Bernie's 2020 Campaign: August 2016 - At least through April, apparently
To those who are already counting Bernie out because he is "too this or too that'
One indisputable fact stands out...........within 24 hours of announcing his candidacy, his campaign
received $6,000.000 in contributions. Bernie does not accept huge corporate cash or money from PACS Last time round the average contribution which he received was $27.00
His figure was head and shoulders above that which was received by any other announced Dem candidate
Here with he should be known as the $6,000.000 man.
Feel the Bern.........it begins
annielou said:
Yes. It begins. The quick ride to 4 more years of Tr ump
Virtually every poll that was taken in 2016 showed Bernie beating Trump.
So of course the Dems nominated the only candidate in the Western Hemisphere who could not do so.
author said:
annielou said:Virtually every poll that was taken in 2016 showed Bernie beating Trump.
Yes. It begins. The quick ride to 4 more years of Tr ump
So of course the Dems nominated the only candidate in the Western Hemisphere who could not do so.
Come on @author. I won't say anything mean about Bernie if you don't say anything mean about Hillary. Some of us thought she had a great chance. She did win the popular vote. And quite a few of us hoped we would see a woman in the White House. We have been voting for 100 years so, too pushy of us? We are 50% of the population and as candidates keep joining the race, many of us see our chance slipping away once again.
author said:
annielou said:Virtually every poll that was taken in 2016 showed Bernie beating Trump.
Yes. It begins. The quick ride to 4 more years of Tr ump
So of course the Dems nominated the only candidate in the Western Hemisphere who could not do so.
Maybe. But for all this talk about how tough the mainstream press was on HRC, they didn't give Trump a chance in that election.
Nothing suppresses someone from getting up and voting like telling them its pointless. I mean that is completely the "logic" people use to convince people to not vote for someone they actually like, but rather "the lesser of the 2 evils."
Here are some clips that show how the press treated him before the election and how they reacted to the win(BTW the Peter Jennings reaction at about the 6:30 mark is priceless):
terp said:
the Peter Jennings reaction at about the 6:30 mark is priceless
you might even say miraculous
The mainstream press is mostly pro-liberal establishment (in 2016=Hillary), except for FOX which is pro-conservative establishment. During the Democratic primary they were calling it for Clinton before polls were even closed. They did not treat Trump like that but they all gave Trump TONS of air time, even while CNN/MSNBC never gave him any chance to win or called him names--they made it clear he was important. On the Progressive side, they gave Bernie, almost no coverage, negative coverage and also no chance to win, There were times when Bernie was filling up stadiums with huge crowds that they would instead show an empty podium waiting for Trump to arrive. Ed Schultz lost his job at MSNBC because he kept wanting to cover Bernie and they were in the tank for Clinton. CNN also gave her the debate questions ahead of time.
And yes, then there was Russiagate, . . .which we have had multiple threads on, but which will help Trump in the end because they will most likely not find collusion so it will look like his "witch hunt" comment is true and and make his base more loyal and it will hurt mainstream Democrats if they make it a center piece of their campaigns instead of real social change.
to be fair, it might have been possible at that moment to have heard Jennings turning over in this grave.
nan said:
The mainstream press is mostly pro-liberal establishment (in 2016=Hillary), except for FOX which is pro-conservative establishment. During the Democratic primary they were calling it for Clinton before polls were even closed. They did not treat Trump like that but they all gave Trump TONS of air time, even while CNN/MSNBC never gave him any chance to win or called him names--they made it clear he was important. On the Progressive side, they gave Bernie, almost no coverage, negative coverage and also no chance to win, There were times when Bernie was filling up stadiums with huge crowds that they would instead show an empty podium waiting for Trump to arrive. Ed Schultz lost his job at MSNBC because he kept wanting to cover Bernie and they were in the tank for Clinton. CNN also gave her the debate questions ahead of time.
And yes, then there was Russiagate, . . .which we have had multiple threads on, but which will help Trump in the end because they will most likely not find collusion so it will look like his "witch hunt" comment is true and and make his base more loyal and it will hurt mainstream Democrats if they make it a center piece of their campaigns instead of real social change.
Hmm, Gabbard on MSNBC yesterday - Bernie on MSNBC tonight - why don't you yell at the for going on such networks?
I think the key for air time on networks is to constantly lie. If you don't lie and deliver similar speeches - there's no news there.
This is Trump's brilliant way to stay at the top of the news cycle. It doesn't matter if the reporting is good or bad - just as long as everyone is talking about him - he's winning. It's really as simple as that.
Morganna said:
author said:Come on @author. I won't say anything mean about Bernie if you don't say anything mean about Hillary. Some of us thought she had a great chance. She did win the popular vote. And quite a few of us hoped we would see a woman in the White House. We have been voting for 100 years so, too pushy of us? We are 50% of the population and as candidates keep joining the race, many of us see our chance slipping away once again.
annielou said:Virtually every poll that was taken in 2016 showed Bernie beating Trump.
Yes. It begins. The quick ride to 4 more years of Tr ump
So of course the Dems nominated the only candidate in the Western Hemisphere who could not do so.
The popular vote and a few dollars will get you on the NYC subway but not necessarily the election.
This is twice in our life time we have seen an election slip away because the Dems some how seemed to neglect the fact that it is the majority of votes in the Electoral College that wins the day.
It is a clearly outdated system that should be changed........but one we seem to be stuck with.
I voted for a woman by the way. A Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard whose name appeared on the NJ ballot.
nan said:
The mainstream press is mostly pro-liberal establishment (in 2016=Hillary), except for FOX which is pro-conservative establishment. During the Democratic primary they were calling it for Clinton before polls were even closed. They did not treat Trump like that but they all gave Trump TONS of air time, even while CNN/MSNBC never gave him any chance to win or called him names--they made it clear he was important. On the Progressive side, they gave Bernie, almost no coverage, negative coverage and also no chance to win, There were times when Bernie was filling up stadiums with huge crowds that they would instead show an empty podium waiting for Trump to arrive. Ed Schultz lost his job at MSNBC because he kept wanting to cover Bernie and they were in the tank for Clinton. CNN also gave her the debate questions ahead of time.
And yes, then there was Russiagate, . . .which we have had multiple threads on, but which will help Trump in the end because they will most likely not find collusion so it will look like his "witch hunt" comment is true and and make his base more loyal and it will hurt mainstream Democrats if they make it a center piece of their campaigns instead of real social change.
Agreed that Trump get tons of air time. In the beginning he used the fact that most of the NY pundits, knew him personally and he developed a unique habit of calling in during a show. Quite clever. And when he started to gain traction, he began his outrageous rallies with crazy statements which gave him more coverage.
Kasich complained on Bill O'Reilly that they were giving him no coverage and I believe he once hosted a show for that network. Trump played the game. Most of us never took him seriously.
jamie said:
I think the key for air time on networks is to constantly lie. If you don't lie and deliver similar speeches - there's no news there.
This is Trump's brilliant way to stay at the top of the news cycle. It doesn't matter if the reporting is good or bad - just as long as everyone is talking about him - he's winning. It's really as simple as that.
This is exactly right, and it's why I think the most important quality a Dem candidate can have is to be able to cut into Trump's free air time, or somehow diminish it. Policies have nothing to do with it. The successful candidate has to upend Trump's media domination.
It won't be easy.
I'm unlikely to have anyone I like running in 2020. I will watch from the sidelines as my country continues to veer out of control. I will try to remain amused as much as possible.
My take on the race is this: I think it is likely that this will all come down to the economy. We have bubbles everywhere. I think its much more acute than it was in 2007. The question is, when will it all pop. If it pops prior to the election, it is highly likely that the Democrats will win. If the economy holds on and the bubbles don't pop until after the election, I think its likely that Trump will win.
terp said:
Maybe. But for all this talk about how tough the mainstream press was on HRC, they didn't give Trump a chance in that election.
Nothing suppresses someone from getting up and voting like telling them its pointless. I mean that is completely the "logic" people use to convince people to not vote for someone they actually like, but rather "the lesser of the 2 evils."
Here are some clips that show how the press treated him before the election and how they reacted to the
I disagree. There is a saying that their is no such thing as bad publicity. From the time Trump announced he was the center of Media attention. The other Republicans were marginalized.
And the more the elites said Trump couldn't win the more angry and committed his supporters became.
The amount of attention to the stupid "issue" of Hillary Clinton's emails was absurd.
How much publicity was there about Trump's repeated Bankruptcies or his deadbeat attitude toward suppliers and other small business people? After Trump started his campaign with a racist attack on Mexican immigrants, called for banning people from the Country on account of their Religion and actually said he was in favor of torture I expected to see lots of clips of Hitler and Mussolini but the negative attacks on Trump were just about his trashy sex talk.
I will admit my bias. I have thought of Trump as a slimy low life for decades before most of the Country had ever heard of him. After watching him as a candidate I saw him as the scum of the Earth. From my point of view the Media whitewashed him and are continuing to do so. They treat him as if he is a normal person with flaws. He's something far worse.
jamie said:
nan said:Hmm, Gabbard on MSNBC yesterday - Bernie on MSNBC tonight - why don't you yell at the for going on such networks?
The mainstream press is mostly pro-liberal establishment (in 2016=Hillary), except for FOX which is pro-conservative establishment. During the Democratic primary they were calling it for Clinton before polls were even closed. They did not treat Trump like that but they all gave Trump TONS of air time, even while CNN/MSNBC never gave him any chance to win or called him names--they made it clear he was important. On the Progressive side, they gave Bernie, almost no coverage, negative coverage and also no chance to win, There were times when Bernie was filling up stadiums with huge crowds that they would instead show an empty podium waiting for Trump to arrive. Ed Schultz lost his job at MSNBC because he kept wanting to cover Bernie and they were in the tank for Clinton. CNN also gave her the debate questions ahead of time.
And yes, then there was Russiagate, . . .which we have had multiple threads on, but which will help Trump in the end because they will most likely not find collusion so it will look like his "witch hunt" comment is true and and make his base more loyal and it will hurt mainstream Democrats if they make it a center piece of their campaigns instead of real social change.
Why would I yell at them? I would like them to be covered fairly. I would like the New York Times to stop putting in cautions in every article mentioning Bernie. I would like CNN/MSNVC to stop clearly pushing establishment candidates. So, if they at least get covered that's good. Most people still get their news from the MSM so it helps to be seen there. CNN is giving Bernie a townhall. I"m glad for that, although I worry that it will be boobytrapped. We will see.
author said:
annielou said:Virtually every poll that was taken in 2016 showed Bernie beating Trump.
Yes. It begins. The quick ride to 4 more years of Tr ump
So of course the Dems nominated the only candidate in the Western Hemisphere who could not do so.
Actually she won.
It took the Electoral College and FBI (Comey) to steal it.
Were we a democracy, she’d be the President right now...
Scully said:
author said:
annielou said:Virtually every poll that was taken in 2016 showed Bernie beating Trump.
Yes. It begins. The quick ride to 4 more years of Tr ump
So of course the Dems nominated the only candidate in the Western Hemisphere who could not do so.
Actually she won.
It took the Electoral College and FBI (Comey) to steal it.
Were we a democracy, she’d be the President right now...
There is no crying in baseball or politics
The winner is the candidate who garners the most votes in the Electoral College
Blame it on the Founding Fathers if you must have a scapegoat.
author said:
There is no crying in baseball or politics
The winner is the candidate who garners the most votes in the Electoral College
Blame it on the Founding Fathers if you must have a scapegoat.
The founders were 200 years ago. By now, we should blame it on us, for not changing it.
You're aware that our form of government is a Republic and not a Democracy. Yes?
Yes, everyone appears aware. The unreal conditional case of “were we a democracy” was a good reminder. Thanks, Scully.
terp said:
I'm unlikely to have anyone I like running in 2020. I will watch from the sidelines as my country continues to veer out of control. I will try to remain amused as much as possible.
My take on the race is this: I think it is likely that this will all come down to the economy. We have bubbles everywhere. I think its much more acute than it was in 2007. The question is, when will it all pop. If it pops prior to the election, it is highly likely that the Democrats will win. If the economy holds on and the bubbles don't pop until after the election, I think its likely that Trump will win.
The economy is certainly one of measures that most strongly correlates with election results. Had the economy doing just slightly better in November 2016 (as well as it was even a few months later), I think Clinton would have handily won.
What's interesting with Trump is that the economic indicators are generally healthy, yet his approval rating can't crack 42%. I think this demonstrates that while "fundamentals" like the economy play the largest role in elections, the actual incumbents and candidates do matter. A president with these economic numbers ought to be a lot more popular. I think if we get a downturn, the bottom falls out of Trump's already anemic popularity.
terp said:
You're aware that our form of government is a Republic and not a Democracy. Yes?
There it is!!!
One of the most meaningless phrases ever constructed! It tells us nothing as it obfuscates.
Bernie is assembling a very diverse team for 2020, including someone local and the mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yulin Cruz:
terp said:
You're aware that our form of government is a Republic and not a Democracy. Yes?
Reread my post.
I am, but with the number of times I’ve seen it referred to as a democracy here and about, it doesn’t seem to be very common knowledge, does it?
The waters do get a bit muddy when you argue for simple majority rules when it suits you. It is important to remember that our system was designed specifically to avoid the dangers associated with such idiocy.
terp said:
The waters do get a bit muddy when you argue for simple majority rules when it suits you. It is important to remember that our system was designed specifically to avoid the dangers associated with such idiocy.
It was designed to protect the slave states, mostly.
And if you think the electoral college is protection against idiocy, good for you.
nan said:
Bernie is assembling a very diverse team for 2020, including someone local and the mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yulin Cruz:
and it took the MSM and the American public to point out his campaign staff's male whiteness and for Bernie to make this change. Too bad he wasn't more aware of this from the beginning. This was a bit of the "Out of touch" moment for Bernie. Glad to see he's changed on that. Now - how to make his crowds and support a bit more diverse.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
When I read the NYT comments section it seems many of the responses are from people a lot more conservative than I am. IMHO the political center of gravity in this country has shifted far to the right over the past few decades, compared to what it was earlier. As I wrote in another thread, it's something of a misnomer to call Maplewood a "liberal" town. Sure with regard to LGBTQ rights, women's rights, diversity we're to the left of most of the rest of the country. But on economic issues the typical Maplewoodian is quite conservative. The reactions to "Medicare for all" or increasing the minimum wage or making college less costly tend to be very negative, to the extent that most people call them impossibilities. The reactions to Bernie Sanders and AOC are generally negative.
And those type of folks are the core NYT readers. Left on social issues, right on economic issues and foreign policy.