been very successful in attracting a high percentage of them.

Your anecdotes and articles are not reason to take your opinion any more seriously than someone else who has read articles and knows black people. That's why polls exist, so that people can be informed beyond their bubble of social familiarity and whatever biases the media tries to push. As it stands, despite the fact that you inexplicably discount this information as unreliable, Bernie Sanders has the highest or among the highest favorability among both the groups you mention, conservatives and people of color. This is true regardless of who you encounter in your daily life.