Bernie Sanders stumps for Ben Jealous in Maryland

[ehrnst]

Link to tweet

[NCTraveler]

1. I think there are enough people to get a game going.

Pick captains and get it on!

[George II]

5. Who is "shirts" and who is "skins"?

[NurseJackie]

3. Oh dear.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

[ehrnst]

4. Here's another:

Link to tweet

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. Imagine where our party could be if we had ONE Voice, ONE leader and

all others in the party and who caucus with the party respected that and presented a unified front.

We would be unbeatable and would control all of government in overwhelming numbers.

[arthritisR_US]

34. Exactly. This kind of stuff pisses me off 😡

[pampango]

41. How do we choose such a leader? Who would that be?

Also, many Democrats/liberals are not as likely to follow a leader to the degree that conservatives follow their leader.

[Eliot Rosewater]

43. Real easy, someone like Pelosi could lead us until we remove ACTUAL NAZIS from the WH

[pampango]

47. She certainly could. As could Schumer, Clinton and many others.

The party out of power rarely has 1 leader while the party in power had the president.

That is even truer of Democrats when they are out of power. Liberals tend to be less respectful of social hierarchies and less willing to follow their leader.

I agree with the need to fight the Nazis running the government but we need a strategy for doing so that acknowledges liberals for who and what we are.

[ehrnst]

48. Well, some who would like to lead liberals seem to think that any

dissent whatsoever from from their ideas is justification for that dissenter being shunned as unethical, corrupt or "a corporate shill."

And somehow that's supposed to be a metric for how "liberal" or "progressive" a candidate is.

[EffieBlack]

53. BUT, they can't be TOO liberal or else Republicans won't like them and we'll need to get rid of them

so they don't become a "lightning rod.""

[ehrnst]

58. Yeah, unless it's Pelosi - then the rules all change.

I can't keep track...

[EffieBlack]

59. Oh? Did they change the rules for Pelosi?

I hadn’t noticed.

[ehrnst]

63. Periodically they do.

It's seasonal.

[EffieBlack]

67. Ahh

I didn't know Democrats did that kind of thing.

[ehrnst]

70. A rapidly shrinking portion of the party

As though they have jumped into a pool full of unexpectedly cold water.

[Demsrule86]

85. I fail to see why an independent is involving himself in Democratic primaries...I just don't

understand why a person who refuses to join the Democratic party and has been critical over the years of said party feels the need to intervene in party business. His endorsement of any candidate is meaningless to me.

[pampango]

88. I welcome independents to our party and to our primary process as long as they agree to support

the nominee who emerges from the primary and they support liberal Democrat principles.

[Demsrule86]

99. I don't. I believe in closed primaries. And those who are not members should not endorse anyone.

[Jim Lane]

84. One people, one nation, one leader?

I hate to break it to you but that model hasn't always worked out in the past.

[lapucelle]

81. Well, I did hear that millions watched the event on digital media outlets.

[Demsrule86]

86. An easy and unprovable claim.

[NurseJackie]

89. And millions looked at the tweet photos...

... so that's something, I guess.

[MineralMan]

6. Fives of people turned out for the rally!

Yay, Team!

[mcar]

52. ...

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. I just couldn't help it.....

How long before someone shows up to remind us that BS is the most popular politician in the country?

[sheshe2]

101. Last I heard...

It was the whole Universe.

[Tarheel_Dem]

104. Lies! Not in any universe I've ever heard of.

Hey she.

[sheshe2]

106. Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!

Not one I have heard of either.

Hey Tarheel.

[Demsrule86]

87. hahaha...This gives me hope that even if Sen. Sanders runs, it won't hurt us in 20.

[Kahuna7]

105. ....

[Gothmog]

7. Is that all of the crowd?

[betsuni]

8. Jealous for big rallies.

Revolution.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

9. Just so I understand completely

When Sanders has big crowds and does big rallies, that doesn't mean any one supports him and he's just in it for the crowds. When he does really small events, it means that nobody supports him and he shouldn't be doing it?

It would be a lot easier if people just picked a position and stayed with it.

[ehrnst]

10. Who is saying either of those things here?

You are upset with the photo. You don't need attack a strawman to express or defend that.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

12. So the responses above me aren't about the size of the group?

And I'm not upset about it. I'm glad he's out there trying to get progressives elected. Every speaking engagement doesn't need to be a packed stadium.

[ehrnst]

17. The posts above said neither thing that you accused them of.

Re-read them if you need to.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

38. OK. That's the game we are playing.

Cool cool.

If it isn't there in explicit text, there is no meaning. Got it.

Carry on. Good luck with that approach to winning over people and votes.

[ehrnst]

42. I had no idea that my posts held that kind of power to influence votes!

But do carry on with your game of being outraged, and find a few more strawmen to attack.

And you might want to find a new name to call people who don't apologize for you taking offense than "game player."

[EffieBlack]

60. IKR?

[ehrnst]

64. We'll have to discuss this at the coven - er... Book club meeing.

[EffieBlack]

68. Shhhh!

[JustAnotherGen]

91. One - I never knew you had that power

Seriously - you and YOU alone can influence non Democratics to vote with your posts.

Two - Don't hate the player - hate the 'game'.

[Eliot Rosewater]

28. But I am a Democrat and liberal, I am NOT a progressive and this is

NOT progressive underground.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

37. Well, that's an odd distinction.

Most liberal Democrats would fit into the progressive label.

To each their own, I guess.

I'm liberal, a Democrat, and I'm a progressive.

[Eliot Rosewater]

40. Not at all odd. If one is a liberal one does not need to say they are also

progressive.

Liberal includes all the positives of a progressive and much more.

[sunRISEnow]

50. "a liberal one does not need to say they are also progressive. "

I haven't heard it stated this simply. I do agree.

[ehrnst]

44. The label of "progressive" has morphed into something that it didn't use to mean.

Especially on DU, and especially the label "true progressive."

Now who's playing games here? Good way to make people feel included in the party, dude.

(The fish ain't biting....)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. It's kinda funny, I've received a ton of shit from a few here for merely observing that...

not all Democrats/Liberals are progressives.

[Eliot Rosewater]

94. thanks

[GulfCoast66]

78. Thank you, thank you, thank you

Progressives have a very spotty history and my FDR style Southern Democratic father fought against democratic progressives how supported the likes of Huey Long. And ole Woodrow Wilson was a progressive.

I am by no means putting all modern day self identified progressive in that category. But to many Democrats it has a meaning that cannot be erased.

Historically progressives only focused on economic issues and social issues be damned. 3 years ago I thought the title might have been rehabilitated. Then I watched a bunch of progressives boo John Lewis almost off a stage.

If you call yourself a progressive and this sounds wrong to you, please read some history. But we Southerners, and I would guess African-American Southerners remember as well. Not trying to speak for African-Americans and if I’m wrong I apologize.


I am a liberal Democrat. Do not call me a progressive.

[Eliot Rosewater]

95. Indeed, well stated

[JCanete]

56. not really...you only posted this to be snarky. You know it. The poster made a good point there. Are

crowds how you judge a candidate? It isn't how I judge a candidate. It may speak to the excitement that candidate brings. It certainly may speak to their likelihood of being elected. It doesn't itself speak to whether or not this is a candidate we should support. If you think its good that this candidate doesn't bring excitement, then hell, lay that out, but all you are really doing is pointing to a character you don't like, Sanders, and his association, and laughing at the fact that there's nobody at the rally.

Do you not like Ben Jealous for some reason? If you don't know what kind of candidate he is, then why is this funny to you, and no, don't tell me that isn't your point or that I'm reading into your intentions. If you don't like Jealous or what he stands for, reveling in his poor rally numbers makes sense. I get it, but I'm guessing the fact that Sanders put his support behind him is enough for you take glee in the small crowd at this particular event.

Am I wrong? You could just post how that's not what you literally said, but that's hardly a denial.

[ehrnst]

62. Let us count the strawmen here...

that I "judge a candidate by the crowd size."

That I "don't like" Ben Jealous.

Yes, you are wrong.

Yes, you are reading into my intentions.

Are you going to tell me next that I have no ability to judge a good candidate that doesn't have big donors?

Or that somehow getting fewer votes indicates that they are actually the better candidate? Because that's what you have been saying about the OR endorsed candidates that lost.

[JCanete]

65. what are your intentions? And no, I actually said what I meant. I said I don't necessarily endorse

the OR candidates and that I certainly wouldn't go on record across the board to say that they were better in every case than other options. What I was saying is that support or lack-thereof doesn't in itself indicate whether or not there should be support for a candidate.

Of course you don't want to actually say what your intentions were, although damn if I'm not interested.

[ehrnst]

72. "support or lack-thereof doesn't in itself indicate whether or not there should be support for a

candidate."

Now there's some pretzel logic.

Why is it that you think that these poor candidates that OR endorsed "didn't have support, because they didn't have support?"

[George II]

66. Crowds are an indication of the support a candidate has....

Big crowd, lots of support. Small crowd, little support.

A candidate can't accomplish anything unless he/she gets elected.

[JCanete]

71. totally agree...and? The point here was to what...draw attention to a candidate who needs more

deserved attention? Is that what was going on here? OHHHHH! of course that's what this is all about.

[ehrnst]

73. Circular logic... you blame a candidate's "lack of support" on

..."lack of support."

Granted, many here on DU have proposed that huge crowds, especially those near or on college campuses where it is easier to get an enthusiastic crowd, are an indication of the fitness of a candidate, or the efficacy of a candidate.

I assume that you are not one of those?

Or perhaps you have had a change of heart?

If Sanders is so radical, and his personality isn't capable of moving these issues forward, then why does he enjoy the popularity he has across party and all demographic lines?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029301163#post160

That sure sounds like you're saying that "support" (couched as popularity) is a proof of why we should "support" a candidate, JCanete....

Which is it?

[JCanete]

96. That is not what I was saying at all. I was saying that his popularity showed

that he may in fact be able to help move the dialogue in a direction towards things that me and hortensis seemed to be aligned on. That he had brought some of these talking points to the forefront of political discussion.

What do you mean by fitness? Popularity as justification in and of itself for a candidate? Popular therefore good? Or viability? Those are two very different things. As to the latter, of course name recognition and popularity matters. It doesn't mean that somebody achieved it for the right reasons, since money buys exposure.

And no, there's nothing circular about pointing out that financial support(by the few) is often the progeneter of larger public support. Please don't try to tell me money doesn't have a significant footprint in politics.

[ehrnst]

97. So you are shifting your definition of support....

or clarifying it finally.

Strawman - you don't define "support" then you criticize me when I assume you are still talking about popularity..... Of course money has an effect. You can't run without it. That is what EMILY's List is about.

You are saying that politicians with the most money should not neccessarily get the most POPULAR support, but you think that they do.

Are you saying that a politician that has less money has no chance of getting as much popular support as a candidate with more money?

[JCanete]

98. A politician with no money has no chance. A politician with a little

money or pre-established clout/name recognition/etc. may catch fire in a fluke
conflation of circumstances and thus raise a whole lot of money from individual donors, which is what happened to Sanders, allowing him to propel that message forward and in turn, get more funding to do so and to run his campaign. What positions can get corporate funding and what positions cannot is kind of what is at play here. There is no big money to be had if you have a certain ideology, particularly if it puts a target on the back of those with the purse strings. They don't like it there.

At some level how much money a campaign has versus one's opponent stops being as much of a factor. Or at least there's going to be a point of diminishing returns...but there is a whole lot of other capital that exists, and how that capital is achieved is worth at least exploring. One could argue that people who have a lot of backing from arms of the corporate media, have it because they have generated that good will and have come out the best from rigorous journalistic vetting. One could argue as a counter-point that those who get that media blessing(positive free press and the negative or absence of press for their opponents) get it because of the hiring choices these media institutions make in the first place, which reflect the mindset or desires of their hirers. Also, that individuals in media and those organizations they work for fear crossing front-runner candidates because to do so could limit access, which could directly impact their bottom line.

One could point to direct intervention of media owners into what message will be sold to the public and what message will be ignored. The most obvious examples have to do with Sinclair broadcasting and FOX news and its infamous memos. I think this is the least common and most egregious form of media manipulation, and there are examples to be cited at MSNBC and I'm sure elsewhere as well, but they aren't by any stretch the most pervasive way in which the candidates with the most financial support from industries get the most attention. For one thing, it is popular for journalists to report on viable candidates based upon their ability to secure that kind of funding. By virtue of impressing corporate donors and getting them on your side, you are already considered by the media to be the legitimate candidate in the race from early on.

So much journalism doesn't even dig deeper at this stage of a race. They're already picking winners and that ultimately has an impact on who people will put their vote behind. Sure, the very fact that these candidates did secure that money is evidence that they will be better situated to take a nomination, but I'm not sure it is the media's job to simply report that person as the serious candidate...the media's job should be to look into the candidates and to determine what their platforms are and what their ideals and records are and to bring that information to the public so that the money itself isn't the biggest thing that weighs on who is viable.

[ehrnst]

100. Do you have an example of this? (nt)

[JCanete]

102. do you have an example of an avowed socialist ever getting big corporate funding?

Which specific thing that I mentioned to you want an example of? Sinclair? Access? The clamped range of mainstream editorial and punditry when it comes to big media institutions? Media reporting on candidate viability based on ability to fundraise?

[ehrnst]

107. I see that your rant is about a specific candidate not getting the funding you think he should have.

You seem to forget that candidates have many choices about the funding they get.

Some candidates get the financial backing of superpacs they have nothing to do with, in the form of expensive media attack ads against their opponent. Those $ aren't counted as donations, or financial support but they certainly work for the candidate.

I do agree that the media played a part in the elections - they went on the attack on Hillary, using "Clinton rules" even for nothingburgers, because they were fed by clicks and shares those who were furious that she had the nerve to think that she was more qualified to be the leader of the free world than any man who opposed her. So yes, the media did have a huge effect on HRC's candidacy. And even so - she still won the people's vote. She persisted despite the media.

Imagine if a man had done that.

Your turn:

Do you have an example of an "avowed Socialist" who is also millionaire?

[JCanete]

110. how could it be about Sanders? Granted there aren't many socialists around, but

Sanders brought in tons of money from small donors. He was the exception to the typical tree falling in the forest conundrum. I should not have said socialist because there are so very few to even draw from, but then that's because socialists rarely make a peep given the amplification required to do so. I should have said any politician who is considered an enemy to the elite or to "business." Anybody who is not simply going to try to work within Washington with these companies to reign in their excesses, but is going to take that message to the people, will not get a dime and if they make enough noise somehow, many dimes will be spent destroying them. Sure, if somehow they manage to get the GE nom anyway then some money may flow in as a hedging of bets, but I doubt it. I'm pretty sure if Sanders had gotten the nod we would have seen some serious scorched earth(and that isn't meant to belittle the damage the media did to Clinton, its a statement more to the fact that Clinton who would have been a capable, knowledgeable and responsible leader, would have come in to work with the system as it is, whereas Sanders would have tried to put a wrench in it and would have made it a war, and being fair, would probably have lost that war.)

Really though, while I agree with you that misogyny played a role in how Clinton has been attacked over the years, and would agree that it certainly affected those voters who have absurdly patriarchal views about what a woman should be or is capable of and even many who don't realize they have that bias and are perfectly oblivious to the sexism intrinsic in attacks of "shrill" or those going to Clinton's appearance, etc., the trend is the same. If you are a democrat the media will find some reason to drag you though the mud, and it will not do the same thing to Republicans. Hell, Palin...also a woman. It happened with Kerry, it happened with Gore, Dean, it was tried with Obama with Reverend Wright (he was just uniquely up to the challenge and there was precious little else they could find), I assume it happened with Bill pre Lewinsky, but certainly during.

Also, if you can point to an argument somebody has made about millionaires automatically being bad people for being millionaires, or to anybody saying that there should be no millionaires , I suggest you do so. Sanders book put him over into the millionaire mark. That is first, nowhere near billionaire status and I don't even know that anybody is saying billionaires should not be possible, and second, has nothing at all to do with whether or not he supports a progressive tax, or more taxes on millionaires and billionaires or regulations on how they do business. This is the kind of take-down the right engages in..and I'm not accusing you here of being of the right, but don't you remember that old term limousine liberal? The point being you can't have wealth and still rail against inequality, because doing so automatically makes you a hypocrite?

[ehrnst]

111. You seem to think that I implied being a millionaire is "bad." Another strawman

Also, if you can point to an argument somebody has made about millionaires automatically being bad people for being millionaires, or to anybody saying that there should be no millionaires , I suggest you do so.

I didn't make that argument - I just asked you for an example of an "avowed socialist" being a millionaire. I am not sure how those two exist together in one. Maybe you could tell me?

But, since you asked, the morning after Joseph Kennedy 3 gave the democratic response to SOTU, on FB and right here on DU, very high end, professionally designed graphic memes trashing him as a 2020 presidential candidate - with his personal worth being listed as a deal breaker, along with not signing onto Medicare for All. Clearly, many Sanders supporters saw something threatening about his compelling presence and progressive message, and Kennedy hadn't even said anything about running for POTUS.

Those posts were removed, and I won't repost it here - PM me if you want to see it.

I'm not in the camp that says that personal wealth is a deal breaker in a progressive leader, but many who are "avowed Socialists" hold Bernie up as a shining example of someone who is above going after filthy lucre, and that's why they are convinced that there is nothing whatsoever is worth looking at in his financials.

[JCanete]

112. well first, Sanders advocacy isn't one that removes capitalism from the picture, so whatever

his own Democratic Socialism is, doesn't necessarily seem to be a direct contradiction to any capitalistic mechanisms, but second, this is the society we do live in. One person could choose to live by their own values ...maybe go off and live on a commune...but you could instead, live one way and still advocate for a world that is different. In fact, going off and living in your little micro-culture would make you less capable of engaging in the work of making change.

I would also say Sanders has mostly been above that. There are those who go where the money is, and there are those who stick to their art or principles or whatever, and just happen to win by doing so. In Sanders case, he's been in politics many many long years, and you can make a lot of rich powerful friends in politics, particularly if you aren't going around alienating them. Only now at this late hour has he really cashed in, and its not exactly because he's hopped onto some new bandwagon.

By the way, I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth...I'm trying to get at what you are saying. I'm trying to figure out what your point is, and sometimes I take a stab at it when it seems to point a certain way. I'm all for being corrected if I'm wrong. I'm not sure that that is strawmanning.

As to what other people have said about wealth being a deal breaker, the problem is that that has never come out of my mouth nor is it my sentiment. I believe you that somebody here said it. That seems more like a strawman than anything I"ve said, because it represents only random people who's posts were removed. Now, how a person has made his millions or billions, or how that person has used them towards what ends is important. Whether a person's advocacy seems soft on his own wealthy demographic is important.

[NurseJackie]

11. Nobody is saying that. Nobody is doing that.

It would be a lot easier if people just picked a position and stayed with it.

Nobody is saying that. Nobody is doing that.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

13. Sure they aren't

Care to explain your "oh dear" post then in the light that "nobody is saying that"?

[ehrnst]

16. Her post speaks for itself.

"a picture is worth a thousand words."

Sound like you are looking for a shoe that fits.

[NurseJackie]

22. Why? Please tell me what's unclear about that post.

Care to explain your "oh dear" post then in the light that "nobody is saying that"?

Why? There's nothing unclear about my post.

It a far stretch for any reasonable and fair-minded person to interpret "Oh dear" as meaning the same thing you wrote in post #9. And if they do truly believe that... if they're so delicate and offended when someone acknowledges the truth about the minuscule crowd size... well, that's their problem and not mine.

It really serves no good purpose to try and ascribe some sinister meaning to something as simple as an "oh dear" exclamation.

All I'm saying is that I can't be held accountable for such wild imaginings and hurt feelings.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

39. Continue doing what you are doing.

I suspect that will result in another election where people are mystified as to why some people don't feel welcome in the Dem party. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

[ehrnst]

45. Again, you bestow anyone who disagrees with you on DU with the power to destroy Democrats, and

the party itself!

And you want to call other people "divisive?"

The pearl clutching on this thread is really out of control.

[NurseJackie]

74. Oh good God! GMAFB!

[tonedevil]

82. You can't fix stupid...

and that's what I see you trying to flight. I'd call it group think, but I don't believe anyone in that group is thnking.

[sheshe2]

103. Sooooo.

Nurse Jackie said "Oh Dear" and...

Cuthbert Allgood
Continue doing what you are doing.

I suspect that will result in another election where people are mystified as to why some people don't feel welcome in the Dem party. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

And now some people will not feel welcome in the Democratic Party? Perhaps they do not belong if Nurse Jackie said "Oh Dear" and that upsets them. Are these people so tone deaf and uneducated that makes it impossible for them to vote in their best interests?

[ehrnst]

109. I think that you give these posts way, way more power over elections

that they have.

Trying to rationalize one's own personal discomfort and irritation at a post by equating it with "DAMAGING THE DEMOCRATS AND COSTING US THE ELECTION, YOU'D BETTER STOP RIGHT NOW!!!" is getting old.

You've been called out on it several times on one thread.

You also seem to give your political prophetic powers about Democrats and the 2018 elections way more credence that they have.

[lunamagica]

57. This wasn't a small event. This was a big venue and very few people showed up

Obviously they were expecting a big crowd which never materialized.

[ehrnst]

15. A photo of Sanders at a rally "serves only one purpose?"

Why don't you tell us what that is?

Seems like I'm not the one doing the "stirring" here.

[ehrnst]

21. My, you got up on the wrong side of the bed, didn't you?

That glass house of yours let in a little too much light this morning?

Y'all get some coffee, and you'll feel better.

Then lace up those nice-fitting shoes and take a walk.

[NurseJackie]

75. Gone!

[Cha]

76. ****

[NurseJackie]

80. Hey there, you!

It's a great day!

[Cha]

83. Howdy Ms Jackie!

[R B Garr]

93. OH! My!

[ehrnst]

108. ....

[R B Garr]

23. Your attempt to make this personal is amusing, just like the

unsolicited emails. Some people just see stories in the news and post about them. Time moves on. It's been two years since the loss. No need to make things personal.

[ehrnst]

25. ...

You too?

[R B Garr]

26. Yes. And not just me. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

29. WT holy FUCK? Unsolicited emails? Do you mean PM's?

[R B Garr]

36. Yes. nt

[NurseJackie]

90. A former member used to do that to me...

... emphasis on the word "former". That type of unwelcome and aggressive behavior is not without risks or consequences.

All I'm saying is that there's a very thin line between what's reasonable and what's considered to be harassment.

[R B Garr]

92. I think I know who you mean, and had a similar experience.

You describe the behavior very well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Do you have any opinion about Ben Jealous as a candidate for that office?

Do you find him worthy of support, by Sanders or anyone else?

[ehrnst]

19. I'm not a Maryland resident, and don't know enough about what is going on in MD

and the full range of Democratic candidates to determine if I would support him in a primary.

[NCTraveler]

35. "Do you have any opinion about Ben Jealous as a candidate for that office?"

Being from outside the state and not knowing much.

I think as a candidate he should take a different path for organizing rallies. I organize more people than that for a beach clean-up in 95 degree heat with one weeks notice.

[grantcart]

51. I have aleays found him to be rather superficial and an aggressive self promoter, just my opinion.

[sunRISEnow]

54. I guess the tell would be if he gets things accomplished or not.

Jealous is active and has put himself out there. Self promoting isn't a bad thing if he gets stuff done. He didn't draw much of a crowd either. I am curious about that. I hear Republican Holden has a strong hold and leads about the same with all seven Democrats. No Democrat really has a lead. The race appears open.

[EffieBlack]

61. He wasn't president of the NAACP long enough to do much, but his role in pushing Shirley Sherrod out

of her job without first checking the facts or getting her side of the story (and claiming he'd been "snookered by Breitbart) still sticks in my craw.

[mythology]

24. Good for him (sincerely)

His message didn’t resonate with many minority voters, specifically black voters. The party base is moving leftward, and I think it's good for there to be greater links and partnership between the further left which is predominantly white and the base of the party which is heavily minority.

[sunRISEnow]

30. Omgoodness. Surely this is fake.

I do not know anything about the Maryland governor race but Jealous seems to be a good man. I get the comic factor of Sanders talking to an empty room, but from what I read about Jealous, Sanders support should not be used against him.

Youngest NAACP, civil rights activist. That works for me. Maryland is a far ways from where I am.

[ehrnst]

33. Welcome to DU! No, this is not fake.

Why would you think that it is?

[sunRISEnow]

49. I was under the impression Bernie has the ability to have a much large draw with crowds.

There are only a few people there. Jealous seems to be a good, solid Democrat. He does not seem to be able to draw a crowd, either. I mean, this is significantly small.

I saw someone tweet about getting a bird.

[RandySF]

31. A politician's personal strength often doesn't translate to support for others

[Orangepeel]

32. I'm supporting Rich Madaleno for Governor

Maryland passed a LOT of progressive legislation in the past few years, and Rich was at the forefront of ALL of it.


http://madalenoformaryland.com/meet-rich/

[oasis]

46. It's rumored that the Fire Marshal asked the duo for a selfie on his way out.

[George II]

69. .

[lunamagica]

55. The bloom is off the rose...

The thing that had Sanders going for him a couple of years ago was that he was seen as "fresh" and "new". I never understood how could that be with a guy who had been in congress for 30 years. I guess it was he had accomplished so little that nobody knew who he was.

But you know that old saying, familiarity breeds contempt. The excitement is gone. It'd be better for him to forget about 2020