South Carolina Democrats: Better if Sanders 'got lost' (don't shoot the messanger, AP story)

[Tavarious Jackson]

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — As Bernie Sanders prepares to return to South Carolina to feel out a potential 2020 presidential bid, some Democrats in this heavily Republican state say the visit isn’t wanted or helpful to their candidates in advance of next month’s election.
The state, home to the first-in-the-South presidential primaries, is accustomed to hosting candidates testing out their messaging and building activist and donor relationships ahead of a national run. But some party stalwarts say Sanders’ left-leaning, progressive message doesn’t resonate in a state where Democrats know they will need crossover support to win in many races.


https://apnews.com/99afaea472f8482fa71ef025b764867f#click=https://t.co/d0UxqK3YRa

[guillaumeb]

1. He could wait a month or so.

But tailoring a Democratic platform to what some claim will pass in S. Carolina is not a good idea.

[Maven]

2. Here he comes! Just in time to divide our party before the midterms

What a “coincidence”

[Tavarious Jackson]

4. It's his M.O

It's tragic.

(Snip)

“I just think it’s extremely selfish of Bernie Sanders to think he could walk into South Carolina without an invitation from a candidate and think he’s going to be welcomed with open arms,” Loveday said. “It’s hard for me to think of an actual, legitimate Democratic candidate who would stand on stage with him here.”
Sanders’ Tuesday announcement of his planned trip to South Carolina came the same day that the state’s Republican governor aimed to link him to his Democratic challenger. In a new digital ad , Gov. Henry McMaster pointed out that, despite his self-portrayal as a moderate, state Rep. James Smith has boasted of his endorsement by Our Revolution, an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential effort.

[JCanete]

12. ..right, like the response itself wasn't the divisive part. If you think that what it is that is

cross-over appeal is the pandering to corporate interests part, I think you're wrong.

[George II]

14. "Cross-over appeal"?

[JCanete]

19. whatever it is people think and are talkiing about here that needs to pull moderates to vote for

dems..which apparently is to not talk about higher minimum wage, college tuition, infrastructure, healthcare, etc.

[Squinch]

94. You mean because no Democrats talk about those things?

Please.

[JCanete]

98. What does appealing to Trump voters/republicans mean to you? What is it that should be avoided?

I'm just trying to understand what we think we gain by avoiding populist messaging about a rigged system run by the rich, so feel free to inform me.

[Squinch]

108. No you're not. I know this because this conversation has been

repeated here over and over and over ad museum. And you're still asking the same "when did you stop beating your wife" kinds of questions.

Wherever Democrats disagree, BS is at the base of it.

[JCanete]

113. Yes, we've disagreed about what unicorns look like versus horses...and now we as a party have mostly

accepted that those unicorns were actually beasts that do exist in the real world. Maybe less disagreement from the get-go would be a good thing, but I don't think Sanders is the problem here.

[Squinch]

119. Kay. You chat about unicorns and horses. I will say again:

Wherever Democrats disagree, BS is at the base of it. We need that right now like we need a republican Congress.

[JCanete]

123. Then stop disagreeing with sound policy direction. Solved. nt

[Squinch]

127. That's nice dear. Now lets stop talking about BS so

everyone can stop disagreeing.

Because whenever Democrats disagree BS is at the base if it.

And we need that now like we need a republican Congress.

[JCanete]

131. again, no we aren't going to stop talking about BS because he keeps being brought up

as he was in this context. I'm not going to let silly attacks go unchallenged, nor am I going to let the actual issues get sidelined with Sanders. You want to stop talking about Sanders, then make him irrelevant by making good policy and political rhetoric the democratic mainstream and don't try to blame him for pursuing them, and then make that effort the reason we have disagreements.

[JHan]

179. yup

[sheshe2]

175. Whaaaa?

Unicorns exist? Seriously?

[JCanete]

177. wow, you totally missed that one. People were calling unicorns what were possible and practical

policies worth pursuing. Either that or the whole democratic party has gone full unicorn lover, since we included "unicorns" in our platform after the convention.

The point I was making is that they um, weren't unicorns.

[sheshe2]

182. I did not miss a thing.eom

[JCanete]

184. then what were you doing? nt

[sheshe2]

189. What are YOU doing? eom

[JCanete]

191. I was making a point, you were talking about unicorns existing, even though, according to you,

you understood that I was saying the opposite...that things being labeled unicorns were in-fact not magical mythical creatures.

[WeekiWater]

270. I have a feeling that Pelosi....

Would be attacked relentlessly if she showed up in SC to campaign for Dems. Attacked by the same people pondering the difference between unicorns and horses.

[JCanete]

338. Well your feeling, if you are including me in that category would be wrong. Look at my own posting

history on Pelosi. Maybe don't make assumptions.

[WeekiWater]

339. Assumptions are extremely common on discussion boards.

Your comments are littered with them.

I feel very comfortable making assumptions. Really no big deal.

[JCanete]

347. Fair point actually, but in my case you were wrong with this one, and the bigger assumption here,

I think as well, that I and every other Left-leaning democrat would hate on Pelosi no matter what she did. For my part, I try to remain consistent. It certainly doesn't mean I always am, but you'll also find plenty of threads where I don't go down with the ship when I disagree with a position or statement of Sanders, or when I think that he's out of touch on a certain issue.

Also, for the record, there isn't any current or previous challenger to Pelosi that I have any interest in getting behind, though one may come along.

[Gothmog]

368. Most democrats live in the real world where magic does not work

If you do not believe in magical voter revolutions where millions or billions or trillions of magical new voters magically appear, then it is hard to take sanders seriously

[betsuni]

103. It's Republicans who don't want higher minimum wage, education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc.

Maybe you made a typo?

[JCanete]

107. I'm trying to understand what it is we don't want to talk about so that we can appeal to middle of

the road and right leaning voters. Can you clue me in?

[betsuni]

126. I don't understand your question about what would appeal to Trump voters/Republicans,

what should be avoided. Are Democrats avoiding something? I'm not following these races so have no idea.

[JCanete]

128. literally from the exerpt posted in the OP:

" to hosting candidates testing out their messaging and building activist and donor relationships ahead of a national run. But some party stalwarts say Sanders’ left-leaning, progressive message doesn’t resonate in a state where Democrats know they will need crossover support to win in many races. "

[betsuni]

140. I take from that the all or nothing approach makes moderate voters skittish.

The ACA was a way to wade slowly into the water, get people used to a different system, see, no death panels, no big deal. Then wade in deeper all the way to single payer. Raise the minimum wage gradually. See, doesn't affect the economy, no big deal. In blue states people don't mind being thrown into the deep end, they aren't afraid of change.

[Maven]

38. I'm a far lefty

And yet I still don’t trust or support Bernie.

Crazy, huh?

[Gothmog]

40. A large number of democrats have long memories

I will not forgive or forget 2016

[Maven]

45. Same. nt

[DemocracyMouse]

57. What? There was a primary? Establishment Dems skewed the electoral college?

Let it go people! Breathe in the rising CO2 levels. Let another American campaign for what he believes in!

That passion wins people's hearts. If you don't like the competition then drive down, or up, or over to South Carolina and campaign on the issues yourself.

Bernie has been beating a strong drum for democracy and economic equality. Enough people in the South are sick of holding down two jobs to listen to what he has to say. Don't divide the party. Let people campaign.

[MrsCoffee]

205. Don't divide the party you say?

What a novel fucking idea.

Someone get that message to Bernie ASAP.

[Uncle Joe]

211. If Bernie were to show up, Democrats in South Carolina could lose all their power in that state

which they have accumulated to dominate S.C. over the past few decades.

The Democrats could lose a powerful blue state.

We can't have that.

[JCanete]

385. I've asked others who have refused to answer. How would him showing up do any of that?

Please at least vaguely attempt to connect the dots for me.

[Uncle Joe]

388. Sorry I was using irony, I can't remember the last time

that South Carolina was a blue state?

As to the answer to your question, your guess is as good as mine?

[JCanete]

389. hehe...no, that's not on you. I should have caught it. nt

[Gothmog]

390. Instead of wasting the time of voters in South Carolina talking about his magical

Single payer plan, sanders should try getting this magical plan adopted in Vermont. Without any other accomplishments in the real world, sanders needs to get his magic plan adopted if he wants people to treat him seriously.

Why would anyone pay attention to someone with no accomplishments? THE Media and most voters are free to not treat sanders as a serious candidate because they do not believe in magical voter revolutions. Without a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions new voters show up, sanders proposals cannot be adopted in the real world

If sanders had a real accomplishment, the media would NOT treat him as a fringe candidate

[JCanete]

391. Sanders most valuable asset right now is that people nationally are listening to him. Creating

national energy behind him and inspiring political newcomers with a vision that has been long ignored/downplayed is how he can have the biggest splash at the moment. Its not hard to understand how that matters, and how his presence has had an impact not just on upstart politics but on the tone of mainstream Presidential hopefuls.

Again, you demonstrate that you have no interest in really appreciating how the media actually works. Trump had no meaningful accomplishments. Trump was not "taken seriously"...whatever that means, and yet he was given a shit load of visibility and soft-ball media treatment, not to mention rock-star status. That entirely invalidates everything you just said.

[Gothmog]

392. That is so cute and adorable

Last edited Sat Oct 13, 2018, 11:57 PM - Edit history (1)

You are the one who is mad that the media treat sanders as a fringe candidate who is not a serious candidate. Magic does not work in the real world. The only people paying any attention to sanders are people who believe in magical revolutions where millions or billions or trillions of new voters will magically appear to stop people from laughing at sanders. Most democrats and the media ignore sanders silly proposals because they know magic does not work in the real world.

Why should anyone pay attention to a person who has no real accomplishments in the real world and who tells the world that all of his proposals rely on a magical voter revolution. Again people in the real world do not believe in magic. Without the help of magic, sanders proposals are fringe. The media is justified in ignoring sanders.

Trump and sanders have one thing in common. Russia and Putin both help sanders and trump a great deal. Russia pushed anti Clinton fake news onto sites frequented by sanders supporters. Russia helped trump by convincing sanders supporters to hate Clinton. I saw this first hand at the national convention where I saw sander delegates scream at my daughter and call her the c-word. The sanders supporters on JPR had dozen of Russian inspired anti Clinton stories including a half dozen pizzagate thread on the greatest page for a long while. Russia used sanders supporters to help trump win See
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2017/03/23/russia-duped-bernie-fans-via-facebook-san-diego-dems-told/

But investigative journalist John Mattes, describing how fake stories on Facebook helped defeat Hillary Clinton, isn’t sure who Mitov is.

“He may be a bot. He may be a person [or four]. He may be living in Macedonia, laughing,” Mattes told a rapt audience of 90 Thursday night in Hillcrest.
But Mitov’s thousands of posts — and similar ones from Albania and elsewhere — duped just enough of the 13 million Sanders supporters to hand the election to Donald Trump and prove Russia could hack American democracy, said the 66-year-old resident of Pacific Beach.
A major Sanders organizer in Southern California himself, Mattes admitted that “we were played.”

Rove used sanders to hurt Clinton just as Rove used Nader

I do not believe in magic and so I never took sanders seriously. Why do you think that voters in South Carolina will now believe in magic after rejecting sanders earlier? Why should the media take sanders seriously now? Fringe ideas do not cease being fringe just because a few people believe in magic.

BTW, what is your solution to “corporate” media? Do you have any solutions that do not rely on magic?

[George II]

395. Could that be why he's the only Congressional legislator (House AND Senate) who has voted against...

....both the Magnistky Act and the Russia Sanctions?

Both passed overwhelmingly in both houses, only one person voted against both. Curious, eh?

[Gothmog]

399. Putin must be happy with these votes but putin was helping sanders to help trump

sanders was helped by Russia a great deal for a number of reasons including helping trump. trump has few accomplishments that are real and I do not believe that trump is qualified to be POTUS. Putin and Russia aided trump a great deal in 2016 and without this help and the help of Comey, trump would not be POTUS. Russia used sanders and his supporters to help elect trump. sanders and trump are both the beneficiaries of putin's assistance. I believe that it is possible that sanders took advantage of this assistance from Russia but is not a tool of Russia to the same degree that trump is. I am willing to give sanders the benefit of the doubt here.

Look, the premise of this thread is that Democrats in South Carolina do not want sanders to show up. I agree with that view. I do not believe in magic and so I never took sanders seriously. I doubt that sanders will actually run in 2020 for a host of reasons including the fact that sanders will still have no achievements to his credit

I never took sanders seriously and neither did the voters in the South. There will be no magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters will magically appear to force people to stop laughing at sanders and his silly proposals. I think that sanders is wasting people's time in holding this rally. So long as the current rules are in place, sanders will never be the nominee of the party. Trying to convince voters in South Carolina that his magic single player plan is great will not work given that sanders failed to get this plan adopted in Vermont.

[JCanete]

397. Voting for and financially supporting candidates who will challenge big corporate control is a good

start. What's yours? Playing the game as they have rigged it and then blaming a small percentage of disaffected voters when their rigged system turns out Republican victories?

[Gothmog]

402. So you have no plan that is viable in the real world

Why am I not surprised??? The real world is a nice place but it will not change simply because you are mad and dislike the fact that sanders is treated as a fringe candidate or that Tapper fact checked AOC and she came off as clueless in that interview.

I am happy living in the real world. I love MSNBC and I am getting the fact that I need. I love the Washington Post and I love the fact that media is holding trump accountable. The world is not going to change simply because a candidate holds their breath and pouts. sanders is a fringe candidate and his holding his breath and ranting has had no effect on the real world. Most Democrats and the media do not believe in magical voter revolutions and so there is no need to consider sanders to be anything other than a fringe candidates who does not need to be taken seriously

It seems that you like to complain about corporate media but have no plans to change things that will work in the real world

It takes hard work to change things. I spent three hours in an election law course getting ready for voter protection efforts. I will be headed out to Waller County to train poll watchers next weekend. It takes hard work to change things because magic does not work

[JCanete]

404. I literally told you how Tapper's own bullshit in the interview with Ocasio-Cortez was

Last edited Sun Oct 14, 2018, 02:41 AM - Edit history (3)

off-base and wrong. You can't pretend that when Cortez accounts for 32 billion dollars of the 40 billion dollars- a number that Tapper has uniquely arrived at- actually only accounts for 2 billion dollars and not come across as either a disingenuous shill or as somebody so damn caught up in your own world-view that your math and reason skills have been temporarily disconnected.

I invite you to listen to that interview and defend his exiting comment as factual on any level, but likely you'll just do what you like to do, which is to take the whole thing at face value and just repeat how accurate his reporting was, sans evidence, sans specifics. I know I don't have to remind you to mention magical thinking.

All your characterizations are lost on me. They don't fit the facts. Nobody is holding their breath and pouting. Saying so and repeating it in an echo chamber with other people who also don't like Sanders doesn't make it any more true. Pretending he's the primary alienator while you and others do this kind of thing and democratic politicians participate in hit-piece op-eds like this one only undermines your own credibility regarding that topic.

I agree that it takes hard work to change things. It also takes hard work to survive in this world. But it also takes hard work directed correctly, and that's where I often disagree with you, and your recent love fest with corporate media reporting is incredibly un-nuanced and scary to me. I agree that both MSNBC and WAPO do some good reporting. They also fall down in myriad ways. MSNBC underinforms like half of the day with pathetic voices like Tweety and Scarborough, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchel...good god there are so many bad ones! Are many of them united against Trump? So fucking what. They've done far too much already to get us here.

Yeah, MSNBC has Hayes Maddow and Lawrence. Credit there. They were worse before the Olbermann years.

[Gothmog]

394. From the Mueller indictment of Russia agents

Sanders and trump do have something in common according to Mueller https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-power-briefing/2018/02/16/mueller-indicts-13-russians-for-allegedly-meddling-in-2016-election-fbi-says-protocols-were-not-followed-when-they-received-tip-on-parkland-shooter-va-cos-resigns-249433

KEY LINES … “Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.”

-- “They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.”

Russia helped both sanders and trump a great deal.

[George II]

396. Hmmm.....

[JCanete]

398. They weren't trying to get Sanders to win. They were trying to hurt Clinton. That should be obvious,

since their timing was post primary to leak things that could have benefited Sanders during the primary campaign. Of course they wanted a damaged Clinton going up against their Manchurian Candidate, but they didn't want Sanders going up against him.

[Gothmog]

400. These efforts kept sanders in the primary far after he was mathematically eliminated

You are the one who opened the door on this by claiming that sanders has more accomplishments than trump While trump has few accomplishments that are due to his daddy, these accomplishments are more than what sanders has achieved in the real world Sanders and trump are both beneficiaries of putin's efforts.

Just as trump is not a legitimate POTUS, sanders supporters need to recognize that part of sanders' success was due to Russian and that without Russian help sanders should have dropped out after Super Tuesday. sanders lasted so long in this race because Russia was helping.

The real world is a nice place even though magic does not work

[EffieBlack]

401. Are you serious?

[JCanete]

412. what exactly did you give me to go on with this post? Why even bother Effie?

Unless you are going to actually challenge a specific thing I've said, I guess I'll just say, yes I'm serious, and thank you for your thoughtful interjection.

[George II]

244. "Let people campaign." Yes, you're correct, they should campaign. But unfortunately ....

...he won't be in South Carolina to campaign. He won't be appearing with any prominent South Carolina Democrats or for any Democrats who are on the ballot less than three weeks later.

In fact, he won't even be in his OWN state campaigning for himself!

Finally, the way Our Revolution bills the "rally" on their website is offensive to some South Carolinians and Southerners - they're calling it a rally for "Medicare for Y'all"!

[lapucelle]

301. Why would somebody who is neither running in SC

(nor stumping with a candidate who is) be campaigning in South Carolina?

[JCanete]

49. from my perspective? yeah. I kind of think you have to vocally advocate for things in order for them

to become possible. You disagree?

[brush]

64. But if the local candidates don't want him there, why force it?

Duh! All politics is local, as Tip O'Neil used to say.

[JCanete]

71. They don't want him in South Carolina? First of I could give a rats ass.

If he has people who want to come and see him there, then what exactly is the problem? They will come to see him. Others who don't want to see him won't.


Still have problem with him being there? Bummer.

[brush]

129. Are you not getting that the Dem candidates say he hurts their chances...

as one repug is already trying to tie his opponent in with Sanders' socialist message?

It should be about winning Dem races in South Carolina—you know, helping the party be successful in Nov.—not about Bernie burnishing his chances for 2020.

If you're a Democrat why don't you give a rat's ass about helping Dem candidates be successful? WTH is that about?

[JCanete]

135. I know that there is a mainstream block of democrats who simply do not like Sanders

and do not want his version of Democrat to gain a foothold, nor his brand of politics to take hold. I don't at all buy their reasoning here, but perhaps you could walk me through it. How could he hurt their chances? In what possible way? He's actually fairly popular, if you haven't realized.

[brush]

145. Ok, I'll spell it out since you're acting a little dense. THE DEM...

CANDIDATES DON'T WANT HIM COMING THIS CLOSE TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION BECAUSE HE HURTS THEIR CHANCES AS HE'S NOT THAT POPULAR IN SOUTH CAROLINA. THEy NEED CROSS OVER VOTES TO WIN AND DON'T WANT TO BE TIED TO HIS SOCIALISTIC IMAGE.

This is in the OP.

It's not rocket science to wait until after the election to come if active Democratic candidates say not to come now.

Good God, can it hurt him to think about Democrats actively running in an election less than a month off and not just about himself and 2020?

I know he's not a Democrat but damn, think about others for a change.

[JCanete]

146. Yes, and everythign I said applies. I don't see any actual evidence that this hurts them,

only their own protestations, which I have to say, I do not trust, given the reasons I already spelled out to you. You will have to connect the dots for me as to how his own campaigning for better healthcare, which will be seen by people who want to attend, hurts democrats. But you can't just repeat that statement, you have to put some effort into showing me how that fallout happens.

[brush]

164. You're not there on the ground so whether you trust the Dems there or not..

doesn't matter. And why, if you're a Democrat, don't you trust the Democrats on the ground with local knowledge that neither you or Sanders have access to. It's also apparent that you didn't go to the link and find this out:

Amanda Loveday served as executive director of South Carolina’s Democratic Party and previously did communications for U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the state’s lone congressional Democrat. Asked about Sanders’ visit to South Carolina, she said the trip is not in the best interest of the state’s Democratic candidates.

“I just think it’s extremely selfish of Bernie Sanders to think he could walk into South Carolina without an invitation from a candidate and think he’s going to be welcomed with open arms,” Loveday said. “It’s hard for me to think of an actual, legitimate Democratic candidate who would stand on stage with him here.”

Sanders’ Tuesday announcement of his planned trip to South Carolina came the same day that the state’s Republican governor aimed to link him to his Democratic challenger. In a new digital ad , Gov. Henry McMaster pointed out that, despite his self-portrayal as a moderate, state Rep. James Smith has boasted of his endorsement by Our Revolution, an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential effort.

See what I mean, the repugs are already linking Dem candidates to Sanders' "Our Revolution" group. Not good in a state where Dems need crossover votes to win. Get it now?

[JCanete]

170. No I do not see what you mean. So a republican is linking a candidate who has linked himself to

Sanders, to Sanders? And listening to people with a bad opinion of sanders react to Sanders negatively every step of the way does not impress me much. Why exactly should I take statements from people who say Sanders hurts the party seriously when they say he does so in this instance as well? I don't believe them. They don't have the evidence to back it up. They are the ones sewing dischord.

Brown literally says the most contradictory bullshit imaginable...that first, 15 people will show up for Sanders, and second, somehow that non-presence is going to have a negative impact on the party. What the fuck is he hoping we're smoking?

[brush]

171. Ridiculous. Sanders' playbook of division. He'll regret going there univited.

If you don't listen to the Democrats who you are going to need to vote for you in 2020 you are a fool and not worthy of further discussion.

[JCanete]

173. I'll repeat what I added into the last post:

Brown literally says the most contradictory bullshit imaginable...that first, 15 people will show up for Sanders, and second, somehow that non-presence is going to have a negative impact on the party. What the fuck is he hoping we're smoking?

[brush]

176. If you selfishly and foolishly disregard Democrats who you'll need support...

from in 2020, you're venturing on a fool's errand.

[JCanete]

178. no, you are simply privileging the perspective of particular democrats who share your world

view and saying those of us who disagree with your world view are being selfish. Sorry, I'm not going to accept that characterization.

[brush]

180. You don't get it. Democrats should work together to get Democrats elected.

If state Dem officials want you to come after the election and you reject their opinion, you're working against the party.

We've already seen that movie in 2016 and it didn't end well.

I just don't get how such a simple request to delay a trip until after the election less than a month away is so hard to understand.

[JCanete]

183. That sounds like working together to you? I don't get it, and listening to the bombastic rhetoric,

I double down, this isn't a request they are making quietly to sanders to help them, this is something they put him on blast for...and these particular spokespeople are doing character assassination to boot, so if the premise is that disagreement and criticism(when it comes from Sanders) hurts us, how is that helping us come together...hmmmmmmm?

[brush]

185. It's call working to help Democrats but since he's not a Democrat...

[Gothmog]

238. Great post

I agree

[George II]

243. He's going to the state less than three weeks before the election and yet he's not campaigning...

....directly for any Democratic candidates, nor is he even appearing with any prominent South Carolina Democrats.

[brush]

245. It's not that simple. The repug governor is already using the proposed trip...

to tie his Democratic opponent to Sanders' Our Revolution group and it's "socialistic" policies, as he puts it.

Coming after the election, especially since Sanders is not going there to back any candidates in the Nov. election, seems to be the sensible thing to do if you care about not hurting candidates chances.

[George II]

247. It's curious that he hasn't endorsed the Democratic Governor candidate or...

...any other candidate in South Carolina.

Our Revolution has only endorsed three - one candidate for Congress and two for the State Legislature. Neither Brand New Congress nor Justice Democrats have endorsed any candidates in South Carolina.

[EffieBlack]

268. This is why Bernie got his ass handed to him in SC - and will again if he tries to run in 2020

He doesn't respect and won't listen to the people there.

He treats them like he thinks they're irrelevant and stupid. Hardly a winning strategy ...

[Gothmog]

365. Sanders did very poorly in the south

Sanders is not a serious candidate. Sanders relies on magical voter revolutions to justify his silly or fringe proposals where millions or billions or trillions of new voters must magically appear to be adopted. You have to believe in magic to believe that sanders is a serious person

Voters in the south live in the real world

[Autumn]

372. Are there any Democrats or Progressives that do well in the South?

[Gothmog]

373. You mean candidates who believe in magical voter revolutions?

Southerns live in the real world and tend to be very pragmatic. The Democratics tend to support programs that do not require magical voter revolutions where millions or billions or trillions of new voters magically appear to be adopted.

We have good progressives like Beto. The fact that Beto raised $38 million is meaningful. Texas has six democratic congressional candidates who each raised over $1 million.

Do you consider Senator Doug Jones progressive?

Sanders would be taken more seriously in the South if he had some accomplishments in the real world. Instead of making a fundraising speech in South Carolina, sanders should consider trying to get his magical single payer plan adopted in Vermont

[Autumn]

375. No. I was very clear in the question I asked. You are ignoring it to meander somewhere else

so I will not read past your header. Bernie and Hillary are both Progressive yet neither won the south. Are there any Democrats or Progressives that do well in the South?

[Gothmog]

376. I answered your silly question

Last edited Sat Oct 13, 2018, 01:42 PM - Edit history (1)

The fact that you do not like the answer may explain why sanders will never be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Southerns do not believe in magical voter revolutions and so Southerns did not take sanders seriously.

There are plenty of progressives in the south. Senator DOUG Jones is a progressive. Beto, Colin Alfred, Lizzie Fletcher are all progressives

If sanders wants to be taken seriously in the South, sanders should spend his time in Vermont getting his magical single payer plan adopted

[Autumn]

379. No you didn't answer my "silly question. You wandered off into

Bernie blah blah blah, yeah you don't like Bernie, Bernie sucks, I get it, everybody gets it. Now I'm not from the south but I was raised and taught there is no such thing as a stupid, or silly question. Which immediately let me know you have no interest in discussing or answering my question without being rude. Senator Doug Jones, the only one you mention currently in office, won over the fucking pervert, racist Roy Moore by one and a half percent and currently seems to be in trouble there. I doubt the Republican party will be stupid enough to run Roy Moore again so he will have an uphill climb in 2020. Pete Sessions and Colin Allred ( check your spelling, you got his name wrong) are in a dead heat, Beto, who should be a million points ahead is currently behind Cruz since he seems to have a Latino problem in TX , Culberson has a narrow lead over Lizzie Fletcher. They may be solid progressives but they seem to be struggling even with the help of the party.

Again. Are there any Democrats or Progressives that do well in the South?

[Gothmog]

381. I am sorry that you did not understand or like my answer

I know that you are upset that sanders is not being taken seriously by Southern voters. That is the topic of this thread. I can see that you are very upset that sanders has no chance of ever being the nominee of the Democratic Party given how Southern Democrats view Sanders. I again encourage sanders to give up wasting the time of voters in South Carolina and go back to Vermont and try to get even one accomplishment to his credit. Instead of talking about his magical single payer plan to voters in South Carolina who will never support him, sanders should head back to Vermont and get his magical single payer plan adopted in Vermont. Without any real accomplishments in the real world, sanders will never be taken seriously.

As for Texas progressives, you do realize that Beto was a three term congressman and accomplished more than sanders? I was a delegate to the National Convention and met Beto there. I have been to several of his events and Beto is making a difference. Beto will get far more votes in Texas than sanders did but that is not a high bar.

Link to tweet

Beto is using this money to GOTV. He has given my county coordinated campaign committee $50,000 for GOTV. This is from an e-mail from Beto

We have a massive goal of knocking on 102,733 doors and making 102,733 calls this weekend -- but we’re just short of enough volunteers to pull it off. So far, thousands of people have signed up to join across the state -- everywhere from Grand Prairie to Galveston, Laredo to El Paso to Amarillo, Houston, Dallas and everywhere in between. Supporters living in cities across the country are gathering for hundreds of phone banks.

As for other progressives, Congressman Marc Veasey sued and got the Texas voter id law gutted. That will make a major difference. Here is a chart that shows the effect of the Texas voter id law on Democratic turnout
Congressman Al Green and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee have been busy helping to keep Prairie View A&M students from being disenfranchised.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

There are a good number of progressives in Texas who are busy. These progressive just do not take sanders serously because he has no accomplishments.

Again, I know that you are very disappointed that sadners will never by the nominee of the Democratic Party. Southern opposition to sanders will not change even if sanders gives a silly speech in South Carolina.

[TexasTowelie]

403. The last time that I checked the governor of Louisiana is a Democrat.

His name is John Bel Edwards and he is reasonably popular based upon the polls. The people admire his leadership because he addressed the budget crisis in the state and also maintained and restored progressive programs such as TOPS for college students.

[EffieBlack]

374. I remember asking in 2016 - repeatedly - why didn't Bernie harness his *revolution"

to fight to get Merrick Garland confirmed.

Nothing but crickets. The revolution apparently wasn't interested in actually doing anything other than teling us how awesome Bernie was.

[Gothmog]

377. You will not hear anything because magic does not work in the real world

[NurseJackie]

410. Excellent question. With such power at hand, why wasn't it used for a greater purpose?

Indeed, it appeared to only have the singular interest as you previously described. Or, alternatively (in addition to?) that power and influence and political clout being ascribed to that particular organization did not match reality. All I'm trying to say here is that their lack of response and action certainly was disappointing (to say the least) and that the idiomatic expression of "all hat and no cattle" could probably be applied to that particular group with a great deal of truth and accuracy.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/all_hat_and_no_cattle

[sheshe2]

181. You really just said this.

JCanete (4,415 posts)
71. They don't want him in South Carolina? First of I could give a rats ass.

Holy shit. You went there. You just said you did not give a rats ass what the people/voters of SC want. You SAID YOU DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS WHAT THEY WANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guess it is your way or the highway. Their vote/preference does not count. Shame on you.

I believe Bernie would not agree with you.

[mercuryblues]

359. Yup

unfuckingbelievable. Candidates are losing ground since the republicans started their nasty ads tying Bernie to them. What is Bernie's answer to that.... go there and have a rally! Jeese, if I didn't know better, it would look like Bernie is trying to put the proverbial nail in their coffins.

[sheshe2]

378. I know what mean, mercuryblues.

[JCanete]

386. I have no idea what you're talking about, how Bernie is doing any harm by energizing those who

like Bernie...who came out by-and-large FOR Clinton in 2016. Why are you guys holding onto bullshit you can't corroborate or back up with any shred of evidence?

[JCanete]

384. Not at all. I don't care what a few politicians who clearly seem to disdain sanders,

Last edited Sat Oct 13, 2018, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)

want him to do, nor what kind of negative rhetoric they want propagated in the ether about him.

How the hell did you turn that into me not caring what the voters want? That is a classic case of you seeing what you want to see so that you can take umbrage with it. Why did you do this?

[Autumn]

366. Yeah they really hated him in 2016

Last edited Sat Oct 13, 2018, 10:00 AM - Edit history (1)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4581655/senator-bernie-sanders-campaign-rally-greenville-south-carolina

[George II]

370. How did that work out a few days later?

[Autumn]

371. Kind of the same way it worked out in Nov.

[George II]

382. Not even close to "the same way".

[Autumn]

383. A Republican won S Carolina so I'm going to stick with it ended the same. Our

conversation ends with me trashing this thread. I've moved on, it's too bad others never will.

[Maven]

155. I'm into doers, not big talkers. nt

[JCanete]

159. that doesn't make sense to me. The " doers,"(those I assume you are associating with the term)

were telling us we couldn't do some of these things. Then it turned out they changed their minds and added them into the democratic platform after the talking was done.

[Gothmog]

237. What are sanders' legislative accomplishments?

Doers actually accomplish things in the real world. What are sanders’ major legislative accomplishments? What has sanders accomplished so as to earn sanders the title of “doer”,

I do not believe in magic all of sanders.’ proposals require a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters appear.

[JCanete]

260. I've had this conversation many times. Do you count things like No child left behind as legislative

accomplishments, or do you count them against legislative accomplishments? Do you count votes to go to war legislative accomplishments? Maybe they had to give a little to get support on some other bill....the question in the end is, what was the net gain from some of that compromise, and I think that's very hard to quantify.

Sanders has been steadfast on most issues, and ahead of the nation on the right side of history on many. I will freely mitigate what that means regarding his courage, because I am aware that this has been partially due to his uniquely safe position in a very liberal state, and I know that solidly principled positions have been at times risky in more vulnerable places, or where far more money is available to attack candidates for their votes and to misconstrue them.

But there's also no pretending that Sanders could have gotten his proposals passed or even heard by the general public in previous years, because the media was effective at blacking out the most progressive ideas and the Democratic Party(if I'm taking the most generous read) not confident that it could or should run on such ideas---you know--- unicorns, and thus most of his colleagues on the left would not likely support his proposals. So his role was in trying to inform the public where he could, which was a long process, and of course, only really reached(better than nothing) the most ardent progressive radio listeners through the early 2000's, and to use his voting power as a fulcrum to impact legislation that was coming to the floor in a positive way.

[Gothmog]

263. LOL-thank you for the laughs

Opposing NCLB is not really an accomplishment in the real world. What major legislation has sanders actually passed in the real world.

The media is not paying attention to sanders because sanders has not accomplished anything in the real world. Be happy that the media did not consider sanders to be a serious candidate and actually vet sanders. sanders can not stand vetting and if runs in 2020, the press will have a great deal of fun.

Again, magic does not work in the real world. sanders needs a magical voter revolution to pass his proposals. Without millions or billions or trillions of new voters magically appearing, none of sanders proposals will be adopted and the media will not treat sanders as a serious candidate. Again, sanders should be happy that the press did not deem sanders to be a real candidate because sanders would not stand up to actual vetting.

You are welcome to believe in magic and unicorns. I will rely on hard work in the real world

[JCanete]

265. I wasn't calling his opposition a legislative accomplishment silly...I was asking if NCLB's passing

and construction would be considered by you a legislative accomplishment, even though it has been disastrous.


That is a foolish thing to say about why the media pays attention to what. YOu should look at its record, what kind of pundits it tends to have, and be at least partially cognizent of the fact that all mainstream media is owneed by massive corporations that have a distinctly anti-liberal agenda, because that's how they get paid. Why would they cover something unless begrudgingly that could effect their future mergers, their tax rates, net neutrality, etc?

[Gothmog]

277. The media can ignore sanders because sander has not accomplished anything

The point is that sanders has no major legislative accomplishments to his credit which is why many in the real world ignore him or did not take him seriously. The media does not believe in magic and the media never took sanders seriously. sanders should be be glad that the media did not vet him because sanders would not stand up to serious vetting. If the media ever deems sanders to be a serious candidate, then sanders will be vetted and that would not be pretty.

I am amused that you believe in magic and think that anyone should listen to sanders. How will sanders magical voter revolution work? How many new magical voters are needed for this magical revolution to be considered a success? Does it take millions or billions or trillions of new voters magically appearing for sanders to pass any meaningful legislation in the real world?

As for evil media, you do realize that the NYT, the Washington Post and other media concerns are engaged in what is called circulation war where these media concerns are fighting to cover trump as aggressively as possible. Some great reporting has come out lately including the NYT story on trump's tax fraud. What more do you think that the media should be doing other than paying attention to a senator who has never passed any meaningful legislation and is not likely to pass any meaningful legislation unless magic becomes operative in the real world? I am following the coverage of the Washington Post reporter who was killed and I am not sure what more you think that the media should be doing?

[R B Garr]

278. Thank you, Gothmog, for sticking with the real world. When someone's claim

to fame is standing in opposition, but they don't have any of their stated "issues" accomplished in their own state, you would think the media would start noticing that, but Sanders has benefitted from not being vetted. Thanks for the dose of reality.

[Gothmog]

281. I am amused that sanders supporters are mad that the media does not cover him

Normally one has to have some accomplishments in the real world to justify the media paying attention. sanders has no major legislative accomplishments in the real world and all of his proposals rely on a magical voter revolution. I am not surprised that the media is not covering sanders. If sanders wants media coverage, then he may want to first accomplish something in the real world

If the media ever does deem sanders to be a serious candidate, then the vetting will be brutal

[R B Garr]

299. Yup, he might not be able to get by with avoiding answering even basic

questions, most of which unfortunately go to the hypocrisy of attacking Democrats. He rarely gets asked why Vermont doesn't have $15 minimum wage or other "revolution" promos, but look how the excuses have vacillated just from some posts here -- the main point being that other politicians also face the same political obstacles, but that doesn't matter for Democrats. Hypocrisy.

[JCanete]

294. Here are a very familiar person's words on the NYT, as recently as a couple weeks ago....

"The NYT is not a credible source so long as M. Schmidt works for it". - Gothmog


But hey, its only not credible when its propagating certain propaganda that you have a problem with I guess.


And what I'm talking about is what the media has been doing for decades, because of who owns it, what they care about, and what they want to sell, which is a reflection of what their parent company's larger interests are, or what their top-dollar advertisers want promoted, or what their megalomaniac owners want(FOX).

Historically and now, there are certain stories the media should have made major and unrelenting news, like the flint water crisis. It should not simply mention and question whether its okay for trump to have all the conflicts of interest he has, it should be plastering the public with righteous editorializing. The media has normalized his behavior. It normalized his campaign. Before that, it sanctioned and even moderated the most asinine content free primaries imaginable, and not just in 2016. 2012 was almost just as idiotic a circus on the Republican side. The media has outright sucked. It has had a blatant double standard against not just left-wing liberals but Democrats in general, even while they continue to sell the public on the lie that the media leans left.

Sure, there are some Mainstream democratic exceptions, but surprise surprise, there is almost no left-wing representation in mainstream news.

I can think of a lot of things they could be and should be doing. If I dug into this, I could probably point to at hundreds of examples of people who simply are not be qualified to be anchors, writers, etc. who are paid presumably, to give us the facts, but then, in reality, that's simply not their job. Instead the field is riddled with what amounts to party specific political spin-doctors and fluff anchors and writers who pretend to be asking the hard questions. Again, there are some exceptions, and journalists do thankfully still uncover big stories, but we are where we are because the media has failed us. If it saves us from what it itself has done, I for one will be surprised. Granted, a lot of it is pushing back against Trump...but Trump remains a symptom of a bigger problem. Its just that he may be the malignant symptom that kills the host.

I'm not going to engage with you on why or why not Sanders gets covered because you just slide into the same repeteative screed based on nothing about magical revolutions, which has nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand anyway. Just so you know if you aren't cutting and pasting, I've stopped reading those sections. As soon as I see " magical voter revolution" I simply skip over it. so if you want to save time, you may want to actually paste these sections in from any of your myriad posts saying the same.

[Gothmog]

295. You have yet to point to even one accomplishment by sanders

I never took sanders seriously because I do not believe in magic and sanders had no accomplishments to his credit. sanders whole platform was based on a magical voter revolution that required millions or billions or trillions of new voters to magically appear. Magic does not work in the real world and there is no reason for the media or anyone else to take sanders seriously.

Why cover a person who was never going to be the Democratic nominee and who had nothing meaningful to add. If you want to see sanders covered by the media, then you might suggest that sanders try to accomplish something in the real world.

BTW, sanders benefited by the media not taking him seriously. If the media considered sanders to be a real candidate, then sanders would have been vetted and sanders would not survive even a mild vetting. If sanders runs in 2020, sanders will have (a) to release some real tax returns and let us know who was paid the commissions on the TV ads used in his 2016 campaign, (b) to become an actual member of the Democratic Party and agree to run as a Democrat and govern as a democrat and (c) answer to the voters for his active assistance in helping trump get elected and stunts like sanders refusing to stop his delegates from booing Congressman John Lewis. sanders is not popular with POC now and just think how he will do after some fun ads showing Congressman John Lewis being booed. In addition the media will vet sanders and there is a ton of good dirt on him.

Have fun hoping that magic works. I will work in the real world. I will be busy training poll watchers this weekend

[JCanete]

296. First, I'm less concerned about Sanders specifically, though my point still stands,

and more concerned about the climate of reporting and privileging certain stories over others over the decades that has fostered our political situation today, and has made platform's like what Sanders has had for years, fringe instead of educating the public and making all the things that we are just now getting into the democratic platform, mainstream and no longer scary to the masses. Instead we still get hit pieces on ideas like Medicare for All that are clearly that, that have weak substance and obviously glaring mischaracterizations. Take Tapper's interview with Ocasio-Cortez where she explains how 32 billion of his made up 40 billion dollar cost to government would be covered, and he manages to make the absurd snark that "I guess we aren't going to hear an explanation about the other 38 billion...har har…." How does that fucking idiot have a job? Oh right...that's actually how he has a job.

So He makes up a figure of 40 billion, 32 billion of which was what the Koch study suggested would be the cost of Medicare for All, Ocasio Cortez points out that healthcare nationally costs us 34 billion and that this will save us 2 billion, and he turns that into her explaining away 2 billion of his 40 billion figure? Are you fucking kidding me with that bullshit. That is the kind of media coverage that liberal ideas tend to get in this country. Step away from your own animosity towards Sanders and try to have a circumspect, informed view of exactly what the media has been selling and why.

[Gothmog]

311. So you are admitting that sanders has no accomplishments in the real world

Why should the press cover someone who has zero legislative accomplishments in the real world and admits that none of his proposals can be adopted without the aide of magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters magically appear? This thread is about sanders. BTW, I am not surprised that the press also does not consider AOC to be a serious person either. I wonder what her committee assignments will be.

As for coverage, I am taking time off from watching MSNBC. I started a thread on Waller county earlier today and by the time that I started to drive home, Rachel was covering this story

I have talked to some contacts in Waller and Rachel got this story right.

I and others will make sure that Waller has some poll watchers in place to be at Pairie View A&M. I meeting with the person running voter protection for the state Democratic Party on Saturday and we have exchanged e-mails about Waller already tonight. This is a concept called living in the real world and working change things in the real world. Change can occur but it takes hard work. Magic does not work in the real world which is why the media does not take sanders seriously

Again, your belief in magic really amuses me. sanders is getting the coverage that he deserves and you do not want to see what will happen if sanders is deemed to be a real candidate or a serious person in the real world. The press would have fun vetting sanders and there are a ton of fun stuff that I have seen. If sanders wants more coverage, he may want to invoke his magical powers and cause the millions or billions or trillions of new voters to appear.

[JCanete]

313. Okay Goth....good talk. I'll just say thanks for some of what you do. nt

[Gothmog]

316. My twitter feed is full with a ton of oppo on sanders

I really doubt that sanders will run in 2020 but if sanders is stupid enough to run the media will have fun. There is a great deal of fun stuff

You should be happy that the media considers sanders to be a non-viable candidate.

If sanders ever accomplishes anything in the real world, please let me know. I am not holding my breath.

[JCanete]

317. If its anythign I haven't already heard I'd be surprised, and I dont' find most of it that

compelling. nt

[Gothmog]

326. Given that you believe in magic and that sanders has magical powers, I have no doubt that you will

ignore any reporting that reports these facts or items that you disagree with. I really doubt that sanders will run in 2020 but if he does, it will be fun. sanders was not considered a serious or real candidate in 2016 which is why the press failed to vet him. If sanders is ever deemed to be a serious candidate, then the press has a ton of great material to use.

[Gothmog]

345. I live in the real world and I am curious as to what you propose to do to fix corporate media

The real world is a nice place even if magic does not work there. You dislike "corporate" media because this media does not deem sanders to be a credible or serious candidate and does not cover him. I was also amused that you were upset when AOC was fact checked and came off as poorly informed.

Such attacks on "corporate" media amuses me greatly. What is your solution? Will sanders use his magic to create millions or billions or trillions of new voters/viewers who will magically appear and help a new media source come into existence? If sanders is going to create new voters, these magical new voters could help a new media source to magically come into existence.

Right now, MSNBC is getting great ratings because MSNBC is countering Fox News and getting the facts out there. I tend to ignore Chris Hayes (because he is too pro bernie) but I watch Rachel Maddow and the Beat every night (yeah for DVR). Ari Melber is a good lawyer and I love the legal spin on his reporting in part because I view many issues based on the fact that I am an attorney. I feel that I am getting the facts from MSNBC and to a lesser degree CNN.

I live in the real world and in the real world, the large institutions own media sources. It takes money to form a cable station. I am happy that competition has gotten the NYT and the Washington Post to compete against each other. I subscribe to the Washington Post online and enjoy their coverage. I also love TRMS, the BEAT and other MSNBC coverage. My weekend mornings usually involve AMJOY.

Please let me know how you want to fix corporate media. I understand that you are upset that the real world and the media is not accepting the claims of sanders and AOC but you have proposed no solutions. In the real world, it might help if sanders actually accomplish something such as getting his magical single payer plan adopted in Vermont. AOC should consider being prepared for interviews (she was horrible and clearly unprepared in that interview). The facts cited by Tapper were accurate even if they do not agree with sanders magical single payer plan that he cannot get adopted in Vermont.

The real world is a nice place even if magic does not work in the real world. I am really curious how you propose to fix "corporate" media. In the mean time, I will be working to changes things by the only way that I think that work which is hard work.

[lapucelle]

304. Many consider the Brady Bill to be a legislative accomplishment.

Writing bills that put policy into practice after they are passed is an accomplishment.

[George II]

308. But who voted against it? Who voted against banning guns from Amtrak? And while we're at it....

....who voted against the Magnitsky Act (which passed 92-4) or the Russia sanctions (which passed 98-2)?

[JCanete]

337. The russia sanctions bill I understand. YOu're talking about the same one Kerry opposed right?

The guy who engineered the Iran deal and found this bill problematic? I also understand Sander stance on the Brady bill previously, but I think in retrospect it was wrong and he was on the wrong side of history on that one. I'm happy to count that against him. He's not a God. I don't pretend him to be. I have to refresh on the magnitsky Act.

[George II]

350. We're discussing those who were in a position to vote for or against it, and those who voted "nay".

As for the Magnitsky Act, trump notwithstanding, the US is now considering invoking the Magnitsky Act in light of the Khashoggi, the murdered Washington Post journalist.

It's a VERY important piece of legislation.

[JCanete]

354. Well, for one my point wasn't simply that "well Kerry didn't like it either." My point was

there appears to have been a very good reason not to like the bill as it stood, which also had provisions regarding Iran in it, and that while I will never simply cede all credibility and authority to one person, Kerry had a lot of skin in the game for the Iran deal, it was a passion project that he cared about, and without doing my own intensive research, I don't see a reason to doubt his assessment of the legislation, at least on the surface.


The magninsky act also seems complicated, with trade noramlization apparently built into it. Apparently we don't have any direct explanation from Sanders why he voted no, but below is somebody going into depth about Sanders position, including his vote yes on a later bill.

https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2018/07/19/why-did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-the-magnitsky-act/

[melman]

340. "Magnitsky Act (which passed 92-4)"

Leaving out that the other three were Carl Levin (D-MI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Jack Reed (D-RI)

Surely just an oversight on your part.

[George II]

349. Nope, not an oversight at all, they're not under discussion here. So....

....why did you ignore the 98-2* Russia Sanctions vote? Is that because the only other Senator was a republican (Rand Paul)?

Surely just an oversight on your part.

*the House vote was 419-3, those 3 votes were all republicans. I wonder why he was on the other side of an aggregated 517-5 vote, being the only non-republican to vote against it.

[melman]

353. Well it's just that

the insinuation falls a little flat when it's revealed who the other Senators were.

Does it not? Yes. And that's why that info was left out.

[George II]

362. There were no "insinuations", at least not by me....

....Glad you can discern (not necessarily correctly) why I "left out" info. That info wasn't "left out", it just wasn't relevant based on the discussion.

Now that I've cleared that up, is there a reason why you're simply glossing over the OTHER vote where he voted "nay" versus an overwhelmingly bi-partisan "yea" vote?

Let's combine the two votes - 98-2 for Russia sanctions, 92-4 for the Magnitzky act. 190 votes "aye", 6 votes "nay" - only ONE common "nay" vote for both.

Curious, wouldn't you say?

back atcha.

[Gothmog]

312. Yet another bill that sanders opposed

There is so much oppo out there on sanders that I really doubt that he will run in 2020

[R B Garr]

343. +1, and Tad Devine.....nt

[R B Garr]

248. Then why not "vocally advocate" in Vermont to get all the "issues" he

puts on other Democrats. Eventually he will be required to answer about his accomplishments in his own home state and Vermont does not have the goodies he insists Democrats should be providing. At some point, political realities have to be discussed and accepted. So far, he has exempted himself from that burden.

[George II]

249. They were already in the platform, they were just changed slightly.

[JCanete]

256. yes to positions that have literally been called unicorns because of that slight difference. nt

[NastyRiffraff]

335. You're not alone

I know a lot of "far lefties" and with the exception of one, they don't like Bernie. I'm sure there are a lot like you.

[LiberalLovinLug]

48. Bingo!

It gets very Orwellian in here at times.

[betsuni]

320. Oh, how so?

[Cha]

361. Bingo? "Orwellian here"?. Orwellian is Big Brother

is watching.. that's what the Fascist republicons are doing.. there aren't any fascist trumpshites on here.

[Cha]

360. Nah.. we're not going to hide to truth just because

you call it "divisive". Maven is correct.

[JCanete]

364. hmmm...I thought Maven was wrong but then you chimed in adding your voice in support,

and even though we seem to disagree on about 99 percent of the subject matter that gets debated on this board, for some inexplicable reason this contribution moved me to see that I've been wrong and that you and Maven are right.


I tip my hat to you.

[Honeycombe8]

47. For some, it's more about their "movement" than the Democratic Party.

It's up to the Democratic Party whether to let him run under its moniker, isn't it? Maybe not. Maybe all the party could do is withhold funds?

[Honeycombe8]

75. I belong to the Democratic Party, which is what this site is about.

You are naive if you think the Democrats losing will help Americans with Social Security, Medicare, health care, the economy, jobs, a social net for the underprivileged and vulnerable.

[shanny]

112. Would you prefer he ran as a third-party candidate?

That should work well.

[MrsCoffee]

206. Wouldn't work well for him.

He is nothing without Democratic Party backing and he knows it. Using the party for money and attention is what he does best.

[shanny]

212. I beg to differ.

It wouldn't work well for us. Bernie is far more popular than Ralph Nader, for example.

[MrsCoffee]

246. That's what a few people keep saying.

Too bad his endorsements don’t seem to carry the weight of the most popular and beloved politician on the face of the planet.

I would expect a little more winning.

[shanny]

252. lol

45% of the Democratic primary voters voted for Bernie. How close are our elections these days, and how many percentage points can we afford to lose? I just find this an extremely odd reaction on a forum whose members frequently dump on Nader. 'Tis a puzzlement.

[stranger81]

259. I used to be puzzled by that incongruity, too.

Took me a while to realize that what those posters were really bent out of shape about was not a third party spoiler, but rather having a non-incrementalist progressive available as an alternative choice for voters at all, whether on a third party ticket or a Democratic ticket. The point isn't so much to keep the Democratic party strong and unified as it is to make sure that milquetoast incrementalism is the only alternative to the GOP on offer.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

314. Bingo. Reagan Democrats.

[betsuni]

319. LOL Reagan Democrats.

BOO! It is 2018. LOL.

[R B Garr]

329. LOL, "Reagan Democrats" has a specific definition and demographic.

It doesn't mean some random people on the internet that need smearing. The term refers to white working class rust-belt voters. Sound familiar??

"A Reagan Democrat is a traditionally Democratic voter in the United States, referring especially to white working-class Rust Belt residents, who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald Reagan in either or both of the 1980 and 1984 elections as well as Republican Presidents George H. W....."

[JHan]

405. I can't relate to it at all, it's strange to read it.

It's how I feel when I read about "third way". I know they don't mean the think tank - which has no real influence. What they're critiquing is triangulation, which every politician does - and I mean everyone, including every single politician in the Senate.

In any case "Reagan Democrat" is weird for several reasons. I don't even blame "boomers" for Reagan. Young boomers wouldn't have been eligible to vote for Reagan in 1980. Boomers of voting age leaned towards Carter as far as I know ( or weren't completely bowled over by Reagan). At the time, your typical Reagan voter was older, white, male and moneyed. Similar in some respects to many Trump voters today. So why even single out a "Reagan Democrat" who wouldn't typically vote Dem down the line today.

I think the concept of Reagan Democrats only works if you believe the Overton Window Theory ( I used to) where there's a single window that shifts, impacting all of politics. The fact you have two political parties with such divergent views proves this theory wrong.

"Reagan Democrat" is as much a joke as neoliberal critiques of Democrats.

[betsuni]

406. Third Way/neoliberal/triangulation/Reagan Democrat are both-sides-same insults.

My first vote was 1980 and the number one reason I heard people giving for supporting Reagan was taxes. He was going to lower taxes. Simple greed, white people not wanting their money to go to THEM, the welfare queens buying lobster and steak.

I don't know what calling Democrats "Reagan Democrats" is supposed to suggest.

[R B Garr]

411. Great post, JHan. To attempt to use it as a generic insult

when you don’t know or acknowledge the actual definition of Reagan Democrats is just being trollish. The demographics of white working class workers in the rust-belt fits who a certain candidate in 2016 was targeting.

[Gothmog]

330. Has Vermont adopted single payer yet?

If sanders has the perfect-single payor plan, why not get it adopted in Vermont?

[R B Garr]

328. Vermont doesn't have $15 per hour wage. They don't have single payer

or free education. So much for the "non-incrementalist progressive," lol. If it was so easy as you are suggesting, surely Vermont would be the example of how to attain it in other areas. But it's not. I bet there's more to it.

[stranger81]

331. Funny you bring that up.

The frequency with which this argument gets deployed around here also used to be a headscratcher for me. Again, it was puzzling why the same group of people who love to chortle about magic and unicorns had this inexplicably irrational belief that a single federal senator should be able to unilaterally run his home state's government to his own liking. I used to wonder if maybe some of you genuinely didn't understand that Senator Sanders has a job that has ZERO to do with Vermont's state government. Now, of course, I get that this is just the game you folks like to play.

[R B Garr]

332. It's just an excuse to limit Sanders' influence to the narrow constraints of

his little Senate position, as this goes against his own standards for others and his revolution. That's the point. No hypocrisy. If you can't get things done in your state because you're just a Senator, then others have the same limitations, so why berate others for something that affects all politicians. If personal influence is all it takes and that dastardly "incrementalism" is something you smear others with (I'm referring to your previous post about incrementalism as though Sanders is not subjected to that)...then we would see results in Vermont that match his issues. But we don't.

If anything, that is the "game". Not questioning the double standards.

[Gothmog]

387. Vermont also does not have single payer

Why is sanders wasting the time of voters in South Carolina talking about his magical single payer plan. If sanders wants to be taken seriously in the real world, sanders should be in Vermont getting his magical plan adopted in Vermont.

[Gothmog]

3. I saw the article cited in the OP and liked it

This rally is not a good idea

[Docreed2003]

6. The irony is...

Before the SC primary in '16, several civil rights groups reached out to the Sanders campaign to offer their advice and assistance. They were met with a big "No Thanks"!!! Mark Thompson has covered this multiple times on his radio show and it's been substantiated by more than one individual there in SC.

[Gothmog]

41. I remember the Texas primary

Sanders campaign was focused on a narrow group of voters.

[Me.]

101. Well How About Florida

where he told a candidate, oh sure I'll back you, and then never showed up once

[Gothmog]

116. I remember that also

The southern primaries which are composed of base democratic voters were not impressed

[chillfactor]

5. I agree....

we need good,younger blood, STRONG Democrats in races now...not an oldie who has never been a true Democrat.

[Hortensis]

7. It seems likely he'll be around until he just gets too old.

If he would campaign in the 2019-20 primary as if he knew that either the leading Democrat or the Republican would probably win and was determined that -- if he couldn't be the one -- it should be the Democrat, he could be an asset, expanding the discussion. And then of course campaign in the 2020 GE wholeheartedly to elect Democrats, with no need to correct misstatements about them that were never made.

Unfortunately, with a 40-year history of being unable to hide his disapproval of corrupt Democrats, and we are all corrupt by his standard, that's not his style. There's absolutely no reason to believe he could, much less would, be able to finally accept our terrible inadequacies in time for 2020.

So of course I'm with those SC Democrats in believing it'd be best for the nation if he decided it was time to become a sort of gadfly...emeritus, sending out his helpful criticisms from retirement Jimmy Carter and Ralph Nader style.

[Me.]

15. He Has A Lot Of Nerve

Didn't get a job until he was 40 and has lived off taxpayers ever since. Amazingly, he's a millionaire now with 2 houses. He needs to stop pointing that finger of his at everyone but his acolytes.

[Hortensis]

30. Funny, but that he sort of hippied around trying out

various bad fits for years, then applied himself in his first job and managed to become a U.S. senator in a couple of fortunate leaps after that is the one thing I like about him -- or more specifically what I like about the peculiar but real possibilities in social mobility.

With lives getting longer, I like to think we'll see more people living them this way. Truman took over the family farm after his father lost everything, became a nearly blind artillery officer, and then a haberdasher before entering politics. I'm imagining someday as president the only plumber in the nation who's ever actually been right when he imagined he could run the country better than any Democratic candidate.

[Me.]

33. ...

[Honeycombe8]

50. He made a lot of money from the Presidential run.

It's my understanding that a candidate can walk away with a bucket of money from having been a Presidential candidate. Speaking engagements, freebies, good deals, lobbyists, whatever. I'm not saying Sanders got money from all those sources. But he bought a pricey home after he was out of the election process. He didn't have the money before then, according to his financial information (I read).

[Me.]

96. Except We Never Actually Saw His Info

not the tax return type of info which would tell the whole story

[Gothmog]

134. Sanders will have to release this info if runs in 2020

[progressoid]

200. Didn't get a job until he was 40?

Where did you get that idea?

[Blue_true]

254. That is pretty well known.

He basically tried a lot of failing efforts (carpenter, ect) until he won a city race is even then left leaning Burlington Vermont. He was around 38 or 39.

[George II]

352. From wikipedia (which I didn't write or edit, to head off the obvious):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Sanders studied at Brooklyn College for a year in 1959–60 before transferring to the University of Chicago and graduating with a bachelor of arts degree in political science in 1964. He has described himself as a mediocre college student because the classroom was "boring and irrelevant," while the community provided his most significant learning.

After graduating from college, Sanders returned to New York City, where he initially worked at a variety of jobs, including Head Start teacher, psychiatric aide, and carpenter. In 1968, Sanders moved to Vermont because he had been "captivated by rural life." After his arrival there he worked as a carpenter, filmmaker, and writer who created and sold "radical film strips" and other educational materials to schools. He also wrote several articles for the alternative publication The Vermont Freeman.

[Blue_true]

369. His efforts were failure after failure.

I love cooking and can call myself a Chef, but who would hire me for that?

Look, I know about failure. My first attempt at running a company ended it virtual bankruptcy. Even now, I torture myself over whether a new product will succeed or be a wreaking failure, but I don't let that fear stop me. The point that I made was that Bernie had no continuous job until he was nearly 40. Intermittent work with long spates of unemployment generally isn't considered employment, i.e., having a job.

[George II]

16. Or.............

[Hortensis]

35. "Or...." indeed. :)

[lapucelle]

305. ...

[Cha]

8. I agree with the OP!

Thanks, TJ

[Me.]

17. ...

BS

[mercuryblues]

9. As the article says

Dems in SC need to peel off R and I votes to get elected. Bernie showing up just before the election scares those thinking about voting for Smith and other Dems back into the republican arms.

WTF is he thinking? He is either clueless or that is his goal. Showing up isn't going to get votes for any Dems in SC, it will decrease them.

[JCanete]

13. according to what? Where is the evidence that his appearnce does that? Serious question.

[George II]

22. Is there any evidence that Democrats vote for him in decent numbers?

[JCanete]

23. How does that relate to my question? And we know how much people voted for him in the primary.

Not enough to win, but an incredible showing for an insurgent candidate backed primarily by small donations, and ignored early by the media. But I don't know if my answer is any more relevant than your question. I don't know what you are driving at.

[George II]

27. We know that Democrats in large numbers do not vote for him, it's been proven.....

...what's different now?

I'd give you more details, but you know what might happen.

[JCanete]

28. He engerizes some voters other candidates don't. He has certainly helped to make 3rd rail positions

more mainstream, and that isn't because he hasn't had any influence on the political landscape. What any of that has to do with the claim that originated my question, I still have no clue. You apparently just want to find some reason to tear Sanders down for, and since the first claim didn't suffice, you've found another. Why?

[George II]

29. Growing up in NYC and taking the subway to both High School and College....

....I learned to keep my distance from 3rd rails.

Ever see someone fall on the tracks and get electrocuted?

My first "claim" was correct.

[JCanete]

32. The problem is pretending things are third rails when they aren't and shouldn't be. Turns out if

you touch this one you don't get zapped.

[George II]

34. Sorry, I have NO idea of what you're talking about, nor do I have any idea of what the second half..

....of your previous post means.

[JCanete]

55. neither of us probably knows what the other is talking about. I'm clearly missing your point,

but if you are going somehow argue through the 3rd rail metaphor that I brought up that things that were 3rd rails in politics...Single Payer, 15 dollar minimum wage, are equitable to an actual 3rd rail that we should not touch, I'm going to push back on that.

[sheshe2]

90. Hmm.

JCanete
28. He engerizes some voters other candidates don't.

Only some? Some. Wow. Some really is just a few. Did you mean to post that?

[JCanete]

92. Some is not just a few. Some is some. A few is a few. Look up some. nt

[sheshe2]

106. some

PRONOUN
an unspecified number or amount of people or things.
"here are some of our suggestions" · [more]

at least a small amount or number of people or things.
"surely some have noticed"
synonyms:
position · place · niche · slot · space · window

https://www.bing.com/search?q=some&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=182398e4c28b48a3bfdb4c92244ef866&sp=-1&pq=some&sc=8-4&qs=n&sk=&cvid=182398e4c28b48a3bfdb4c92244ef866

[JCanete]

110. at least a small amount. So did this somehow corroborate your statement that this means few?

I missed it.

[sheshe2]

117. small seems few to me.

[JCanete]

122. okay, yet it wasn't what I meant, nor what the word means so...I guess read it how you will?

[George II]

232. Had you said something like that you'd be told you were "parsing words"!

[sheshe2]

257. ;)

[brush]

271. Some doesn't cut it in elections. You need MOST to win. Not rocket science.

[JCanete]

290. nor is it rocket science to understand that I said there are some voters Sanders energizes

that other candidates don't. That didn't speak to whether or not he could turn out the vote and get most of the voters, one way or the other. I wouldn't make the claim that that is the case with Sanders, because I don't know, but I wouldn't make that claim with anybody currently, because again, I don't know. Its early.

[Gothmog]

139. I was wondering the same thing

[sheshe2]

143. ;)

[Gothmog]

150. There are a large number (more than some) democrats with long memories

There are far more hard core democrats who have long memories who do not forgive or forget. This number is far larger than "some" voters.

[sheshe2]

167. Yep.

Just posted Peter Paul and Mary,

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.

The answer is blowing in the wind.

[Gothmog]

114. And sanders pisses off far more voters who reliable members of the base

This appearance is about 2020 and not 2018

[JCanete]

115. according to who? Show me evidence of that? That wouldn't gel with his actual popularity amongst

democrats, so I doubt you have any leg to stand on here, but I'm willing to be won over with facts....assuming you have any.

[Gothmog]

133. I saw the election results in the 2016 super tuesday primaries

After the national convention and other stunts, I am predicting that sanders will do far worse if he runs in 2020. I and other democrats who have long memories will have plenty to say. If sanders runs, the booing of Congressman John Lewis at the National Convention will make a great commercial. Sanders knew of this stunt and refused to do anything about it. My whip from the convention would be great in an ad on this. Do you really think that African American voters will favor sanders over John Lewis?

I seriously doubt that when it comes time, that sanders will run. Several key blue states will have ballot access laws in place that will require that sanders release many years of complete tax returns. The new DNC rule will force sanders to formally join the party and if nominated run as a Democrat. Again, there are a good numbers of hard core Democrats who have long memories and who do not forgive or forget 2016.

[JCanete]

136. oh I see, totally separate tangent. Thanks for your contribution. nt

[Gothmog]

141. You are welcomed

Really if sanders runs in 2020, he will not be treated kindly or with kid gloves. There are a large number of voters who will not forgive or forget his role in trump's victory. If sanders does run and does disclose his tax returns, there will be some fun

[Gothmog]

149. I do not believe in magic and so I never took sanders seriously

sanders is still hoping for his magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters will magically appear to help him get the nomination and force the GOP to adopt his policies. I do not believe in magic but you can continue to hope for this magical voter revolution to appear. Magic does not work in the real world. Where were these magical voters in 2016? When will these magical voters appear?

If sanders runs in 2020, he will get far less support than in 2016. sanders will not be treated with kid gloves and a number of the potential candidates will be far superior choices compared to sanders. After 2016, there are a large number (more than some) of hard core democratic voters and activist who have long memories and who will not forgive or forget sanders' role in trumps victory. sanders will see the writing on the wall and not run in 2020 if he is smart.

Keep believing in magic. I believe in hard work. We have six different congressional candidates in Texas who each raised more than $1 million. That has never happened in Texas. Things are changing but change will not be due to magic but due to hard work

[JCanete]

188. You can only raise money from big money interests if your own agenda does not belie theirs.

People who own the world don't exactly want serious redress of that condition. They may want ameliorating adjustments that prevent the pitch-forks from coming, but not real change.

Now if you think that's what it always takes to win, well, then it probably takes giving up too much.

[Gothmog]

231. Does Beto and other candidates know this?

Magic does not work in the real world which is why many democrats do not take sanders seriously. Beto and other Democrats are raising a great deal of money without the use of magic or use of PAC or corporate money.

Without the aid of a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters magically appear, sanders will not be the nominee. Feel free to believe in magic. I live in the real world where hard work is needed and not magic.

Again, without the aide of a magical voter revolution, sanders will never be the nominee of the party

[George II]

240. That "backed primarily by small donations" is a misnomer, it's not what happened. You should pore..

..over his FEC filings to get the real facts. I have.

[JCanete]

264. You'll have to point me to the specific data you're referring to...from his FEC filings

Total contributions
$9,809,502.00
Total individual contributions
$9,673,405.00

I'm aware that some individual contributions were multiples from the same donors so that will impact this number to some degree, but on the face of it that looks like small donors to me. If you know where this is contradicted, feel free to show me.

Open secrets broadly defines 94 million(Clinton 300 million) of his contributions as coming from large donors(not sure what the dollar amount is)

and 134.5 million coming from small donors. (Clinton 104 million).

[George II]

267. I'm talking about the 2018 Senate general election in Vermont...

...I'm not talking about the 2016 primary fundraising, why are you? You're not going to trick me into "re-fighting the primaries".

[JCanete]

269. oh fuck, come on. so I just talked about the primaries, so I was hardly trying to trick you into

talking about them. I thought that's what you were referring to. I thought the money on hand was left-over from that campaign and thus was the source of your gripe. I'll have to look at 2018. The incessant attempt to accuse some of us of trying to trap you(certain folks) into getting in trouble on DU is silly.

For my part, I will continue to shun and disdain the alert button, though I've been on the other end of it often enough.

[Omaha Steve]

272. On the DU Bernie raised $77,149.00 from 2,108 donations

An average of $36.60 per donation. Some donors donated several times.

[mercuryblues]

186. the exact opposite is true

Final polls had suggested she was heading for a victory margin of more than 27 points, but the reality was much more overwhelming – with 100% of the votes counted, Clinton led 73.5% to 26% over Sanders.

SC has a large AfAm population (32%) and Bernie has a AfAm problem. He is not liked in SC.

By going there he is turning off republicans who would vote for D's. The republican governor is kindly reminding voters the extreme liberal policies of Bernie and tying them around the D's necks.

[George II]

230. Apparently, according to the article in the OP, he is turning off Democrats as well.

[sprinkleeninow]

148. NOW, I'm weary of this. He never really deeply bothered me with,

yes, his antics.

This does it for me.

He is not a 'Democrat'.

SC said, "thanks, but no".

BS should work his magic in Congress. Where he belongs. I'm sorry, but what is he thinking.

I'm not a youngun, and I say he's had his run trying for the presidency.

Just my 0.25.

[sheshe2]

10. Bad timing with the devastating hurricane and it's aftermath...

then Michael tonight causing more damage to be talking Medicare for all and telling SC they should be more Progressive. All politics is local. What works in NY will not fly in the deep red state.

They literally have pig shit and coal dust in the water due to flooding and due to deregulation. I find it doubtful they want to hear about The 1% at this time that they are literally underwater.

[JCanete]

20. maybe, but its not like that isn't about the 1%. The tie-in is pretty fucking easy.

[sheshe2]

24. It is not the TIME.

It is not the PLACE.

He wasn't INVITED.

[JCanete]

25. wasn't invited by whom?

[sheshe2]

36. He is holding a campaign event for Our Revolution.

I have seen nowhere that he was invited by the candidate.

[JCanete]

52. He's doing something with Our Revolution, which did invite him to speak. So what on earth

are you talking about? What is he crashing? The whole state?

[sheshe2]

56. Oh.

Our Revolution.

Were they invited?

[JCanete]

58. To South Carolina? The Our Revolution chapter in South Carolina? Do they need to be

invited to their own state? What the fuck?

[George II]

79. Normally this deep into a General Election campaign a candidate spends most of his/her time....

....among his constituents, not a thousand miles away.

Where I am, my Democratic Senator is pretty much assured of being re-elected and yet he's spending his time in OUR state campaigning. He knows his priorities and what is important to his constituents.

[JCanete]

142. Your point is not one I agree with, though you've made it frequently enough. Sanders has

his seat locked up. He does work for his state and the ideals he was elected for by trying to help others get elected on those ideas, as well as policies that he cares about gain traction with the populace.

Obviously what is important to Sanders constituents is what keeps getting him elected and gives him his high approval rating there.

[George II]

147. No seat is "locked up" - I direct you to Hillary Clinton's seat in 2016, and most recently....

....Joseph Crowley's seat in NY14.

Have you ever been directly involved in an election campaign? I have, and I've seen a number of "locked up" seats lost.

On the other hand, the Governor election in his home state of Vermont is not "locked up", and yet I haven't seen much, if anything, of his campaign activity for the historic Democratic candidate, Christine Hallquist. I wonder why?

[JCanete]

160. except that your argument still balances on the precarious assumption that what he is

doing is not exactly what the people in his state want him to do, that somehow what he is doing is taking his seat for granted. I would again, strongly disagree.

I have no idea what the deal with the governorship is, but I don't know what or why you are implying what you are. If you have some information, maybe share it. I'll look into it myself, but on the surface it means very little to me. I don't know the reasons, I'm not currently familiar with Halquist.

[George II]

168. And once again you respond to me, but drift and don't really respond. Why?

However, if you "have no idea what the deal with the governorship is, but I don't know what or why you are implying what you are", you don't want to.

The FACT is, there is a Governor election in Vermont this year, with a ground breaking Democratic candidate, but Sanders' priority seems to be to campaign a thousand miles away for some undetermined candidates in South Carolina, and then in several other states.

It would seem to most politically aware people, and Democratic voters in Vermont (or any state), that a so-called prominent public official from that state (or any state) would be most interested in promoting the candidacies of major candidates in his/her own state first before promoting the candidacy of lesser importance in other states hundreds or thousands of miles from home.

Unless, of course, he/she isn't interested in who wins the election for Governor in his/her own state?

I know that MY Senator, who is up for re-election this year, is doing all he can to get elected once again AND get a Democratic Governor elected. One would hope that would be the case for ALL Democratic Senators in the country.

But.............................

[JCanete]

169. Sanders tends to actively support candidates who are concerned

particularly with money in politics, and who have certain stances on how they will raise money for their campaigns. Nor would I want him campaigning for any democrat under the sun. That would undermine his own value set. If he went for instance, to campaign for Manchin, hell even if they were from the same state, that would do damage to what he fights for.

Again, I'm not going to weigh in on this particular governorship until I know more about her, but I absolutely reject your depiction of what a Senator SHOULD do.

[George II]

241. "Concerned with money in politics"? Currently his re-election treasury....

...has more than $8 million, yet about three or four times a week I get emails from him asking for donations. We're less than four weeks from the election, what is he going to do with all that money? On the other hand his opponent has only about $6,000.

By comparison, his senior Senator, Patrick Leahy, has never raised more than $5 million.

[JCanete]

261. I don't know what he's going to do with that money, but where did it come from?

Large donors or small donors? I kind of feel like that was the part that was my point.

[George II]

266. We don't know where it came from - 76% of the $9.8 million he's collected is "unitemized"....

....and therefore the specific source is unreported.

[sheshe2]

187. Hmmm

He does work for his state and the ideals he was elected for by trying to help others get elected on those ideas, as well as policies that he cares about gain traction with the populace.

The policies he cares about?

How is he helping ALL his constituents?

One out of 14 black men in Vermont are incarcerated, the highest rate in the United States. Blacks are incarcerated at a rate of 2,357 per 100,000 residents, versus 253 per 100,000 residents for white people, third highest of any state.

https://vtdigger.org/2016/07/01/new-reports-show-stark-racial-disparities-in-vermont-policing-and-incarceration/

[JCanete]

190. and what is his stance on prisons, particularly private ones, but incarceration in general?

Pointing out what happens in Vermont and laying it at the feet of a federal Senator makes little to no sense.

[sheshe2]

194. You are a hoot.

I hear a lot of rhetoric from him. No policies. No laws...from and I quote you. "a federal Senator".

So he can't do anything about incarcerated black men in women....'cause???? His state and as a Senator his hands are tied. He can do nothing. He has no voice. None. Zip. Zilch.


Funny 'cause he runs over the country saying "believe me" I will give you medicare for all.

His hands are tied in VT with black incarceration. Yet he keeps promising dreams to others. Mostly white. Free...free.

[JCanete]

195. What do you mean he has no voice? He uses his voice and vote power to advocate for federal

change. You want to lay things going on in states at the feet of US Senators? Remind me again when stop and frisk was happening?

[lapucelle]

309. ...

https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/#II.%20Overall%20Findings

[JCanete]

310. It is a major problem. It isn't on Sanders that the State incarcerates at the level it does,

any more than Stop and Frisk was on Senator Clinton. If you want to say this is all on all of us, including Sanders and Clinton, I'm fine with that. I think that argument could be substantiated that we haven't done enough, and regardless of Sanders own position on prisons, I think that he has expressed some confusion as to the disproportionate(and often bogus) policing of black and Latino Americans over white Americans in our country. I think he's come around, but he certainly had gaps in his knowledge. I can only hope that's the same excuse most Democratic politicians can cite(as frustrating as it is), over simply saying and doing very little about a problem that was known.

[lapucelle]

318. Marginalized constituents in VT are better served by BS using his bully pulpit

to address their problems in the state he represents on a federal level than they are by his appearing at "campaign rally" for no one in particular in SC.

[lapucelle]

321. Perhaps BS could call upon those who voted in favor of the Crime Bill

To take responsibility and apologize for their vote. That was federal legislation that concerned incarceration in federal prisons.

[betsuni]

323. +1

[George II]

130. Our Revolution has endorsed only one Congressional candidate and two State Rep candidates....

He's going to South Carolina to campaign for them even though he's barely spent any time in his own state of Vermont campaigning for the ground breaking Democratic candidate for Governor, Christine Hallquist?

Why????

[Hassin Bin Sober]

250. Hallquist seems to be happy with Bernie's endorsement and outreach

See below. You’re welcome


It appears your now favorite Governor candidate really is a good judge of character

“I have long admired Senator Sanders. All elected officials should look to his honesty and integrity as a model for public service. His message has been consistent and unwavering in the fight for economic and social justice. He has called on all of us to work for a more civilized society, and I could not be more proud to be a part of that citizen led revolution,” said Christine Hallquist.

The Senator and Christine worked together when Christine was CEO of Vermont Electric Coop on infrastructure projects in northern Vermont. Now, Senator Sanders and Christine Hallquist are both a part of the Vermont Democratic Party’s Coordinated Campaign, where they work together to increase statewide voter outreach and engagement. Christine and Bernie are excited to campaign as a team this fall with other candidates up and down the ticket. Their partnership is a testament to the shared belief in what is possible for the future of Vermont.

[George II]

251. I wonder how she feels about him not campaigning for her in HIS home state?

"your" (i.e., YOU'RE) welcome!



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS - October is Violence Against Women (and Girls) month!

http://www.un.org/en/events/endviolenceday/

[George II]

37. Ah, the ol' double negative two-step. Let's turn that around and be more direct.....

....since he's appearing in SC, who invited him? Or is he simply going on his own? We don't know.

But to answer your double-negative question, I don't know them all by name but I'm sure there are more than 326 million Americans who didn't invite him. True?

[JCanete]

59. So the same could be said of anybody who goes anywhere, which makes it a worthless comment.

Thank you. We apparently agree.

[George II]

81. Worthless comment? Thanks for your respect!

[JCanete]

89. To say he wasn't invited means very little if it is going to be broadened out to the level that you

have done here. It wasn't your comment, nor do I suggest that the poster is worthless, but I don't know what value the point is if we take your own parameters for it. Do you?

[George II]

93. Once again, I have no idea of what that all means. I'll leave it at that except.....

....you've gone far afield from the point of the OP.

[JCanete]

102. how so? The point was made that he wasn't invited, whiich is, to my mind pretty silly. You decided

to jump in and defend that point, but I have no idea what your defense was, since it seemed only to corroborate my thinking on the matter. Also, I was responding to that poster not the OP in this instance, so I'm not sure why the OP is relevant.

[Cha]

84. "Worthless comment"? That's rude and insulting.

[JCanete]

91. So are a lot of things here. I'll try to do better Cha. Thankfully you are never rude and insulting.

[sheshe2]

99. snark?

[Cha]

100. Your comment was rude and insulting right now.

[JCanete]

104. heh...okay, thanks for letting me know. Feel free to let me know if this one was. nt

[Me.]

11. Presumptious Of Him

Hasn't even been asked makes him a crasher.

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. Considering how poorly he did in the South, I'm wondering who invited him, and what's changed?

“If he comes to South Carolina, he’ll have his 15 people will show up,” Brown said. “I hope it’s worth it to him, because he’s doing greater damage to the party overall.”

Brown is only one person, but I get the sense that the feeling is widespread.

[seaglass]

21. It's just visibility for a 2020 run, but boy is he in a bubble. I'm hoping he starts to see that

the objection to his participation at the Women's Convention was not a one-off.

[sheshe2]

26. They are going to be hit by the aftermath of Michael.

After Florence devastated them.

Very much like his participation at the Women's Convention. It is tone deaf.

[David__77]

31. The story strikes me as potentially exciting for some people.

......

[zeusdogmom]

39. Flame me if you want

But I am so tired of Bernie Sanders and his negative and cranky persona. There are times being a cranky senior is productive - SC in the last last few weeks before midterm elections is neither the time nor the place. Is he tone deaf or does he have an inflated sense of his importance?

[sheshe2]

43. Or...

[Cha]

51. Both.

[Gothmog]

111. Great post

I wonder about this also

[Hortensis]

380. Another "both" here. He goes where the cameras are

because his destiny still awaits. As local Democrats fighting for election are all too aware, this is not about their destiny. Sanders knows, he's told his followers so many times, that candidates who are not part of his revolution don't belong in office anyway.

[George II]

393. How about "both" and then some?

[Hortensis]

407. :) Seriously, when behavior and rhetoric diverge, believe behavior.

[LexVegas]

42. Rec. nt

[elmac]

44. From AP, or maybe Moscow nt

[Cha]

62. Moscow? Are you trying to say it's "fake news" like so many are pushing now?

[betsuni]

68. You are calling the Associated Press "fake news."

[Raine1967]

72. The AP is not Moscow.

there is no maybe about it.

[sheshe2]

152. Say what?

AP is now fake news?

The Fug?

[PaulX2]

46. Bernie Go To South Carolina And Kick Some Ass

Too many ignore the fact that BILLIONAIRES RUN OUR COUNTRY AND ARE ROBBING AND KILLING OUR FAMILIES for more $$$.

A Billionaire money controlled oligarchy is our nation.

Keep saying it Bernie. Maybe the blind victims will figure it out someday. Millions heard your message loud and clear.

I am tired of being robbed.

And when Goldman Sachs calls Bernie doesn't call back.

Deal with it.

[Honeycombe8]

54. South Carolina Dems need votes from moderates. It's not NY.

Bernie in SC hurts the Democratic Party's chances. Is that what you want? Or is it worth it, if Bernie's "movement" benefits from a Democratic Party loss? That was what Susan Sarandon was all about.

[Cha]

66. You "deal with it".

[LiberalLovinLug]

53. Me thinks they doest protest too much

A frightened cabal at the top worried about their large corporate donators.

Pay no heed Bernie! We fight for the many, not the few.

[PaulX2]

61. Exactly

[betsuni]

65. The "frightened cabal at the top worried about their large corporate donators" are Republicans.

The Republican Party is the one controlled by corporations.

[Cha]

69. Thank You for pointing it out to that poster, betsuni.

[betsuni]

73. Who doesn't know that?

We are tired of the propaganda. It's obviously not working here.

[Cha]

78. We know them by their disingenuous

accusations.

I trust those Dems in South Carolina know what they're talking about.

[LiberalLovinLug]

77. You actually believe that it is that cut and dry?

Okay.

[betsuni]

83. The "both parties are the same" thing is old and tired. Let it go to bed.

[LiberalLovinLug]

85. Not once have I ever said both parties are the same

But it is delusional to pretend that there are no Democrats receiving large corporate donations. And delusional to pretend that at least a few of them would rather Bernie not upset their apple cart.

[JHan]

87. What you're pushing are the usual tiresome boilerplate memes.

[betsuni]

88. Please give me a couple of examples of Democrats receiving large corporate donations and changing

positions and their votes. I thought politicians couldn't directly receive corporate donations. Could you please help me to understand what your opinion is based on? Thanks.

[betsuni]

325. Well, I guess not. Obviously Republicans are the corporate party.

Who doesn't know this.

[Cha]

358. Yes, republicons are the corporate party and anyone

who tries to smear Dems with that insult has an agenda to smear the Democratic Party

[sheshe2]

163. Bernie is now a multimillionaire.

Happened in the last two years. Owns four homes.

How many homes does one man need.

The answer my freind is blowing in the wind

The answer is blowing in the wind.

Mary Travers. I grew up with her strong voice.

The answer my friend

Is blowing in the wind

[progressoid]

201. 4 homes?

Wow. Upthread it was 2 homes. By the time I get to the bottom of this thread he'll have 6 homes and a spaceship.

Remind us again how many homes and how much money Bill and Hillary have?

[betsuni]

202. I keep hearing that Bill & Hillary are rich corporatists controlled by Goldman Sachs

and wealthy elite donors. Why wouldn't they have at least a few houses if this were true? Bernie Sanders on the other hand ...

[obamanut2012]

207. I just won Hillary Clinton Whataboutism!

This bingo card sponsored by Susan Sarandon.

[betsuni]

208. BINGO!

Never fails.

[George II]

307. Not "Yeahbutism"?

[George II]

306. Who cares about "how many homes and how much money Bill and Hillary have"?

What does that have to do with the subject at hand?

[disillusioned73]

216. These sound like republican talking points...

well done...

[betsuni]

218. How so? Republicans love capitalism.

[disillusioned73]

221. They are also hypocrites..

haven't you noticed??

[betsuni]

223. Who are "they"? Republicans or Democrats?

[disillusioned73]

225. If I was responding this...

"How so? Republicans love capitalism." - betsuni

who do you think???

[betsuni]

226. Wut? "If I was responding this"

[disillusioned73]

227. Now your just wasting time...

you questioned - I answered

recap
he as house, he rich.. he socialist
republicans talking points..
how, repub capitalist
they also hypocrites
who is they?

Really??

Have a good day..

[betsuni]

228. "You're" not "your"

"he as house, he rich .. he socialist"

[disillusioned73]

233. Easy to tell..

when someone has lost their (is it they're ) argument.. good day

still right wing (aka republican) talking points.. and they are welcomed here... go figure

[betsuni]

235. LOL

[R B Garr]

297. It's about hypocrisy. Like when a politician labels others with derogatory accusations

about their finances, but then refuses to be forthcoming about his own. It's about hypocrisy.

[disillusioned73]

214. Shhhh...

truth shall not be spoken here

[betsuni]

217. "Truth shall not be spoken here."

[Cha]

67. Nah.. not everybody thinks BS is all that.

[Honeycombe8]

76. I think the Democrats in any state know what works best in their state. nt

[JHan]

86. Cute memes you're pushing there, hits all the usual notes:

"frightened cabal"
"large corporate donators"

It's getting to be a stuck record.

[LiberalLovinLug]

109. Okay how about

worried faction

and industry syndicate contributions


It just doesn't roll off the tongue as well, that's all.

[JHan]

121. How about this: do you live in South Carolina?

Do you know what the political climate in SC is?

[LiberalLovinLug]

137. I know that Bernie was twice as popular as Hillary

And may have even won the State for Democrats. (see my other post)

[JHan]

151. Polls do not win Primaries.

Primaries are not decided by polling, they're decided by votes.

And since the Republicans did not target Bernie much in 2016, your point is moot.

Once again you prove you know nothing about South Carolinian Democrats and possibly you disdain them because they didn't support your preferred nominee in 2016.

[JI7]

153. sanders lost south Carolina

[Cha]

162. BULL.. sorry, you have absolutely no idea of what really happened.

I just suggest you brush up on history.

[ehrnst]

219. By what measure?

Ambition?

[Gothmog]

229. Not in the real world

sanders was rejected by the base of voters in South Carolina and sanders is not popular with many key demographic groups who vote for democratic candidates in the real world.

If sanders runs in 2020, he will have to release a number of years of tax returns to get onto the ballot in some key states and disclose who recieved the commissions from the tv ads used in 2016. Under the new DNC rules, sanders will have to formally join the party and agree to run and govern as a member of the Democratic party. Finally, there are a significant number of hard core democratic voters who have long memories who do not forgive or forget about sanders rule in helping trump win.

sanders will not be the nominee in 2002 and I doubt that he runs

[Cha]

355. No he wasn't.

[Gothmog]

234. I do not believe in magic and so I never took sanders seriously

Sanders did not get the support of the establishment because none of his proposals could be adopted in the real world without the aide of a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters would rise up and force the GOP be reasonable. Many Democrats do not believe in magic and so never took sanders seriously. Sanders campaigned solely on the concept that his proposals would be magically adopted due to a magical voter revolution. Without that magical voter revolution, even Sanders admitted that his platform could not be adopted https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/articles/2016-04-15/bernie-sanders-bad-delegate-math-and-fantasy-revolution

Thus more broadly, his attempt to delegitimize a swath of voters lays bare a fundamental inconsistency of the Sanders campaign: One of his basic answers about how he's going to accomplish his aims – whether winning the Democratic nod, winning the general election or enacting his agenda – is the forthcoming revolution. His super-ambitious agenda will prove to be achievable substance rather than unicorns-and-rainbows fantasy, he said Thursday night, "when millions of people stand up, fight back and create a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent. That is what the political revolution is about. That is what this campaign is about."

Magical thinking does not work in the real world. Sanders has failed to adopt any meaningful legislation in the real world including in his own state but sanders is willing to heckle the Democratic Party and claim that his magical proposals are realistic.

I am not the only one to note that Sanders would not be able to get his proposals adopted in the real world. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what Without a magical voter revolution, the premise of the OP is correct.

You are welcome to believe in magic and magical voter revolutions. I live in the real world and we are working hard to do things like turn Texas blue. Magic does not exist in the real world but hard work does work. Attacking the party establishment for not believing in magic is amusing. I will not be busy working in the real world and not relying on magic.

[Jamaal510]

154. It's almost like we're playing bingo!

[JHan]

156. right! Haha!

Hey we haven't heard "neoliberal" yet. too early I guess. LOL

[Cha]

166. BINGO!

[JCanete]

196. maybe one day we won't have to talk about it all the time because people pretending it isn't a

problem will wake the fuck up and stop acting like money can only influence politics negatively when directed towards republicans. You know that isn't true. If you want to have a more nuanced conversation that's fine, but you dismissing this argument because you've heard it before isn't a step towards better accuracy regarding the real condition we face and have faced for decades.

[JHan]

197. do you live in South Carolina?

Are you familiar with the politics there and who the biggest donors in that state are ? Because if you knew that information, you wouldn't support tired corporatist tropes in this thread. In any case, liberal donations do not make up the lionshare of political donations in South Carolina.

And you're on a progressive board where everyone agrees we need campaign finance reform so why erect strawmen?

[ehrnst]

220. Strawman. BINGO! (nt)

[shanny]

124. Bingo.

[aikoaiko]

60. I saw Bernie in Charleston in 2016 and lots of people were happy to see him.

And they are still there.

Some higher-ups in the party, maybe not so much.

[Honeycombe8]

80. Hillary won the Democratic Party primary there w/over 73%. Sanders came in at 26%.

The results were clear and striking.

S. Carolina is not Sanders territory. The people within a state know more about their voters than outsiders do.

So...do you want the Democratic Party to win there, or not?

[LiberalLovinLug]

95. But not just Democrats vote.

Sanders is much more popular than any Democrat.
But, the Democratic party would have had a much better shot at winning the state if he had been the nominee.

https://www.thestate.com/news/databases/article77396342.html

Polls find Sanders, not Clinton, has better chance against Trump

In a general election matchup, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders topples Donald Trump by twice as much as Hillary Clinton, according to polling data from RealClearPolitics.

[pnwmom]

199. This is SOUTH CAROLINA, not Pennsylvania or another swing state.

Your link has NOTHING to do with South Carolina. GOP voters there were not going to cross party lines to vote for Bernie.

And he isn't welcome now. None of the Democratic politicians wanted him to campaign for them. What is he doing down there?

[George II]

258. "Sanders is much more popular than any Democrat."?

On what do you base that? Among whom?

And why dredge up an article about 2-1/2 years old that has a premise that obviously, as we learned in November 2016, was incorrect?

This is October 2018, about three weeks from a very important election, it serves no purpose to rehash the primaries of 2016 once again.

[betsuni]

322. LOL!

[aikoaiko]

97. I understand what happened in the primary.

I'm not claiming that SC is Bernie country, but he's not going to hurt Democrats by appearing.

I live 10 min from the SC border and I'm very familiar with SC politics.

Again, party leaders are not the party and sometimes are not in touch with voters.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

157. And we lost the state by 14 pints in the GE. So...

[lunamagica]

193. May I ask why do you have that GIF of a little girl being tossed to a lake to drown?

I find it quite disturbing. Why does it mean to you?

[George II]

327. In the movie scene, this is the dialogue:

"No, you're hurting me, NO!"

Then she sinks into the pond and drowns. I suppose some find that entertaining.

[lunamagica]

333. I know...I've seen it and it's horrific. I just can't think how that violence against a child

scene belongs in a signature line. What does it mean? Does HBS find it funny?

But no reply.

IMO, that gif should not be allowed. Imagery of violence against women, including (or especially) girls, should NOT be tolerated.

[George II]

334. The issue has been raised several times. As you point out, no reply.

From my perspective violence against ANYONE, much less women or little girls, is not entertaining, funny, or acceptable.

[R B Garr]

336. That "triggered" one is about as low class as you can get.

So the others aren't surprising.

[lunamagica]

344. I don't get that "triggered one" What does it mean?

[R B Garr]

346. Mostly trolling, as that's the overall theme of all of them. nt

[lunamagica]

342. Yes, you are correct George and must correct what I said. Violence against ANYONE

is not entertaining, funny, or acceptable.

[George II]

286. Every four years, every state in the Union holds a primary or caucus, even the reddest of the red.

In each and every one a Democrat is going to win, even if there is no possible way that candidate could win in November.

PS - October is Violence Against Women (and Girls) month!

http://www.un.org/en/events/endviolenceday/

[kerry-is-my-prez]

63. Used to love him but now his selfishness just pisses me off. He doesn't care if he sinks the Dem.

Party and the country for that matter.

[LiberalLovinLug]

82. The one senator that has not changed.

good one.

[lunamagica]

192. He has changed. He became a multi-millionaire in the last two years. He now owns four homes

Do you know where the money for that came from?

[Cha]

357. That's not necessarily something to be proud of.

[JoeOtterbein]

74. Sounds like they are planning to blame Bernie if she loses. n/t

[George II]

125. How so?

[Botany]

105. Better if Sanders 'got lost'

[George II]

118. It's interesting that he's campaigning for relatively minor candidates in South Carolina and yet....

....he's barely spent any time in Vermont campaigning for the Democratic candidate for Governor in Vermont!

What and where are his priorities?

[Blue_true]

255. That is his style.

Why actively promote a democrat who may become an excellent governor then run for his seat. It is all about what is in his best interests.

[shanny]

120. iirc South Carolina has not voted Democratic since Jimmy Carter

but, by all means, let's not risk changing a losing game with the SC Democratic Party.

[Tavarious Jackson]

138. It's a close race...so What do you mean?

This is midterms not presidential...

[JI7]

172. they have other elections besides PResidential Races.

[shanny]

198. No kidding?

How often do Ds win them?

[WeekiWater]

144. I'm not sure his visit will hurt.

TV ads will attach Democrats to Pelosi, Schumer and Sanders no matter what. This gives our candidates in areas of SC to go on the record and distance themselves from the left.

Three more Republicans in the state house and they have a 2/3 majority.

[Cha]

158. Well, I don't think the SC Dems in the article

expressed their feelings about him for nothing.

We'll see what happens.

[WeekiWater]

161. They didn't only strongly distance themselves...

They flat out went after him.

There are many areas of the country where attacking Sanders gets you bonus points.

[Cha]

165. ..

[JI7]

174. no need to take it personally. OBama and Beto are both keeping distance from each other

because they both get that Beto needs votes from people who would never vote for Obama to win in texas. it's an understanding they both get .

[dembotoz]

203. I supported him in the primary... don't see anyone better now

Would like to think if he won the primary this time du would offer full support

[LexVegas]

209. "if he won the primary"

[dembotoz]

215. He won my state wasn't even that close

[LexVegas]

222. He lost overall....and it wasn't even close. nt

[dembotoz]

293. We are not supposed to talk about such things

So I will just stop

[Trumpocalypse]

210. I voted for Sanders in the 16 primary.

I won't make the same mistake again. In 20 I plan to vote for a real Democrat.

[disillusioned73]

224. I doubt it..

hatred of him is still fully embraced.. encouraged/promoted actually..

[NurseJackie]

236. No it's not.

hatred of him is still fully embraced.. encouraged/promoted actually..

No it's not. GMAB!

[betsuni]

239. Is there a movie, "Hate Actually"?

Cool! Just in time for the holiday season.

[MrsCoffee]

253. It's not about hate. It's about trust.

Encouraging transparency and sound judgement.

[George II]

274. It's curious that many times that he's criticized it is because of "hatred", not policy differences.

[disillusioned73]

280. Point them out...

[link:https://berniesanders.com/issues/|

[melman]

303. No response

After quite a few hours too. Interesting.

[disillusioned73]

324. Yeah, they don't wanna go..

down policy lane.. it's a lose/lose cause all his policies are common sense FDR liberal type stuff that has been vilified by the right as "extreme".. and apparently some on the left spectrum have bought it - or they are disingenuous provocateurs..

[George II]

348. It was one of those "you prove to me" a negative, which is way too open-ended.....

....and was way off-topic from what I said.

But thanks for your shot, though.

[R B Garr]

275. In this case, the article states that his focus on himself is the problem.

The article calls that "selfish" because he is not concerned about what will help win in South Carolina. No one is encouraging him to go to SC. They want to win.

[disillusioned73]

279. Actually, he was invited..

"In an email release, Our Revolution announced Sanders had been invited by the organization’s South Carolina arm and would speak at an Oct. 20 rally in Columbia."

He is not going for the ppl that didn't invite him.. his is going for the ppl that did, is that so hard to comprehend??

[R B Garr]

282. Not by a candidate, which is the measure of "winning" -- when you win an election.

He is going for his own rally, hence the comments about being there for himself. edit: here's his reason from the article for a "rally" in South Carolina:

"Bernie Sanders prepares to return to South Carolina to feel out a potential 2020 presidential bid"

“I just think it’s extremely selfish of Bernie Sanders to think he could walk into South Carolina without an invitation from a candidate and think he’s going to be welcomed with open arms,”

They know he doesn't resonate in South Carolina and they want to win. Sanders' should be more concerned about winning than in self-promotion. Trump in the White House is proof this strategy didn't work.

[George II]

285. He was "invited" by Our Revolution, an organization that he created in August 2016.

Curiously, although they endorsed more than 100 candidates in 2016, Hillary Clinton was not among them!

[R B Garr]

298. Exactly. His own organization is inviting him, lol. No Democratic candidates did.

That is a statistic about Hillary Clinton worth remembering, especially when they malign the Democratic party. All of this is worth remembering, actually. So much for uniting Democrats.

[George II]

300. Yet I got an email from him this afternoon, along with a bunch of other statements, he said this:

"So today, I am happy to share that I will be going out on the campaign trail for an eight-day, nine-state tour with stops in Indiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and California.

In these states, I am going to do everything I can to win support for progressive candidates for the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, Governor and state legislature."

I wonder which candidates he's going to campaign for in South Carolina?

[R B Garr]

302. Wow, there really is no excuse for that divisiveness

like that on the campaign trail just weeks before an important election.

I wonder who he is campaigning for, too.

[George II]

283. Yes, he was invited by HIS organization! You do realize who founded Our Revolution, don't you?

[NurseJackie]

287. That means, essentially, that he invited himself.

Yes, he was invited by HIS organization! You do realize who founded Our Revolution, don't you?

That means, essentially, that he invited himself. I'm just saying... when an organization invites it's "founder", it's really not comparable (or as flattering or meaningful) as having a state party or a candidate make the invitation, is it?

[Gothmog]

289. sanders invited himself to speak at an event he was in effect hosting

Our Revolution is an arm of the sanders campaign and sanders controls this entity

[Gothmog]

288. You do know that Our Revolution is a group that sanders founded and control

What you are claiming is that sanders invited himself to speak using the entity that he formed and controls. Is this correct?

[George II]

292. We continually hear that he "vigorously", or "energetically", or "heartily" supported....

....our candidate in the most recent Presidential Campaign / General Election.

It came as a surprise to me earlier today to learn that Our Revolution, the organization created by Sanders, didn't even endorse her!

That tells me quite a bit.

[Mike Nelson]

204. I think he's...

... trying to "feel out" whether to run as a Democrat or Independent...

[disillusioned73]

213. We are going to have...

approximately 8% of very unhappy folks come 2019/2020...

[SidDithers]

242. Maybe he can go for a SOUL FOOD lunch / photo op. That'll help...nt

Sid

[dameatball]

262. I generally avoid commenting on the Bernie related posts because they generally devolve into

back and forth snarkiness and mind numbing tit for tat posts. It is not much fun wading through dozens and dozens of posts arguing about the most minute details of the comments of others.
But in this case, I see no problem with the OP. I like Bernie.....always have since he used to be on Randi Rhodes occasionally during my afternoon commute. But the timing here is off, if one is to accept the argument that Democrats running for office in South Carolina know their constituencies better than Bernie does. If they feel he will not be helpful prior to the election I tend to respect their viewpoint.
Bernie Sanders certainly has the right to go where he pleases. But ignoring the will of Dems in their home state is puzzling when he could easily do his thing after the midterms.

[Tavarious Jackson]

273. Yes indeed.

It is the reason why Obama won't go to Texas to help Beto…. same reason

[saidsimplesimon]

276. Sanders is not the only hopeful

to ignore my plea to hold off on 2020 campaigning until after the 2018 elections. Deaf ears

[ProfessorGAC]

284. A Pathetic Shitstorm!

I keep thinking we're better than this, but the a thread like this tells me not yet.

[disillusioned73]

291. Small percentage..

most reasonable people ignore this stuff...

[customerserviceguy]

315. I don't think Sanders will play well here in SC

I think Cory Booker has a better chance of winning the SC primary, if Joe Biden doesn't get in the race. If Joe does, he'll do well here. Especially if Barack Obama gives him at least a little backing.

Bernie's accent is too much like the Northerners that some South Carolinians can't stand. Yes, I moved to SC from NY, but having spent most all of my teenage and adult life in WA state, I still sound like a Westerner, and Southerners seem to be fine with me.

[Gothmog]

363. I also think sanders will not play well in Texas or the south

[ehrnst]

341. The ability to *listen* is vital for a truly effective politician

even the longtime career politicians.

You can see the results when they don't.

[liberal N proud]

351. He is divisive and manages to be timely

Why now?

This is one of my problems with BS, he doesn't know when to stay quiet. He just gets louder.

[Cha]

356. Exactly so much, liberal N proud.

[Hortensis]

408. If Sanders seems "noisier," i.e., is getting more coverage,

perhaps we should look to the Republicans and Russia for the reason. Sanders is not the enemy they need to defeat. The Democratic Party is. They've been using him for that purpose for years now, and we have a major, existential election coming up in just over 3 weeks.

Is Sanders promoting himself in SC for 2020 really a big happening right now? Of course not, yet here's a big article by the AP, which is a proven corrupted actor against the Democratic Party.

Never forget that the AP blanketed the nation, inches deep through news and social media, with a number of things worthy of Fox in 2015-2016. The big one that proved it to many who hadn't been noticing was their 100% false piece despicably claiming that most of the people allowed to speak with Hillary when she was SecState donated to the Clinton Foundation. It quoted such blatantly, astonishingly false numbers that call-outs of their corruption started the first day. In spite of that, the AP left it up for 2 weeks.

[liberal N proud]

409. Great points