Bernie's 2020 Campaign: August 2016 - At least through April, apparently

author said:


conandrob240 said:
ugh Bernie. His role now should be getting behind the elected nominee like he should have done two years ago. He’s a big reason for the mess we are in now.


This Democratic election is going to spell disaster in 2 years. Too many people in this thing will create an even more hugely divided party. We saw how that ended...
 https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html

 When a political party nominates a candidate who carries more baggage than the Siberian Express,

they get what they deserve


millionazze and billionazze...as with HRC, a pioneer whose time has passed, however unfairly. 


Between Bernie Bros and harassment issues, Bernie is a weak gen election choice. As GOPers crank up their “socialism “ scare tactics and broad anti-Semitism, Bernie’s a great foil.


author said:


conandrob240 said:
ugh Bernie. His role now should be getting behind the elected nominee like he should have done two years ago. He’s a big reason for the mess we are in now.


This Democratic election is going to spell disaster in 2 years. Too many people in this thing will create an even more hugely divided party. We saw how that ended...
 https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html

Bernie's "endorsement" of Hillary Clinton was an insincere piece of bull caca.

He launched his 2020 campaign in August of 2016.  So much for his "endorsement".


ml1 said:
I'm not suggesting the elections are the same.  But the people claiming Sanders' candidacy cost Clinton the election don't have any evidence that it did.  And if someone did have information that strongly refuted the stuff I'm linking to, I'd accept that.

I don't need a link to figure this out. 

As an example, Clinton lost Wisconsin by 21,000 votes. In the Wisc primary 567,000 voted for Bernie vs 432,000 for Clinton. 

All it would have taken is for less than 3% of Bernie supporters to refuse to vote for Clinton. Considering, the rancor and the many statements by Bernie supporters that they will not for Clinton, I know that a lot more than 3% of Bernie supporters refused to vote for her.orters will not vote for Clinton.

There are many things that cut into Clinton - Comey's stupidity, Bernie base rancor, Benghazi, her flu episode. A death of small cuts cut where one less cut would have saved her.


BG9 said:


ml1 said:
I'm not suggesting the elections are the same.  But the people claiming Sanders' candidacy cost Clinton the election don't have any evidence that it did.  And if someone did have information that strongly refuted the stuff I'm linking to, I'd accept that.
I don't need a link to figure this out. 
As an example, Clinton lost Wisconsin by 21,000 votes. In the Wisc primary 567,000 voted for Bernie vs 432,000 for Clinton. 
All it would have taken is for less than 3% of Bernie supporters to refuse to vote for Clinton. Considering, the rancor and the many statements by Bernie supporters that they will not for Clinton, I know that a lot more than 3% of Bernie supporters refused to vote for her.orters will not vote for Clinton.
There are many things that cut into Clinton - Comey's stupidity, Bernie base rancor, Benghazi, her flu episode. A death of small cuts cut where one less cut would have saved her.

in hindsight, you can cite a dozen different plausible factors that would have shifted a few thousand votes in those three states (which I acknowledged). But no candidate should ever be counting on getting 100% of their partisan leaning voters. It doesn't happen, regardless of who the primary opponent was.  Unless you are looking back in hindsight and suggesting no Democrat should have run against Clinton, that is.  And even that may not have been enough to give her a win.

I'd suggest the endless stories about the emails, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation suppressed at least as many votes as support for Sanders did.  Considering that the mainstream media harped on those issues for months and months, it certainly would be plausible that it shifted enough votes in three states to give the presidency to Trump.  But I don't have hard data on that any more than anyone else has hard data to blame Sanders for Trump's victory.



ml1 said:

in hindsight, you can cite a dozen different plausible factors that would have shifted a few thousand votes in those three states (which I acknowledged). But no candidate should ever be counting on getting 100% of their partisan leaning voters. It doesn't happen, regardless of who the primary opponent was.  Unless you are looking back in hindsight and suggesting no Democrat should have run against Clinton, that is.  And even that may not have been enough to give her a win.

I'd suggest the endless stories about the emails, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation suppressed at least as many votes as support for Sanders did.  Considering that the mainstream media harped on those issues for months and months, it certainly would be plausible that it shifted enough votes in three states to give the presidency to Trump.  But I don't have hard data on that any more than anyone else has hard data to blame Sanders for Trump's victory.

And they were all factors.

That does not mean that we should not point out those people (self-described "progressives") and actions that were among those factors.  Let's just say, "They didn't help", which is the mildest description of them.


nohero said:


author said:

conandrob240 said:
ugh Bernie. His role now should be getting behind the elected nominee like he should have done two years ago. He’s a big reason for the mess we are in now.


This Democratic election is going to spell disaster in 2 years. Too many people in this thing will create an even more hugely divided party. We saw how that ended...
 https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html
Bernie's "endorsement" of Hillary Clinton was an insincere piece of bull caca.
He launched his 2020 campaign in August of 2016.  So much for his "endorsement".

 What caused you to say "He launched his 2020 campaign in August of 2016?"


nan said:
.

 Too late. I saw what you did there. 


Bernie is probably the only candidate who lost family in the Holocaust.

Woody Guthrie had a guitar which had taped to jt a note that read "This machine kills Fascists"

I think that Bernie has the mate to it.

Feel the Bern


ml1 said:


BG9 said:

ml1 said:
I'm not suggesting the elections are the same.  But the people claiming Sanders' candidacy cost Clinton the election don't have any evidence that it did.  And if someone did have information that strongly refuted the stuff I'm linking to, I'd accept that.
I don't need a link to figure this out. 
As an example, Clinton lost Wisconsin by 21,000 votes. In the Wisc primary 567,000 voted for Bernie vs 432,000 for Clinton. 
All it would have taken is for less than 3% of Bernie supporters to refuse to vote for Clinton. Considering, the rancor and the many statements by Bernie supporters that they will not for Clinton, I know that a lot more than 3% of Bernie supporters refused to vote for her.orters will not vote for Clinton.
There are many things that cut into Clinton - Comey's stupidity, Bernie base rancor, Benghazi, her flu episode. A death of small cuts cut where one less cut would have saved her.
in hindsight, you can cite a dozen different plausible factors that would have shifted a few thousand votes in those three states (which I acknowledged). But no candidate should ever be counting on getting 100% of their partisan leaning voters. It doesn't happen, regardless of who the primary opponent was.  Unless you are looking back in hindsight and suggesting no Democrat should have run against Clinton, that is.  And even that may not have been enough to give her a win.
I'd suggest the endless stories about the emails, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation suppressed at least as many votes as support for Sanders did.  Considering that the mainstream media harped on those issues for months and months, it certainly would be plausible that it shifted enough votes in three states to give the presidency to Trump.  But I don't have hard data on that any more than anyone else has hard data to blame Sanders for Trump's victory.


 Funny how the Bernie Derangement Syndromers spend 1,000 times more time and energy on making stuff up about what they imagine Bernie and Bernie voters did in the Presidential election than the time and energy they spend on (a) Hillary's failure to motivate African American voters, whose numbers dropped by 750,000 in 2016 (b) suppression of the AA vote by Republican legislatures (c) Hillary's emphasis on personality rather than issues and (c) why Hillary's margin against a TV reality-show huckster was so close in the first place.

And for the record, it's totally factual to say that scientific surveys show that a higher percentage Bernie supporters voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters voted for Obama, with the obvious caveat that surveys can be wrong (but in this case to contrary evidence has ever been produced).

Our knowledge about many issues depends on surveys, with the same caveat.


Trump's message to the AA community was - "What do you have to lose?"  He will be constantly boasting the lowest AA unemployment rate in our history. What was/is Bernie's message?  I think he did struggle quite a bit in this regard.  


paulsurovell said:


ml1 said:

BG9 said:

ml1 said:
I'm not suggesting the elections are the same.  But the people claiming Sanders' candidacy cost Clinton the election don't have any evidence that it did.  And if someone did have information that strongly refuted the stuff I'm linking to, I'd accept that.
I don't need a link to figure this out. 
As an example, Clinton lost Wisconsin by 21,000 votes. In the Wisc primary 567,000 voted for Bernie vs 432,000 for Clinton. 
All it would have taken is for less than 3% of Bernie supporters to refuse to vote for Clinton. Considering, the rancor and the many statements by Bernie supporters that they will not for Clinton, I know that a lot more than 3% of Bernie supporters refused to vote for her.orters will not vote for Clinton.
There are many things that cut into Clinton - Comey's stupidity, Bernie base rancor, Benghazi, her flu episode. A death of small cuts cut where one less cut would have saved her.
in hindsight, you can cite a dozen different plausible factors that would have shifted a few thousand votes in those three states (which I acknowledged). But no candidate should ever be counting on getting 100% of their partisan leaning voters. It doesn't happen, regardless of who the primary opponent was.  Unless you are looking back in hindsight and suggesting no Democrat should have run against Clinton, that is.  And even that may not have been enough to give her a win.
I'd suggest the endless stories about the emails, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation suppressed at least as many votes as support for Sanders did.  Considering that the mainstream media harped on those issues for months and months, it certainly would be plausible that it shifted enough votes in three states to give the presidency to Trump.  But I don't have hard data on that any more than anyone else has hard data to blame Sanders for Trump's victory.
 Funny how the Bernie Derangement Syndromers spend 1,000 times more time and energy on making stuff up about what they imagine Bernie and Bernie voters did in the Presidential election than the time and energy they spend on (a) Hillary's failure to motivate African American voters, whose numbers dropped by 750,000 in 2016 (b) suppression of the AA vote by Republican legislatures (c) Hillary's emphasis on personality rather than issues and (c) why Hillary's margin against a TV reality-show huckster was so close in the first place.

I didn't make up stuff. I stated the election statistics with what we know of the many Bernie supporters who said they would refuse to vote for Clinton. That being over the 3% margin in the case of Wisc.

Its sad how YOU people get bent out of shape and personally attack with nonsense such as Bernie Derangement Syndromers. Sad, sad, sad. Keep up the attacks on anyone who does not feel the Bern and see how many primary votes he'll get.

But unlike Bernie supporters, if by some miracle he does win the primary, I will vote for him. I will not sit out the election.

btw - looking at comments in the NYT and the Washington Post on the Bernie running stories, I see the most heavily recommended comments are "Give it up Bern". It seems the NY and Washington Post readers DO NOT feel the Bern.

Wash Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/sen-bernie-sanders-will-seek-the-democratic-presidential-nomination-in-2020/2019/02/19/be5b0216-002e-11e9-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html

Oh brother....not again.
Could we please, please not have ANY Democratic candidate from 2016 run again?
We have plenty of new, great people running...that is what we should do...look forward, not backward..IMO.
Like 263

NY Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/bernie-sanders-2020.html#commentsContainer

He's too old. He will be 80 during his first year. His time has come and gone. Bernie was the Democrat's Not Hillary vote. With the plethora of outstanding candidates this cycle, it is obvious that the fix was in in 2016. No one would run against her.
I'm glad Bernie ran and he ran a good campaign. He awakened our nation the serious problems of inequality. He got people thinking. That in itself was a tremendous achievement. But he is too old for the hardest job in the world. There are excellent candidates in their 50's that have the experience, temperament and foresight to be an excellent president.
1035 recommend.

I've been dreading this. America does not need Bernie Sanders. Set aside that he would be almost 80 years old when he is sworn in, he is delusional if he thinks a majority of Americans support his policies. I was in Philadelphia during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. I wasn't a delegate. I just happened to live here and interacted with people who were here for the convention, including Bernie supporters. The Bernie people I talked to reminded me of the MAGA crowd, a mixture of paranoia and misinformation and absolute certainty that their “truth” is the only truth, with no tolerance for ambiguity or compromise. They are at least part of the reason we have Trump. In any event, Bernie Sanders is never going to be president, but he may just ruin it for everyone else.
887 recommend.

But hey, maybe its a conspiracy.  oh oh 


Wow. And then he somehow did not see how he contributed to the rise of a fascist. Interesting.


annielou said:
Wow. And then he somehow did not see how he contributed to the rise of a fascist. Interesting.

 I suppose one can take comfort in sitting back and believing their own version of reality.

 However the one thing that is real, at least so far, is that the formerly anointed one is still

 sitting back and sipping the cooking sherry and thus far has not entered the race.


BG9 said:


paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

BG9 said:

ml1 said:
I'm not suggesting the elections are the same.  But the people claiming Sanders' candidacy cost Clinton the election don't have any evidence that it did.  And if someone did have information that strongly refuted the stuff I'm linking to, I'd accept that.
I don't need a link to figure this out. 
As an example, Clinton lost Wisconsin by 21,000 votes. In the Wisc primary 567,000 voted for Bernie vs 432,000 for Clinton. 
All it would have taken is for less than 3% of Bernie supporters to refuse to vote for Clinton. Considering, the rancor and the many statements by Bernie supporters that they will not for Clinton, I know that a lot more than 3% of Bernie supporters refused to vote for her.orters will not vote for Clinton.
There are many things that cut into Clinton - Comey's stupidity, Bernie base rancor, Benghazi, her flu episode. A death of small cuts cut where one less cut would have saved her.
in hindsight, you can cite a dozen different plausible factors that would have shifted a few thousand votes in those three states (which I acknowledged). But no candidate should ever be counting on getting 100% of their partisan leaning voters. It doesn't happen, regardless of who the primary opponent was.  Unless you are looking back in hindsight and suggesting no Democrat should have run against Clinton, that is.  And even that may not have been enough to give her a win.
I'd suggest the endless stories about the emails, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation suppressed at least as many votes as support for Sanders did.  Considering that the mainstream media harped on those issues for months and months, it certainly would be plausible that it shifted enough votes in three states to give the presidency to Trump.  But I don't have hard data on that any more than anyone else has hard data to blame Sanders for Trump's victory.
 Funny how the Bernie Derangement Syndromers spend 1,000 times more time and energy on making stuff up about what they imagine Bernie and Bernie voters did in the Presidential election than the time and energy they spend on (a) Hillary's failure to motivate African American voters, whose numbers dropped by 750,000 in 2016 (b) suppression of the AA vote by Republican legislatures (c) Hillary's emphasis on personality rather than issues and (c) why Hillary's margin against a TV reality-show huckster was so close in the first place.
I didn't make up stuff. I stated the election statistics with what we know of the many Bernie supporters who said they would refuse to vote for Clinton. That being over the 3% margin in the case of Wisc.
Its sad how YOU people get bent out of shape and personally attack with nonsense such as Bernie Derangement Syndromers. Sad, sad, sad. Keep up the attacks on anyone who does not feel the Bern and see how many primary votes he'll get.
But unlike Bernie supporters, if by some miracle he does win the primary, I will vote for him. I will not sit out the election.
btw - looking at comments in the NYT and the Washington Post on the Bernie running stories, I see the most heavily recommended comments are "Give it up Bern". It seems the NY and Washington Post readers DO NOT feel the Bern.

[ . . . ]

Sorry, was responding to Ml1's comment and my didn't mean to suggest that you are a Syndromer -- I don't think you are.

As far as the comments on Wapo and the NYT, doesn't really tell you anything, except there are a lot of Bernie Derangement Syndromers wanting to vent.


author said:
Bernie is probably the only candidate who lost family in the Holocaust.
Woody Guthrie had a guitar which had taped to jt a note that read "This machine kills Fascists"
I think that Bernie has the mate to it.
Feel the Bern

 In 1996 The Nation ran an article about people it called "Communists for Dole". They went to a region in Italy where the Italian Communist Party dominated Politics but where the people knew Republican Presidential Candidate Bob Dole as someone who had been seriously wounded fighting Fascists there.  


I still think it's silly to blame Sanders for Clinton's defeat when every person who runs for president has to contend with the fact that some of his/her primary opponent's supporters will not vote for them in the general.  Trump also didn't get all the votes from Republicans who didn't support him in the primary. 

And the surveys being cited suggest that compared to other primary contenders' supporters, a higher percentage of Sanders primary voters came out to vote for Clinton.  Sanders supporters were no different as a group than the supporters of any other failed presidential primary candidate, including Clinton supporters in '08.


South_Mountaineer said:


nan said:
.
 Too late. I saw what you did there. 

 No you did not, because I was unable to post it.  It gave me an error message about rotating the .jpeg.  When I figure it out--I will post.  Nothing hostile either--so what's with the "I KNOW what you are up to!" tone?


The following was written in in 2017. Some of it was certainly validated in 2018.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/01/democrats-new-crossover-voters-romney-clinton-215211

 

 

Who are they? Romney-Clinton voters are, generally speaking, college-educated suburban professionals: lawyers, doctors and businesspeople. They voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, but switched to Hillary Clinton in 2016. They abhor xenophobia, the alt-right and racists, but they also mostly socialize within their own race and they’re mostly white. They’re socially liberal but not obsessed with a political agenda. They value fiscal responsibility but also believe in investing in the future, especially education. They remain deeply worried about Trump’s qualifications, scared about his temperament and alienated by his misogyny and ties to extremists. For the first time in a long time, they’re willing to hear about and vote for Democrats.

 

For journalists and political operatives, these people are harder to romanticize. They lack the stirring, deeply ingrained Americana imagery of the Appalachian coal miner or the Rust Belt autoworker—a news story set against the backdrop of a paralegal’s research library or a suburban office park simply doesn’t feel as compelling.

 

But if you want to see the future of the Democratic Party—and if you want to understand how Democrats can win back a congressional majority—then it’s important that you pay attention to a group of voters who might cut a less evocative image than their Obama-Trump counterparts, but whose support of Democrats could cause the GOP to collapse.


paulsurovell said:

And for the record, it's totally factual to say that scientific surveys show that a higher percentage Bernie supporters voted for Hillary than Hillary supporters voted for Obama, with the obvious caveat that surveys can be wrong (but in this case to contrary evidence has ever been produced).
Our knowledge about many issues depends on surveys, with the same caveat.

If findings are within the margin of error, no, it’s not factual to say they “show” something, even with your caveat.

A margin of error doesn’t say, “It’s this number, but we could be wrong.” It says, “We can’t vouch for this number, but we’re pretty sure it’s in this range.” Those aren’t the same thing.

If the difference between the 2016 Sanders and 2008 Clinton voters was large enough to fall outside the margin of error, you could argue that a difference had been shown. But from what I saw, it didn’t, so you can’t.


the "sour grapes" phenomenon occurs just about any time there's a contested primary.  So the only way to avoid it would be for the DNC to mandate that there be no competition for the nomination.

https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/06/hendersonhillygustompsonPOQ.pdf

This blogger at Larry Sabato's site goes into a lot of detail rehashing the 2016 election and like me, makes the case that the Comey letter, the Clinton campaign decision not to campaign in states like WI and MI, as well as a host of other external events were more important than Sanders in affecting the eventual outcome.

Certainly all of those are more compelling proximate causes than Sanders, but is Sanders himself a proximate cause? Again, I don’t think he is unless you assume that Clinton would have had no serious primary opposition. I don’t dispute the fact that he did end up costing her some votes. And her 78,000-vote loss was certainly slim enough that it can have multiple proximate causes. I’d be willing to state that Bernie Sanders might have cost Clinton the election if no serious primary challenger emerged in the counterfactual. In Pennsylvania, Clinton would have needed around a quarter of the Sanders voters who didn’t vote for her to have changed their votes to win. How many of those people were among the 20% of Democrats who didn’t approve of Clinton before Sanders even entered the race? My guess is most of those people weren’t going to vote for Clinton anyway, but I doubt we can ever be sure.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/did-bernie-sanders-cost-hillary-clinton-the-presidency/

Personally as the Democrats head into 2020, I think it's more important to focus on the bigger factors that suppressed young voter turnout and African American turnout than it is to continue to focus on Bernie Sanders.  And imho, that means coming up with a platform that really speaks to the concerns of those groups.


paulsurovell said:


BG9 said:


paulsurovell said:

ml1 said:

BG9 said:

ml1 said:
I'm not suggesting the elections are the same.  But the people claiming Sanders' candidacy cost Clinton the election don't have any evidence that it did.  And if someone did have information that strongly refuted the stuff I'm linking to, I'd accept that.
I don't need a link to figure this out. 
As an example, Clinton lost Wisconsin by 21,000 votes. In the Wisc primary 567,000 voted for Bernie vs 432,000 for Clinton. 
All it would have taken is for less than 3% of Bernie supporters to refuse to vote for Clinton. Considering, the rancor and the many statements by Bernie supporters that they will not for Clinton, I know that a lot more than 3% of Bernie supporters refused to vote for her.orters will not vote for Clinton.
There are many things that cut into Clinton - Comey's stupidity, Bernie base rancor, Benghazi, her flu episode. A death of small cuts cut where one less cut would have saved her.
in hindsight, you can cite a dozen different plausible factors that would have shifted a few thousand votes in those three states (which I acknowledged). But no candidate should ever be counting on getting 100% of their partisan leaning voters. It doesn't happen, regardless of who the primary opponent was.  Unless you are looking back in hindsight and suggesting no Democrat should have run against Clinton, that is.  And even that may not have been enough to give her a win.
I'd suggest the endless stories about the emails, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation suppressed at least as many votes as support for Sanders did.  Considering that the mainstream media harped on those issues for months and months, it certainly would be plausible that it shifted enough votes in three states to give the presidency to Trump.  But I don't have hard data on that any more than anyone else has hard data to blame Sanders for Trump's victory.
 Funny how the Bernie Derangement Syndromers spend 1,000 times more time and energy on making stuff up about what they imagine Bernie and Bernie voters did in the Presidential election than the time and energy they spend on (a) Hillary's failure to motivate African American voters, whose numbers dropped by 750,000 in 2016 (b) suppression of the AA vote by Republican legislatures (c) Hillary's emphasis on personality rather than issues and (c) why Hillary's margin against a TV reality-show huckster was so close in the first place.
I didn't make up stuff. I stated the election statistics with what we know of the many Bernie supporters who said they would refuse to vote for Clinton. That being over the 3% margin in the case of Wisc.
Its sad how YOU people get bent out of shape and personally attack with nonsense such as Bernie Derangement Syndromers. Sad, sad, sad. Keep up the attacks on anyone who does not feel the Bern and see how many primary votes he'll get.
But unlike Bernie supporters, if by some miracle he does win the primary, I will vote for him. I will not sit out the election.
btw - looking at comments in the NYT and the Washington Post on the Bernie running stories, I see the most heavily recommended comments are "Give it up Bern". It seems the NY and Washington Post readers DO NOT feel the Bern.

[ . . . ]
Sorry, was responding to Ml1's comment and my didn't mean to suggest that you are a Syndromer -- I don't think you are.
As far as the comments on Wapo and the NYT, doesn't really tell you anything, except there are a lot of Bernie Derangement Syndromers wanting to vent.

OK. Sorry I misunderstood you.

Its just that I was trying to reply to ml1's assertion based on the critical states voting margins and the number of Bernie supporters who said they would not vote for Clinton. But, as I said, other things also broke her. She does have blame, of not running a her campaign well, by ignoring the "hinterlands" and not effectively meeting the angst and concerns of certain underemployed groups.

But if supposedly bastions of liberal readership of newspapers papers are so against Bernie, then I think his trek towards the nomination will be difficult. He's starting with a substantial bias against him.

No matter what, his policies ideas are good and he's certainly head and shoulders above Trump. How effective he can be, I don't know.


so-called liberal news organizations aren't really that liberal. They support the status quo, and are generally hostile to truly progressive ideas. Most of the prominent pundits in the mainstream are fairly wealthy. Why would we expect them to come out in favor of higher taxes on themselves in order that the working class can have health coverage and affordable college?


paulsurovell said:


nohero said:

author said:

conandrob240 said:
ugh Bernie. His role now should be getting behind the elected nominee like he should have done two years ago. He’s a big reason for the mess we are in now.


This Democratic election is going to spell disaster in 2 years. Too many people in this thing will create an even more hugely divided party. We saw how that ended...
 https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html
Bernie's "endorsement" of Hillary Clinton was an insincere piece of bull caca.
He launched his 2020 campaign in August of 2016.  So much for his "endorsement".
 What caused you to say "He launched his 2020 campaign in August of 2016?"

 https://ourrevolution.com/about/


ml1 said:
so-called liberal news organizations aren't really that liberal. They support the status quo, and are generally hostile to truly progressive ideas. Most of the prominent pundits in the mainstream are fairly wealthy. Why would we expect them to come out in favor of higher taxes on themselves in order that the working class can have health coverage and affordable college?

That we know. 

But here its about the supposedly progressive readers and with their vast majority of their comments decrying Bernie. Its the readers who came out against Bernie.


BG9 said:

But if supposedly bastions of liberal readership of newspapers papers are so against Bernie, then I think his trek towards the nomination will be difficult. He's starting with a substantial bias against him.
But here its about the supposedly progressive readers and with their vast majority of their comments decrying Bernie. Its the readers who came out against Bernie.

What’s the basis for that assumption about the readership of two national newspapers? Did I miss an exit reader poll?


DaveSchmidt said:


BG9 said:

But if supposedly bastions of liberal readership of newspapers papers are so against Bernie, then I think his trek towards the nomination will be difficult. He's starting with a substantial bias against him.
But here its about the supposedly progressive readers and with their vast majority of their comments decrying Bernie. Its the readers who came out against Bernie.
What’s the basis for that assumption about the readership of two national newspapers? Did I miss an exit reader poll?

 No assumption. Highest recommended reader count (as posted earlier):

Wash Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/sen-bernie-sanders-will-seek-the-democratic-presidential-nomination-in-2020/2019/02/19/be5b0216-002e-11e9-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html

Oh brother....not again. Could we please, please not have ANY Democratic candidate from 2016 run again? We have plenty of new, great people running...that is what we should do...look forward, not backward..IMO.
Like 263

NY Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/bernie-sanders-2020.html#commentsContainer

He's too old. He will be 80 during his first year. His time has come and gone. Bernie was the Democrat's Not Hillary vote. With the plethora of outstanding candidates this cycle, it is obvious that the fix was in in 2016. No one would run against her. I'm glad Bernie ran and he ran a good campaign. He awakened our nation the serious problems of inequality. He got people thinking. That in itself was a tremendous achievement. But he is too old for the hardest job in the world. There are excellent candidates in their 50's that have the experience, temperament and foresight to be an excellent president. 
1035 recommend.

I've been dreading this. America does not need Bernie Sanders. Set aside that he would be almost 80 years old when he is sworn in, he is delusional if he thinks a majority of Americans support his policies. I was in Philadelphia during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. I wasn't a delegate. I just happened to live here and interacted with people who were here for the convention, including Bernie supporters. The Bernie people I talked to reminded me of the MAGA crowd, a mixture of paranoia and misinformation and absolute certainty that their “truth” is the only truth, with no tolerance for ambiguity or compromise. They are at least part of the reason we have Trump. In any event, Bernie Sanders is never going to be president, but he may just ruin it for everyone else. 
 887 recommend.



BG9 said:


DaveSchmidt said:


BG9 said:

But if supposedly bastions of liberal readership of newspapers papers are so against Bernie, then I think his trek towards the nomination will be difficult. He's starting with a substantial bias against him.
But here its about the supposedly progressive readers and with their vast majority of their comments decrying Bernie. Its the readers who came out against Bernie.
What’s the basis for that assumption about the readership of two national newspapers? Did I miss an exit reader poll?
 No assumption. Highest recommended reader count (as posted earlier):
Wash Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/sen-bernie-sanders-will-seek-the-democratic-presidential-nomination-in-2020/2019/02/19/be5b0216-002e-11e9-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html
Oh brother....not again. Could we please, please not have ANY Democratic candidate from 2016 run again? We have plenty of new, great people running...that is what we should do...look forward, not backward..IMO.
Like 263
NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/us/politics/bernie-sanders-2020.html#commentsContainer
He's too old. He will be 80 during his first year. His time has come and gone. Bernie was the Democrat's Not Hillary vote. With the plethora of outstanding candidates this cycle, it is obvious that the fix was in in 2016. No one would run against her. I'm glad Bernie ran and he ran a good campaign. He awakened our nation the serious problems of inequality. He got people thinking. That in itself was a tremendous achievement. But he is too old for the hardest job in the world. There are excellent candidates in their 50's that have the experience, temperament and foresight to be an excellent president. 
1035 recommend.

I've been dreading this. America does not need Bernie Sanders. Set aside that he would be almost 80 years old when he is sworn in, he is delusional if he thinks a majority of Americans support his policies. I was in Philadelphia during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. I wasn't a delegate. I just happened to live here and interacted with people who were here for the convention, including Bernie supporters. The Bernie people I talked to reminded me of the MAGA crowd, a mixture of paranoia and misinformation and absolute certainty that their “truth” is the only truth, with no tolerance for ambiguity or compromise. They are at least part of the reason we have Trump. In any event, Bernie Sanders is never going to be president, but he may just ruin it for everyone else. 
 887 recommend.

 

I'm pretty sure that a comments section is not the best place to go data gathering.


BG9 said:

No assumption. Highest recommended reader count (as posted earlier):

The assumption I meant is that the Times and the Post are bastions of liberal/progressive readers, rather than national news sources for readers across the political spectrum. Maybe the numbers tilt left. Maybe they tilt centrist. Maybe there are more conservative readers than anyone can know.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.