Live Blog Replay: Bernie Sanders Fox News Town Hall in Bethlehem

[TexasTowelie]

Last edited Wed Apr 17, 2019, 01:35 AM - Edit history (2)

Note: Earlier today, I made a statement in another thread that I read a live blog on the PennLive.com Website (PA Media Group, Mechanicsburg, PA.) indicating that the audience at the Town Hall was mostly Bernie supporters and they were wearing clothing supporting Sanders.

I was incorrect and I apologize for my error. The live blog that I read was from the Allentown Morning Call.

The blog is here: https://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/mc-nws-live-bernie-sanders-town-hall--20190415-zkz7s4t3x5dq7j2cbti6dznojq-story.html

Among the remarks that I read on the blog thread that supported my statement:

Michelle Merlin ☀️
@michellejmerlin
I've been talking to people waiting outside the Bernie event. It's largely Bernie supporters

Michelle Merlin ☀️
@michellejmerlin


Susan Kinsey and Sheila Archer are Bernie fans who like everything about him. "He cares about people," Archer says.

Michelle Merlin ☀️
@michellejmerlin
Becky Ellis of Reading wasn't sure who she'd support in 2016 until Bernie came to town. It was a game changer, she said. "He spoke to every value I hold dear and he valued people"

Michelle Merlin ☀️
@michellejmerlin


Janis Mikofsky of Allentown is the only non supporter I could find. "I want to see how he will answer tough questions." She thinks Trump would wipe the floor w Bernie. "Socialists cant come up with facts to back up their theology"

[Cha]

1. I've been talking to people waiting outside the Bernie event. It's largely Bernie supporters

Just what I thought, TexasT.

Gracias

[namahage]

2. So basically a Bernie rally,

and not the hostile Fox-viewing audience that some--for reasons "unknown"--would like to characterize this as.

Pretty telling that the Trump supporters were OUTSIDE the venue.

The fact that Fox got itself some "fair and balanced" cred, like they pretended to get by featuring Alan Colmes, Dennis Kucinich, and now Donna Brazile--and some ratings numbers is an added bonus.

[Cha]

4. Yeah, the boycott, racism, xenophobia,

fascism were all hurting faux.. so someone decided to give them a ratings boost.

[Skya Rhen]

11. Someone decided to give Bernie a boost by packing the audience with supporters of his

so that it would appear as if his medicare-for-all is resonating with everyone - from liberals to conservatives.

Fox's aim is to make him appear more electable in hopes that he would be the Democratic nominee so that their leader, Trump, would defeat him in the general.

Never underestimate the cunning and strategic nature of Fox...

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. This is EXACTLY Trump's own conspiracy theory

It is the subject of his complaining tweets. Trump's view matches perfectly with the slant presented on this thread, based on the observations, may be accurate or may be distorted, of one blogger.

From the video I've seen it was not a small event, there were a whole lot of people inside that room. One person's limited interviews would never be accepted as valid polling data to extrapolate to the entire audience by any firm. Who knows what bias, innocent or not, could account for who that blogger chose to interview?

I am wary of adopting and promoting Trump's conspiratorial views.

[KitSileya]

5. It will certainly help them as they search for new advertisers

Since the grassroots campaigns directed towards the advertisers on Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and the other deplorables on Fox have been quite successful, Fox is now desperate to get new ones or bring back old ones. Being able to show "bipartisanship" in having the likes of Senator Sanders (and Mayor Buttigieg and Rep. O'Rourke, IIRC) would go a long way in reassuring the potential advertisers that Fox is not the President's propaganda arm, and win them much money.

I guess it's back to work for those of us who want Fox Noise off the air, strangled by having no advertisers.

[sheshe2]

52. Bethlehem. A song comes to mind. nt

[KitSileya]

3. Oh, how disappointing.

I really hoped that Senator Sanders would be talking to a majority Fox-viewer audience, so that we could have some idea how his representation of the Democratic party platform would be met by these people. Senator Sanders and his supporters have been very adamant about reaching out to Trumpian deplorables, and this could have been a chance to see live if that could be done. It would be difficult to ascertain the effect on those who viewed from home, while the immediate reactions from the audience - had they been actual Fox viewers - would be visible on screen. Now it seems that chance was wasted. It certainly makes the many threads here triumphantly announcing how they cheered for MFA very hollow - if 70% of the audience already supported Senator Sanders, he was preaching to the choir, wasn't he?.

[Cha]

6. I thought they were all faux viewers

for some reason when this was first reported.. but this news makes more sense.

The audience was already mostly MFA fans.

[Skya Rhen]

12. Bernie was absolutely preaching to the choir during his Fox townhall

[kag]

7. Stop giving FOX any credibility!!!!!!

I swear, if Dem candidates start going on Trump TV because they think it will get the racists and misogynists on their side...they've lost me.

[lunamagica]

8. K&R for visibility

[Cha]

9. Gracias, Luna!

[Cha]

10. K!

[JI7]

13. of course it was. they aren't going to do the same for the Democrats running

[Cha]

14. Right.. they were complaining after

his cnn Town Hall when Dems were asking the questions.

[Skidmore]

15. k&r for truth

[ehrnst]

16. That explains the applause for the Medicare for All statement. (nt)

[LiberalLovinLug]

44. Wasn't that simply awful!

[ehrnst]

45. If you say so...

Just an FYI.... I'm flattered and all, but following me around the board is cute the first couple of times, more than that and it gets creepy.

[Me.]

17. KR

[murielm99]

18. Imagine that.

Fox giving a break to the most divisive candidate in the Democratic field, the one most likely to harm the party's chances for victory.

Mayor Pete is planning a Fox appearance. Let's see how many of his supporters are allowed in. Let's see if Fox allows his appearance to be a Buttigieg rally.

Thanks for posting this. It is very enlightening.

Watch your backs, Democratic candidates. I had a bad feeling about any of them going on Fox. I was right.

[nolabear]

29. Yes, that'll be interesting. I'd like to see Biden there.

I’m still in his camp but I must say Mayor Pete impresses me more all the time.

[brer cat]

19. K&R

[Gothmog]

20. K&R

[BlueFlorida]

22. This line from Janis Mikofsky made me laugh

Janis Mikofsky of Allentown is the only non supporter I could find. "I want to see how he will answer tough questions." She thinks Trump would wipe the floor w Bernie. "Socialists cant come up with facts to back up their theology"

Smart woman. The rest were just devotees.

[ehrnst]

23. Why am I not surprised? (nt)

[LiberalLovinLug]

25. "Smart woman"?

"Socialists cant come up with facts to back up their theology"

lol "theology"? If you mean she is smart in that no, probably Socialists couldn't come up with facts to back up any theology, they you are correct, as religion is not based on facts, but faith, in an invisible being. I'd also suggest most are probably not religious and wouldn't even attempt such a ridiculous thing. But I'd contend that was an accidental accuracy ie Forest Gump.

So you'd content that the "smart" person was the Republican moran that doesn't even know what she's talking about, to the Democratic candidate supporters in the crowd that cheered for universal medicare?

Instead of this being a point of celebration, that Democrats actually had some presence for once on that network and were able to show Fox viewers that not everyone thinks like they do, you use it to say that some dumb deplorable is smarter than the Democratic candidate "devotees"

[BlueFlorida]

27. Socialist dreams are also based upon faith

since socialism has failed in every place it came in power.

[LiberalLovinLug]

30. Oh my gawd. Do you actually believe that?

And we are not talking communism. If the argument is Democratic Socialism, which has been thriving in a lot of countries, notably the Nordic European states. If "failure" is being ranked the happiest citizens on the planet, I'll take that.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/03/20/finland-worlds-happiest-country-2019/3221328002/

For the second year in a row, the world's happiest country is... Finland!

Finland topped the list of 156 countries, which were ranked in the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network's 2019 World Happiness Report. The report ranks countries on several well-being variables including income, freedom, trust, healthy life expectancy and more.

Two other Nordic countries came in second and third place, Denmark and Norway, respectively.

On the other hand, South Sudan ranked the least happy on the list.

Finland has topped an index of the happiest nations for the second consecutive year. Time, Time

Where does the United States fall? At No. 19, a slip from last year's 18th spot (which was already down four places from 2017).


A more nuanced answer would be to inform you that.....hold on to something.....the US also employs socialist methodology as does probably every country in the world. But they limit it to things like medicare, social security, but also things like funding the armed forces. Just as health care would be cheaper, it is cheaper, and also just more efficient, to buy a certain number of uniforms, or weapons, or planes for the troops in bulk for the whole country, rather than require every small army base to find their own uniform maker (obviously).

Its sad that so many Americans actually do not understand the concept of pooling your tax money together to get the most bang for your buck when it comes to health care, and then even more, are brainwashed into thinking it is some kind of unattainable "dream".

[BlueFlorida]

31. Finland is not a socialist country

It is a capitalist country.

Also, Finland is near 100% white and not diverse like the USA. It is a tiny country with virtually no social issues.

That comparison with Finland is deceptive.

[LiberalLovinLug]

36. Call it what you want, that is the model that AOC, Warren, and Sanders are referring to.

When they say "democratic socialism". But you knew that.
Of course they are mixed economies. Socialism is the cheapest most efficient way to pay for things like education, police, army, social needs, and medical coverage, but other industries are structured in a capitalist way. In other words, they separate things that are deemed necessities, even so far as being a 'right', like education, healthcare etc.. to be administered by democratically elected officials with tax money, to not only keep costs down by eliminating the private executives salaries, and the shareholders profits, but the whole concept of making money from others misery, and by denial of service, rather than believing in the concept of healthcare being a right, rather than a privilege.

And there are obviously various mixes around the world, with some being more regulated than others. There is no hard line between socialism and capitalism in modern day economies. Canada has been called "Socialist" especially by some on the right, yet they have almost the same degree of capitalism in their industries. They even have some of the same socialist departments like SS, unemployment, veteran care, its just that Canada also has also socialized their medical system as well. Also maternity leave and a higher minimum wage.

All Sanders and the others coming from the progressive wing are advocating are advancements that every other western democracy enjoys. Not even that 'revolutionary'. And as Bernie said, why can't the richest nation in the world afford to provide its citizens with what other countries have?

[BlueFlorida]

38. Senator Warren expressly stated

that she is not a socialist of any sort.

Just because someone conjures up a model in their head and think America could be just like it, doesn't mean it is correct.

Sanders and AOC are wrongly misguided about this. People from all walks of life question the viability of their views and I am one of them.

If someone wants to blindly follow an idol based on faith, it is their right and I can't stop them.

[LiberalLovinLug]

39. "an idol based on faith"

lol

Because it must be "fake news" from other countries that a socialized medical system, for basic service, is cheaper than the US private model where profits are paramount over care. And more fake news that it covers every citizen from cradle to grave no matter where they live or what employment circumstance they are in, or how serious the injury or illness.

Its not about turning the country into some draconian commie dictatorship, its about simply adopting a few more socialized funding mechanisms in order to afford things like universal medical coverage, maternity leave, cheaper drug prices, etc.. Set the balance to separate and finally include necessities as a right, from non essential industries which are free to expand and grow as usual.

And i completely understand the political necessity that some candidates feel to shy away from the S word, if it helps them. But make no mistake, Warren is wanting the same progressive advancements as AOC and Sanders (and millions of Americans)

[BlueFlorida]

40. How much of that will become reality

even if Sanders is elected?

And ... many other candidates are actually proposing stuff that is likely to pass and be more palatable to the American people.

However, faith dictates the "my way or highway" - no compromise ever attitude.

[Hortensis]

28. Blue Florida has something. Some of Sanders' ardent followers

are unquestionably devoted to him specifically. When he preaches what he calls democratic socialism, they call themselves that. If he preached anarcho-syndicalism, this part of his following would adopt that, no need to find out what it is, just listen and believe.

It's the same for their counterparts on the right. What their chosen leader says is what they believe. What he cares about is what they care about.

This is why populist and cult leaders, often the same people, can be so dangerous -- populism isn't an ideology so much as a way of inflaming a following to gain power FOR the leader's ideology, whatever that is. It may not be what is stated. Their devil, however, is "the elites," but just who is elite also need not be defined. For many of Sanders' followers, the whole Democratic Party is "the elites."

In any case, as you can see, psychologists don't see a lot of difference between secular faiths and religious.

[BlueFlorida]

33. Yes, they NEVER question SANDERS nt

[LiberalLovinLug]

35. I can't even......

See my post above.

I don't alert on posts, I believe in open discussion no matter how heated or controversial, but yours is just awful. You are saying that Sanders supporters, who were up to 48% of Democrats at one point late in the last primary, were just cult followers and his ideas of things like higher minimum wage, maternity leave, medicare for all, college tuition, etc. (things that other countries, even with Conservative governments, have) .was only supported because we worship a grumpy old white man who doesn't have a decent suit or comb his hair?

Why would women like Sarah Silverman for instance, first back Hillary, and the thought of the first female President, and then when Bernie came along, decided to back him, saying something better cam along? It was his platform, his passion for moving the country forward with progressive legislation. I too was stoked about the idea of the first female President, but it was his platform that was more attractive. And for you to say that the platform was meaningless to his supporters, when for most it was the primary reason, is bizzare and insulting.

And you can define "populist" coming from the right left or center or anywhere. Trump can be defined as populist. So could Martin Luther King. In fact it takes a certain amount of populism/charisma to win an election. That's what we want don't we?

[Hortensis]

41. No, we're talking about the QUARTER of Sanders voters

who refused to vote Democrat in the general election.

Before you get too indignant, it might help to know that on last week's Emerson polling a similar percentage said they would not only not vote Democrat in 2020 if Sanders was not the nominee, they would vote for Trump or third party. Specifically in one question, 26% said they would vote for Trump if Elizabeth Warren were the nominee. !!!

That last is extremely significant because Warren is every bit as strongly progressive as Sanders. Many of those who care about the issues they both espouse see her as the better choice, but for sure Sanders' supporters would have an excellent alternative in her -- IF it was really about the issues for this group. It's not. For them it's about him and his message that today's Democratic Party is intrinsically and irredeemably corrupt.

As for what populism is and isn't, DEMOCRACY is government of, by and for the people. Democracies with a sufficiently involved electorate do a pretty good job of serving their electorates and advancing social wellbeing in spite of problem eras. That's why enemies of democracies constantly seek to undermine the electorate's belief and participation. They lie about our power.

Populism, otoh, is a negative energy focused against, again, "elites," dominated by social conservative hostilities and general antagonism. Rising populism in this era is threatening to destroy democracies around the planet. Populists claim to be for "the people," but would steamroll the needs and wishes of all those people who don't join them, which is most.

Why are Sanders and Trump doing so well here in the U.S.? Lots of reasons, economic fears for the future are big. Disbelief in the power of the vote (many populists vote erratically at best). But the biggest is that the social conservatives who dominate populism have been losing the "cultures wars" so important to them in election after election to increasingly liberal majorities. How to win and restore white, male supremacy? Destroy democracy.

Maybe take a good look at that 25% or so of Sanders hostiles. Think about how similar their behaviors are to those of the trumpsters on the right. And think about what those polls reveal about their lack of fealty to issues instead of leader.

Now, here's a positive note to end on: 80% of Sanders supporters now are registered Democrats. In 2016 the vast majority of those moved seamlessly to Hillary as their second choice. This year only 42% of those who voted for Sanders in 2016 list him as their favorite.

"Only 51% of current Bernie supporters actually voted in the 2016 General Election for the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton – 7% voted for Trump, 23% voted for a third-party candidate, and 19% did not vote."

That's a drop from 2016's 12% for Trump, 2% nonvote, and the rest third-party. Current support is much less and far more strongly limited to Sanders zealots.

And here's another touch of reality: The quarter or so of current Sanders supporters who will again vote Trump or third party in the general are NOT the Democratic Party's to win or lose. They're his to keep, and then in the GE Trump's to keep or lose to some third-party throwaway vote.

[LiberalLovinLug]

46. You just made the case for supporting Sanders!

Overlooking all your unsubstantiated "facts" and numbers, I'll grant you that a segment of Sanders supporters did not vote Democratic. Some even may have voted for Trump. That is because the majority of Independents, supported Sanders. As did the Rust Belt, based on his earlier opposition to the Free Trade deal and the TPP. Which is why he would have won in 2016, and we'd not be in this nightmare. But I digress.

You overlook the fact that no matter what that number is, if it was the same as the number of PUMAs that stayed home when Obama was up, who knows. There will always be a few Democrats. But they are not significant. Its the Independents, that pushed his popularity over the top, those that would not have voted for Hillary even if she were the only one on the ticket! They were not Democrats, or anyone that would have voted for Hillary anyways. So you can't count them, or their votes, as some kind of prize that is easy to be won.

Yes, many of them will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee. And this is a good thing for our party. Just like last time, we can accept these Independents votes to push us over the top, or insult and sneer at them. But you just made the case for Sanders. If he really could pull that kind of percent to him, and by extension, many other Democratic seats in 2020....why not go for the sure thing? I mean 25% more votes? Woo Hoo!

This purity test that not only our Candidates must be permanent Democratic party members, no matter how much more Democratic they act than some of the others, but must also be extended to who votes us in, is ludicrous. We can't afford to turn out noses up at anyone next time. If we can siphon votes away from disgruntled anti-establishment Independents in order to win, and if the person to do that is Sanders?.....then Go Bernie Go!

[Hortensis]

47. Lug, voting Republican in this era is not just contemptible,

it's a complete abandonment of all the values claimed while supporting Sanders. As for the liberal values our party stands for, straight into the fire along with our party, obviously not held to begin with.

Most who did that and promise to do so again to care for little for any issue except repealing the ACA and replacing it with another program, but even that is abandoned when voting Republican. They know the Republican leadership is determined to destroy all national healthcare. It's all about Sanders, who tells them the Democratic Party is corrupt beyond redemption.

And supporting this, Lug, isn't just deplorable, it's despicable to the point of evil. Republicans separated the small child from her family for months. Liberals united them.



So, the hell I made the case for them being them. I just worry about who they'll support next and who they might align with to stop losing.

[LiberalLovinLug]

48. Not sure of your point

Hey if we happen to "trick" a bunch of numbskulls, who would never in their life ever consider voting Democratic, but would hold their noses to vote for Sanders, who cares if they only realize the next day that they voted for a commie pinko. Too late.

A President Sanders, the stubborn old curmogeon that he is, isn't going to alter his progressive platform for a tiny percent of his more confused supporters.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

32. Could only find one non supporter but the first question literally came from a republican operative

Look harder



<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">First question in Bernie's town hall with Fox News went to Joe, a "student" from Allentown, PA.<br><br> He's a campus coordinator with conservative campus group Turning Point USA. <a href="https://t.co/f1uoqJcxCR">pic.twitter.com/f1uoqJcxCR</a></p>— jordan (@JordanUhl) <a href="

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 15, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[BlueFlorida]

34. Doesn't matter -- he was smothered

by the audience which was 99% packed with Sanders supporters.

[ehrnst]

24. Calls went out on FB for Sanders supporters in PA and NJ to attend

[Cha]

26. Thanks, ehrnst!

[LiberalLovinLug]

37. So this is a bad thing?

If say Harris, or Pete, or any other candidate had accepted an invite you'd blast them here for daring to put the word out? Or worse, they actually showed up?

So.......um.....it could be filled with Fox zombies to laugh and boo them on national TV?

Because embarrassing Fox News in their own town hall meeting is just.....rude?

Trying to understand the benefits of that approach. Is it so you can then come on DU the next day and crow about how mean the Fox audience was? Does it fit better into your preconceived compartmentalized notions?

Just having a hard time understanding why you and a few others would go out of your way to disparage one of our candidates, no matter if you particularly support them or not, in holding their own and garnering applause from inside the enemies den.

[Uncle Joe]

42. Excellent point and good questions LiberalLovinLug.

Of course there is no actual hard data as to what political persuasion the studio audience was made of.

I believe Bernie was just too successful and that doesn't sit right with many of his detractors.

[LiberalLovinLug]

43. +1000

[Autumn]

49. How funny. If I support someone and have the opportunity to go to something like that

as soon as the invite or it's announced I'm going to go. I'm going because I want to see and listen to what they say. I'm not going to bother to go and see someone unless I support that politician.
It's almost like no other candidate's campaign in history has ever sent out public invites giving information to people where they will be and how to get tickets to see them.

[Skya Rhen]

50. Except, the initial spin by Bernie supporters was that he converted a Fox/conservative audience

into supporting Medicare-for-all.

What was revealed, over the following 24 hours, was that the audience was 70% Bernie supporters which meant that he was preaching to the choir, all along, and did not win over conservatives, as was previously suggested...

[Autumn]

51. If you are right on 30% of the audience being conservative it's really not preaching

to the choir.

After Sanders answered an audience question about why government-provided versus private-sector health care by outlining his health care proposal, Baier decided to poll the audience about it, by asking people if they’d prefer it to their current, private-sector-provided health insurance. (That frame evokes Barack Obama’s famous promise that “If you like your health care, you can keep it” — something conservatives and Fox News frequently point to as a symbol of Obamacare’s broken promises.)
The poll ... did not go the way Baier appears to have thought it would.

Link to tweet

It's apparent that Fox didn’t stack the town hall with conservatives or people who hated Bernie Sanders; while the first questioner was a student organizer with the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, the second was a progressive organizer who’d campaigned for Clinton.

MacCallum and Baier asked Sanders the questions that, in general, you’d expect Fox News to ask — like asking about whether the success of his book wasn’t proof that capitalism worked. It seems unlikely that they anticipated such a very enthusiastic response from a studio audience to the idea of government-run health care.

Maybe this proves the central point of Sanders’s campaign rhetoric: that the American people writ large, not just progressive Democrats, really want the government to guarantee them a certain standard of living. Maybe it just proves that Sanders is a good politician who’s skilled at presenting his preferred policies in a way that sounds good to people. Either way, it’s a good illustration of why he’s a 2020 frontrunner.

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/15/18318063/bernie-sanders-town-hall-fox-news

[ehrnst]

54. 70% of verry motived people cheering can certainly make it look as though everyone agreed with

the speaker, even if the 30% didn't.

[LiberalLovinLug]

55. No spin. Just stoked and crowing about the response exhibited on national TV

The later spin was from anti-Sanders folks in here that just HAD to let everyone know how the Sanders team advertised his town hall, and how they didn't keep enough of them away, and allow Fox viewers in instead. Or something like that.

I think the point is ... Isn't it actually a GOOD thing to force loyal Fox News viewers to be shocked into hearing what they thought was a similar audience, applaud SOCIALIZED MEDICARE and Bernie #%@# Sanders ...running as a Democrat! And leave them thinking that....(shhh, even if it wasn't gawd's honest truth). Or are we too pure for that?

Honestly, I think so many Democrats are so used to being the whipping boys, the ones that always have to suck up and endure the fake spin against THEM, that when it unexpectedly goes their way they don't know how to handle it, and immediately make sure the world and those Fox viewers who witnessed it, know that it wasn't REALLY a Fox News audience like they are, so don't worry, no one is changing anyone's minds here.

How exactly does that help?

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. K&R