Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thinks there is reason to doubt the predicted "blue wave" in next month'

[brooklynite]

The Hill:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thinks there is reason to doubt the predicted "blue wave" in next month's midterm elections, saying control of Congress will be decided by a few tight races.

“I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it,” Sanders told “Rising” Hill.TV co-host Krystal Ball during an interview that aired on Monday.

Sanders said he believes that the outcome from Nov. 6 will be a “very, very close” situation, and predicts that only a “handful of votes” will determine whether Democrats are able to regain control of the House or Senate.

“We have an entity able to stand up to [President] Trump or we don’t,” the former presidential candidate said.

Sanders, who is rumored to be eyeing a 2020 presidential bid, made the comments while on the campaign trail stumping for Iowa Democrat J.D. Scholten. The first-time candidate and former professional baseball player is currently running against Rep. Steve King in Iowa’s fourth congressional district, which includes Sioux City.

[RandySF]

1. Who on the left would benefit from a disappointing year?

[Eliot Rosewater]

9. This line would warrant a BAN from this website if Bernie were posting here

“We have an entity able to stand up to [President] Trump or we don’t,” the former presidential candidate said.

I am so fucking sick of people NOT figuring out what is GOING ON HERE fuCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

[melman]

13. Then why don't you tell us?

I mean if you're so sick of people not being able to figure it out. Just go ahead and tell us what's going on.

[WhiteTara]

59. are you being obtuse?

[melman]

63. No at all

Why do you ask?

[George II]

80. I think the post speaks for itself, and glad it's there.

[melman]

85. Great

Then maybe you can explain what's really going on.

[George II]

90. No thank you....

[Cary]

133. What is your concern?

The answers you seek are within. Perhas if you express your concern you will find whatever it is that you need?

[melman]

136. What?

The post mentioned a wish that people would get 'what's really going on'. Others seemed to agree.

Wouldn't it then make sense that the people that know what's really going on would want to inform those that don't?

[Cary]

141. But they also expressed a desire to not answer your question

Last edited Mon Oct 22, 2018, 10:23 PM - Edit history (1)

It would behoove you to seek your answer within.

[melman]

143. I'm beginning to think there might not really be anything going on

[sheshe2]

159. may the force be with us all.

[Cary]

169. Ha!

[George II]

66. Sometimes there's a method.

[WhiteTara]

67. Then, there is the madness!

[George II]

71. Indeed.

[zipplewrath]

17. Don't think so

He seems to be doing a "get out the vote" thing saying only a few votes will determine if there is a house of congress to confront Trump or not. I'm not saying it is the most EFFECTIVE way of getting out the vote, but I would interpret it as his intent. More than one of us have been uncomfortable with this "blue wave" talk being a way to tell people they don't actually have to go and vote.

[Eliot Rosewater]

19. No. look at this line

“We have an entity able to stand up to [President] Trump or we don’t,” the former presidential candidate said.

DIRECT attack of the D party

period

[zipplewrath]

20. No

That line means "either we elect a house of congress to stand up to Trump, or we don't". And whether we do that is a function of whether we have enough votes in enough races to accomplish that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

23. Uh huh...

“We have an entity able to stand up to [President] Trump or we don’t,” the former presidential candidate said.
“We have an entity able to stand up to [President] Trump or we don’t,” the former presidential candidate said.
“We have an entity able to stand up to [President] Trump or we don’t,” the former presidential candidate said.
“We have an entity able to stand up to [President] Trump or we don’t,” the former presidential candidate said.

ONLY means ONE thing...clearly, no debate here





I support the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and Democrats, period
I support the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and Democrats, period
I support the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and Democrats, period
I support the DEMOCRATIC PARTY and Democrats, period

I apologize for my UNCONDITIONAL support of the ONLY thing separating us from DEATH...I know it is controversial sometimes.

Wait a minute, NO I DONT apologize. What was I thinking...sigh

[zipplewrath]

26. Either

There is an implied "either" at the beginning of that sentence. Otherwise it makes no sense.

[marble falls]

173. Try cashing a check with an implied signature. I supported Bernie ...

and I find his statement implying we will not/can not take Congress shocking and defeatist in attitude.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

184. Oh for f*cks sake. A check is a legal document. A partial quote of a verbal conversation without...

...context is not.



Here:

“I happen not to believe that there’s going to be this great blue wave,” he said earlier on Sunday at an event in Fort Dodge, in north central Iowa. “I happen to believe that on election night, which party controls the U.S. House will come down to a very few seats.”

In an interview after the parade in Ames, as he finished a sandwich, he elaborated.

“I think that may happen,” he said, about Democrats taking control of Congress. “I’m doing everything I can to make it happen. But one thing I will absolutely guarantee you: It will not happen if people are sitting back and are cocky and talking about how sure they are of winning.”

“I’m just issuing a warning, and that warning is that overconfidence will result in disaster,” he added.

[betsuni]

187. "Oh for f*cks sake." Triggered!

[Cha]

242. "Oh for Fucks sake"!!

[lapucelle]

247. At least it's better than "FFS" or "I lulzed". N/T

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

201. I think the full quote makes the context clear...

Bernie is sounding the alarm: don't be complacent... get out there and vote!!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

203. People all throughout the party are saying the same thing.

But if Bernie says it...

[Demsrule86]

275. I have not heard Democrats say this...another reason why I will not support Sen. Sanders in the

2020 primary...sure I would vote for him in a general, but he won't get there in my opinion. I am not certain he will run anyway...hope he doesn't. I get so angry when a non-Democrat passes judgment on our party.

[G_j]

229. Exactly

[pangaia]

262. Absolutely my understanding as well.

I better not say any more, eh.

[zipplewrath]

193. Or a caution

HRC was running around the country trying to "run up the score" just before the election. Over confidence can be a killer, and that's what BS is suggesting we not do. I'm not sure that should be classified as "defeatist".

[R B Garr]

199. Exactly! Where is his dose of reality about his "revolution" and why/how

nothing he proposes is reality in Vermont after all this time. His realism, pragmatism and incrementalism only gets discussed when there is water to throw on Democrat enthusiasm. This was not helpful at all and it does make you wonder.

[pangaia]

261. I agree about ..either.

It seems so freakin obvious to me.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

31. Yeah, it means if we take the house or the senate we have an entity to stand up to trump.

If we don’t take at least one house, we don’t.

It’s pretty plain English. Why are you having difficulty?

and predicts that only a “handful of votes” will determine whether Democrats are able to regain control of the House or Senate.

“We have an entity able to stand up to [President] Trump or we don’t,” the former presidential candidate said.

And he’s right. All around the country house seats will, if we win them, will still be damn near 50/50 in races we pick up. Some seats will be won by a couple hundred votes - some might come down to literally double digits.

Pollsters are already predicting we won’t know some results for weeks.

We need every vote we can get. All this talk of blue wave, while encouraging, could lead to complacency.

Remember the blue wall?

[Power 2 the People]

152. +1

[Ace Rothstein]

73. Your Bernie hate is clouding your brain.

You're way off base here.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

205. So true... what is going on here?

[theaocp]

27. You're wasting your time.

Bernie haters are gonna hate. It's what they do. Cheers.

[lagomorph777]

28. +1 Evidently that's the case.

They're going to misread his statements how they want to; doesn't matter what anybody points out.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

208. Sad but true... it'a like "Bizarro World." Instead of applauding Bernie for his

wise political sense, they bash him for saying the same things other Democrats are saying.

[lancelyons]

53. Dems will fight each other on simple things like this or what potty is used.

the GOP will unite on a pedophile.

That is a HUGE difference.

We have DEMS that might vote for a green party person just because they think Bernie or Kamala drive the wrong color car.

Comon people, If we lose the house then DEPLORABLE liberal hate is the norm and you might as well join the other side.

This is freeking serious.

[m-lekktor]

87. The 8 percenters are mild here! They are completely batshit on twitter

[George II]

98. "Bernie haters"? "It's what they do"? Seems a bit of derogatory talk toward DEMOCRATS...

....don't you think?

[BigGermanGuy]

225. so, as a democrat

I supported Bernie over Hillary.


are you insinuating that I am less of a democrat?

[George II]

228. We're talking about comments made today about actions in 2018. 2016 is history.

[R B Garr]

233. Maybe you could explain what you like about Bernie going back to Independent.

That might be a better use of time.

[R B Garr]

232. Didn't Bernie go back to Independent? What do you like about that? nt

[George II]

75. There's no "either" in that sentence.

[zipplewrath]

76. Which is what "implied" means

In conversation, there are alot of implied words used. The expression "Think so?" has an implied "you" at the beginning. If you look at that sentence, it's not even a complete sentence without something like an "either" in front of it.

[Tiggeroshii]

48. "We have an entity (congress) to stand up to the president, or we dont"

Obviously in the context he is saying if the Dems win, we have an entity that stands up to the president or if we lose, we dont." Curious why you think that is an attack on Democrats? :

[theaocp]

50. Likely they don't have enough "Hate Bernie" stamps to equal a free drink yet. n/t

[George II]

95. "They"? Who are the "they" that you're referring to?

[OilemFirchen]

108. Calling posters "Bernie haters" is, once again, de rigueur - and acceptable - on DU.

It's as despicable as it is predictable.

[George II]

109. +1,000,000

[Cha]

115. Not always..

[ehrnst]

238. Get up on the wrong side of the bed?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

209. It's clearly not an attack on Democrats... and we all know it.

[whathehell]

101. Huh?

I fail to see how a "we do, or we don't" statement constitutes a "direct attack" on anything.

[LBM20]

70. Correct. He is using the Michael Moore method. He doesn't want Dems to get complacent.

It is pretty obvious what he's trying to do. He doesn't want Dems to think "Well, the R's are gonna lose anyway so I can just stay home." That is exactly what happened in 2016. MANY stayed home because they thought Trump was going to lose.

So his intention is good. What I would say instead, though, is "The Dems have a chance to do very well but only IF they go vote! We can take nothing for granted. Look what happened in 2016. We must all go vote."

On the other point about standing up to Trump, he is saying we need to stand up to Trump and elect Dems who will do exactly that. Again, pretty obvious what he means: VOTE IN A DEM MAJORITY THAT WILL STAND UP TO TRUMP AND RUN FOR OFFICE BY STANDING UP TO TRUMP.

[John Fante]

103. Didn't Moore vote for Nader?

Why would we want to follow his method?

Positive thinking >>>> negative thinking. Every time.

[George II]

142. Yes, here's what he said at a Nader rally at MSG in 2000:

Michael Moore, the filmmaker, lambasted the front-runners. ''A vote for Gore is a vote for Bush,'' he said. ''If they both believe in the same thing, wouldn't you want the original than the copy? Wouldn't you want Bush? Sirloin or hamburger? Which would you go for?''

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/15/us/the-2000-campaign-the-green-party-in-nader-supporters-math-gore-equals-bush.html

(the link is to nytimes' pay site, you'll lose one of your "free" articles for October if you click it)

[George II]

119. Michael Moore lives and votes (and campaigns) in Michigan. Going into Election Day....

....Clinton was up 3.6% in the Michigan polls. Maybe Michael Moore's method isn't the one we want?

[Hortensis]

278. The Michael Moore GOTV method?!!!

Thanks for the laugh at least, as in might as well... Bless their little hearts.

[George II]

72. How does insinuating "we're not going to win" get out the vote? Did he SAY "get out and vote"?

Oh, one other thing....the Blue Wave refers to Democrats. Period.

[zipplewrath]

77. Well, we don't see the whole interview

But he seems to be saying that unless enough people go to vote, we won't win. He seems to be countering the idea of inevitability that the Blue Wave suggests to some.

Like I say, I don't think it is the most effective way he could have said this, but I would like to see it in the large context of the whole interview. Which of course isn't Hill's tendency at all. They'd rather stir the pot with selected quotes.

[George II]

78. "Seems"? This is politics, one doesn't "seem", one SAYS.

[melman]

79. lol

lol

[George II]

81. Huh? That's funny? I fail to see the humor.

[melman]

82. Very

[George II]

91. Well, to borrow a phrase...."then maybe you can explain what's really going on."

[melman]

97. Well to borrow another

I think the post speaks for itself.

[zipplewrath]

84. And if I could see the whole interview

I could SAY more confidently what he was saying. There is so little context here it isn't easily determined. Some people here are presuming evil intent on his part, some are reading it as a GOTV effort.

[George II]

94. I'm just reading the words that are posted, I try not to "presume" anything. If it's....

....a "GOTV effort", it could be more upbeat and positive. Have you seen any of the other GOTV efforts by Democrats?

[zipplewrath]

104. But there are more words

You're only reading the words that The Hill wanted you to see, not what Bernie said.

And I agree, understanding it's from a live interview so it isn't a prepared text, it isn't clear this is the best way to GOTV.

[LBM20]

123. YES, he has been campaigning TIRELESSLY telling Dems to GET OUT AND VOTE.

[Bfd]

135. Lol.

[lapucelle]

286. I hope his tour will stop in Vermont to campaign for the Democratic challenger for governor.

The Republican incumbent vetoed a minimum wage bill and the creation of a paid family leave program, and 22% of the voters are still undecided.

The people of Vermont (like everyone else) deserve a living minimum wage.

[marble falls]

174. Bingo. That's the acid test question. It doesn't get the vote out. It suppresses ...

the vote with it's cynicism and defeatism. If Bernie really believes the election is still in the air he should be spending even more of his time getting out the vote.

[marble falls]

171. I'm with you, Elliot. Sometimes I feel like the Russian troll farm has gotten ...

gotten to some of us. That line is so close to the line.

[aikoaiko]

183. No one would be banned for that statement on DU.

Post wouldn’t even be removed.

There is nothing to panic about. Others have warned Democrats to not be complacent or overestimate our strength, too,

[grantcart]

218. I find Sen Sanders word construct to be illuminating

When he talks about Democrats he refers to them in the third person and as an object that doesn't include him.

For example

"I speak as the longest serving independent in American congressional history, the Democratic brand is pretty bad," Sanders told CNN's Anderson Cooper on "AC360."

In the example you quoted the "We" obviously does not refer to the Democratic Party because something can't have itself. He is referring to either the rarefied progressive movement or more specifically to his "Our revolution". The only question that is outstanding is whether or not this entity will stand up against Trump or not.

If Sanders identified his interests with the Democratic Party he would us first person plural with the predicate "to be", i.e. Either we are able to stand up to Trump or we won't.

Sanders goes to great length to continually demonstrate that he is not a Democrat, doesn't identify as a Democrat, thinks that Democrats have bad branding and views himself as part of a higher movement that has the right to use the Democrats to promote their agenda, which obviously isn't tied to the Democrats.

I have also noted that since Sen. Sanders income has now ballooned past $ 1 million a year that his stump speech has changed from attacking "millionaires and billionaires" to just attacking billionaires. Sen. Sanders is part of the alliance against Trump but consistently articulates that he is NOT a Democrat both by explicit declaration and by syntax.

I got a text to join the Garcia/Sanders event in Tucson today. Love Garcia but passed on the event.

[lapucelle]

241. That's a great analysis.

We have an entity

Who is "we" and what is the cryptic "entity"?

[George II]

258. I noticed that subtle change from "millionaires and billionaires" to "billionaires" months ago.

We don't hear much about the 1% anymore, either.

[tblue37]

271. All that means is that if the Dems win, congress will be "an entity able to stand up to

Trump," but if the Republicans retain control it won't. That is simply truth.

And when voters on our side hear it's in the bag, as they did in 2016, then they get complacent and think they don't have to bestir themselves to vote, while the deplorables get all energized to rush out and vote to stop that blue wave from occurring.

By emphasizing how a few votes in tight races can make all the difference, Bernie is telling people that their votes are absolutely needed, so they must vote if they want an "entity able to stand up to Trump."

[Scurrilous]

2. Bookmarked!

[violetpastille]

3. I'm going to start a thread

Bernie Sanders does not like all the CELERY in TUNA SALAD. Questions Democrats: "Why no PECANS and CHOPPED APPLE!?"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

7. All very good questions! I demand answers!

[grantcart]

221. And the point would be that Sanders is not saying

"Why do WE have no Pecans and chopped apple"

but questions Democrats why they don't.

You are correct that is exactly what Sanders does, attacks and undermines Democrats which he uses but doesn't identify with.

Simply joining and leaving the party (after promising that they wouldn't) Sanders is promoting the idea that Democrats are OK but they really aren't good enoug

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/277086-sanders-will-be-democrat-for-life-campaign-says

In an interview on Bloomberg’s “With All Due Respect,” host Mark Halperin asked campaign manager Jeff Weaver if the Independent senator will stay in the Democratic Party if he doesn't become the nominee.

“Well, he is a Democrat, he said he’s a Democrat and he’s gonna be supporting the Democratic nominee, whoever that is,” Weaver responded.

“But he’s a member of the Democratic Party now for life?” Halperin pressed.

“Yes, he is,” Weaver said.

Since that promise was made Sanders has joined and left the party twice. The message is: they are OK but not the real thing. He specifically states he is not a Democrat, refers to them in the third person and never in the first person and left the party twice after stating that he would be a Democrat for life when it would get him votes. His actions yell volumes: Democrats are better than Republicans but they aren't really good enough.

[betsuni]

273. Republicans are the enemy.

Duh.

[jodymarie aimee]

4. it won't hit us in WI

our Assembly has 2/3 majority....maybe Gov ?

[redstatebluegirl]

5. I am so darn tired of him right now.

[NurseJackie]

37. You're not alone in those feelings...

... I assure you.

[NurseJackie]

40. Ah... you noticed that too, eh?

[Me.]

8. So Tiresome

him and his finger pointing at Dems. Yet...he doesn't mind sending out fundraising emails for Dems with...quelle suprise...half going to him

[NurseJackie]

47. Seriously? He's fundraising FOR Democratic candidates but KEEPING HALF for himself?

Well, that just doesn't seem to be very... well... it's probably best that I refrain from saying what I'm actually thinking.

[Me.]

51. You Gotta Give The Guy Credit

he sure knows how to take advantage of other people's situation and horn in on them, not to mention bills put forward by others.

[NurseJackie]

56. I prefer to donate directly to a candidate, OR then DCCC, or the DNC...

I prefer to donate directly to a candidate, OR then DCCC, or the DNC... but never EVER to some OTHER politician who sends out fundraising requests "on behalf" of someone else.

Enough "fine print" and gray-on-white 6-point text hidden at the bottom of fundraising emails!

All I'm trying to say is that I'd NEVER give money to a disabled veteran "charity" that kept 50% of the money for "overhead" and forward only 50% to benefit the veterans. So, why would I fall for the same thing when it comes to politics?

Be smart! Donate DIRECTLY to the candidate of your choice. Avoid these 2-way and 3-way split-sies games!

[Me.]

57. Exactly

...

[George II]

121. Or the State Democratic Party.

Interesting fact - sometime during the spring, very quietly, Elizabeth Warren made contributions to EVERY State Democratic Party, all 50 of them, as well as the DNC. THAT is how to support the Democratic Party and fellow Democrats.

[NurseJackie]

140. Excellent advice.

Thanks.

[Me.]

213. I Quite Agree With You

my post #8 is related to that

[George II]

214. For the life of me, I don't understand why someone would contribute to a campaign via....

....a third party or even fourth party.

For one thing, as we've seen discussed right here in this thread, if you're not careful and neglect to read the fine print or go to the subsequent screens and MANUALLY change the pre-determined distribution, you run the risk of some of your contribution going to someone to whom it wasn't intended.

And second, the organization that handles these types of contributions extracts a handling fee for accepting the contribution.

So it's conceivable, if you want to contribute $100 to a candidate through one of those sites, if you're not careful the intended candidate would get less than half the contribution (split 50/50 with another entity AND then reduced by the handling fee) Your candidate would wind up with only about $47-$48 of your $100 contribution.

Not illegal, but I don't think it's transparent or proper.

Best to contribute directly to the campaign itself.

[Me.]

215. Exactly

Recently Kos was fundraising (could still be) raising money for Native Americans in North Dakota. You were offered an upfront option of splitting your donation but if you didn't want to you didn't have to. Whereas, with the other type, money is sliced off without permission.

[George II]

216. That's the way it should be. The option to split your contribution should be just that....

....and it should be obvious that you CAN split your contribution. In the examples we've been discussing here, the split is already done and you have to override the split (if you even know it exists!)

[Bfd]

74. And he's supported for that too. If a Democrat did it they would be villified till they

disappeard from society.

[Tiggeroshii]

93. Tom Perez just said the exact same thing on cnn

And it looks like just as much a mixed bag

[Bfd]

100. Yup. Pretty mich any Democrat paying attention since 2015, is aware of it

I would like to see a comparison chart as to the number of disses he's lobbed at the Democratic Party vs the Republican Party since the 2016 Gen election officially began.

I think it would be quite surprising.

[NurseJackie]

106. Not to me. Not to anyone who's been paying attention.

I think it would be quite surprising.

Not to me. Not to anyone who's been paying attention.

[George II]

61. But you have to dig to find that out...

... its not mentioned unless you look for it.

[NurseJackie]

224. Well, hello there! Howdy-do! Good to see you!

Yet...he doesn't mind sending out fundraising emails for Dems with...quelle suprise...half going to him

So happy to see these subtleties and "fine print" conditions being exposed and talked about. The whole thing just strikes me as being wrong. I know, I know... caveat emptor and all that... but sheesh! Seriously now!

[Me.]

234. ...

[Cha]

235. Brilliantly Stated, Me.. and Dead On.

Thank You!

[Me.]

249. Aloha pehea ʻoe Cha

[Cha]

251. Grand! pehea ʻoe?

[Me.]

257. maikaʻi loa

mahalo nui loa

[Cha]

259. Have you been to Hawaii, Me?

You know a lot of Hawaiian words!

[Me.]

265. No But Want To

Have a SIL, of Korean heritage, who was born there and has her entire family there. This may sound silly but I have loved the Hawaiian language since first hearing mele kalikimaka years ago.

[Cha]

267. It's not "silly" at all. It's awesome! I love different

languages, too. They're fascinating!

[lapucelle]

240. Content de te revoir !

[Me.]

248. Merci Bien

[sheshe2]

264. Todd Rundgren - Hello It's Me (1972)

Me!

[Me.]

266. ...

[standingtall]

10. Why do politicians think they can scare voters into the booth by telling them to

go out and vote,but there is a good chance we are going to lose anyway?

[Tiggeroshii]

52. Because it works

One reason analysts have said Democrats lost in 2016 was because many Democrats did not
vote or donate thinking that the election would not be close. Managing our expectations is probably the best way to go about this.

[melman]

54. Everyone who said it might be close was accused of 'concern trolling'

[Tiggeroshii]

60. And many accusers probably didnt vote

Or donate, canvass or volunteer.


Its a vicious cycle.

[standingtall]

89. Democrats won the popular vote in 2016

despite claims to the contrary there is no evidence of any historically low turnout in 2016. There is no electoral college in house and senate races. Democrats do not did to be reminded of the possibility of defeat that only kills enthusiasm if we want to scare people to the polls then the threat of losing healthcare,medicare and medicaid should be enough.

[ehrnst]

177. Do you have a source for this data? Which analysts said this? (nt)

[George II]

227. It's not entirely true that the reason Democrats lost in 2016 was because many Democrats....

....did not vote.

As previously pointed out, The Democratic candidate got almost three million more votes than the republican candidate.

Overall turnout was almost 5% higher than in 2012 (4.81%), and Clinton got the third highest vote total in US history (behind Barack Obama's vote totals in 2008 and 2012)

What really hurt was the combination of Stein/Johnson got about 3-1/2 times the number of votes in 2016 than 2012. They received 4.4% of the total vote in 2016 vs. only 1.3% in 2012. I hope Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are proud of themselves for the mess we're in today.

[Cha]

281. And, yet Hillary got 3 million more VOTES than the asshole.

[YessirAtsaFact]

11. I could happily go for 20 years without hearing about Bernie

He has an agenda that lines with the Democrats some of the time.

[Guppy]

12. If he becomes the nominee

we will lose. secondly, I will no longer be a democrat and ny first vote was McGovern when you had to be 21 to vote.

[Celerity]

44. why would you no longer be a Democrat if Sanders somehow wins the 2020 Democratic nomination?

I do not think he will even run, and if he does, will not win the nomination, but why would you quit our Party if he did win? That is just begging for a Trump win if millions followed your example. Seems very ill-advised to me.

[Thekaspervote]

102. Agree! If he were to become the candidate, or run as an independent we will loose

Having said that, bernie is NOT a democrat. The DNC has already said they will not support a candidate that is not a member.

[ismnotwasm]

14. So does Trump.

Not comparing the two, just saying.

And in truth, many races are closer than we would like, but the enthusiasm is spectacular

[Autumn]

15. Does anyone really think it will be a blow out? I think it will be close too.

I will never discount Republican dirty tricks and their ability to suppress votes , they seem to happen every election. Many times we have gone to bed, content that we will win and wake up to the horror of a loss. I don't consider eggs to be chickens anymore, not until the beak pokes out of the shell.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/412535-sanders-casts-doubt-on-blue-wave

[zipplewrath]

34. Various forms of "close"

I think alot of races won't be close. I think the dems will pick up alot of seats in the House. I think it will be close of we get control of the House. I think there will be governorships and state houses that are close.

[Cha]

116. Whether it's a "blowout" or not.. BS isn't helping.

“I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it..”

The opposite of BS' statement..

Link to tweet

[George II]

117. There are 435 House elections and 33 Senate elections. Some will be blowouts for Democrats....

...some will be blowouts for republicans, and some will be close either way.

There is no "it", there are "them".

[Demsrule86]

276. With gerrymandering, it will be a blowout or we lose...Virginia was won with over 10 points in

specials but thank to gerrymandering, we didn't get the legislature. I hope you are wrong.

[theaocp]

16. Half of the people reading this

will hate Bernie and vote Democratic. The other half will vote Democratic. Which side are you on?

[comradebillyboy]

21. I'll take option one in that case.

[theaocp]

24. Winner winner chicken dinner

G.O.T.V.

[ehrnst]

217. Does it matter who they dislike, as long as they vote Democratic? (nt)

[smirkymonkey]

18. Thanks Bernie. We know we can always count on you when we need

support and enthusiasm. You're a real pal.

[NurseJackie]

49. Bernie is the greatest!

Sigh.

[George II]

239. ..........

?itemid=3480133

[melman]

246. .............

[betsuni]

274. Oh, melman.

[melman]

279. lol betsuni

[JCanete]

284. "what we want is for people to blow smoke up our tail-holes Dammit!"

Are you going to stay home because Sanders doesn't think its going to be a blow-out and suggests that this is a reason to get out and vote? Do you think somebody else is going to stay home because of that? I'd like you to walk me through that person's logic.

[melman]

22. Doesn't this actually encourage voting?

I mean, if it's going to be close that means it's important to get out and vote...doesn't it?


But hey, we definitely needed another hate thread based on an out of context snippet from an interview.


Can't ever have enough of those.

[Autumn]

25. Come on now. There hasn't been one of these since

yesterday.

[Cha]

120. Yeah, just because there are so many who don't

think like you do.. doesn't mean you get to categorized them as "haters", autumn.

Link to tweet

[Cha]

118. You call it a "hate thread". I call it Not liking another thing BS

has to say. He's always out there saying "stuff".. well we have a right to say whether we like it or NOT.

And, you all can call it "hate" all you want but that's not going to stop us from discussing his never ending comments.

.. “I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it,”

The Opposite of BS..

Link to tweet

[melman]

122. Oh it's the Eleven Films tweet again

Terrific.

[Cha]

124. Haha.. Deal with it.

[George II]

149. This is a great one. I don't know why people would be upset with highlighting:

Stacey Abrams, Beto O'Rourke, Heidi Heitkamp, Andrew Gillum, Mike Levin, Debbie Stabenow, Abby Finkenauer, and all the other DEMOCRATS in that video.

[Cha]

150. So Brilliant! Mahalo for this Blue Wave Trailer, George!

Same one I had

[George II]

128. What's the problem with the Eleven Films tweet?

[melman]

130. Did someone say there was a problem?

[George II]

134. Read your message that I responded to. If you didn't have a problem....

....please explain what you meant. Perhaps I misunderstood it.

[betsuni]

153. Oh, melman.

[melman]

154. Oh betsuni

[sheshe2]

256. Oh Betsuni!

[betsuni]

151. I just saw that Eleven Films tweet for the first time and LOVE the positive energy!

That's exactly what we need. Get people fired up and ready to go.

[Cha]

155. YES INDEEDY, betsuni! FIRED UP AND READY TO GO!!

Our President Obama Knows How To DO THAT!

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

156. Yes, we can! Thanks, Obama!

*crosses fingers* Hope so.

[Cha]

157. Yeah, THANKS OBAMA!

Sorry, the pic won't post here but worth going to the link>>>>>>>

https://i1.wp.com/www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Barack+Obama+Former+President+Obama+Speaks+DOT5GdBJfiTx.jpg
Former U.S. President Barack Obama greets supporters after speaking at a get-out-the-vote rally at the Cox Pavilion as he campaigns for Nevada Democratic candidates on October 22, 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Early voting in Clark County, Nevada began on October 20 and has recorded the highest turnout during the first two days of early voting in a midterm election.

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

158. Thank you for posting this. Feel better that Obama will be fighting for us.

On low youth vote: "You wouldn't let your grandmother tell you what to wear."

[Cha]

160. lol & "We turned Nevada BLUE Twice with President Barack Obama!"

[aikoaiko]

189. Your second Meme is echoing Bernie's comment.

You get that, right?

[lapucelle]

245. It's a pictue of a woman riding a blue wave.

You get that, right?

[aikoaiko]

268. I was referring to the Blue Tsunami (if we vote) meme that you posted.

Not the pictures in your sig line.

[lapucelle]

272. BS said he doesn't "believe talk about a blue wave and all that stuff".

Sanders said he believes that the outcome from Nov. 6 will be a “very, very close” situation, and predicts that only a “handful of votes” will determine whether Democrats are able to regain control of the House or Senate.

How does a blue tsunami (if we vote) echo the claims that the blue wave is apocryphal and that a handful of votes will determine the election?

[aikoaiko]

282. Both Cha and Bernie are acknowledging the Blue Wave won't happen....

..unless we vote.

We can't take it for granted that its a preordained blow-out.

[lapucelle]

285. "I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff, but I don't believe it."

"I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it."

"I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it."

The picture is of a blue tsunami. It speaks to the size of the coming wave. BS makes it clear that he thinks blue way doesn't exist and/or won't materialize.

believe
1: to consider to be true or honest ;to accept the word or evidence of
2 : to hold as an opinion; to suppose

[ehrnst]

175. No. It encourages dispair, and staying at home because why bother.

[NurseJackie]

277. Correct! That's exactly what it does. Why would anyone do that, say that, post that? Who benefits?

No. It encourages despair, and staying at home because why bother.

Correct! That's exactly what it does. Why would anyone do that, say that, post that? Who benefits? It has the long term effect of sabotaging any gains the Democratic Party hopes to make. Again... WHO benefits when that happens? WHY would any do such a thing?

All I'm trying to say here is that this type of negativity does NOT benefit the Democratic Party, nor does it benefit the nation as a whole. It's not at all inspirational and will suppress participation. This type of negativity discourages people from even bothering to show up and ultimately serves no good purpose.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

210. Stop with the logic... you're makin' WAY too much sense!!

[NurseJackie]

32. Many people agree with you.

Good luck!

[NurseJackie]

33. I love you!

[NastyRiffraff]

39. Love you back!

[theaocp]

35. Why bother posting?

You're literally begging to be altered on.

[irisblue]

43. Why does he insult Dems but want to use the Dem Party as an asset

For his campaign? I think he'll run in the primaries.

[ehrnst]

172. He said it was ethically OK for him to join the Democratic party to run for POTUS for $$ and media:

"During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.

Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.

“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”

He has also said about the Democratic Party:

"You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”

“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”

“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”

[NurseJackie]

181. I've read those quotes before.

He has also said about the Democratic Party:

"You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”

“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”

“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”

I've read those quotes before. It's clear that he has nothing but contempt for the Democratic party.

All I'm trying to say here is that it certainly doesn't make much sense to hear such things coming from someone who is supposed to be considered an "ally" of the Democratic party. It really serves no good purpose for him to say things like this. It's harmful and divisive, and a real ally of the PARTY wouldn't denigrate the PARTY this way. So I have to wonder if that particular label is deserved.

I think those are fair questions.

[betsuni]

185. +1

[zipplewrath]

36. The Hill ain't our friend

Just so everyone knows, the Hill loves to write articles about conflicts within the democratic party. One should take that into consideration when reading their summaries of interviews.

[melman]

45. Yeah that's a funny thing

These same people always complain about articles from The Hill being posted. Always.

[George II]

105. Thanks for the "haterade" comment, but I think the Hill is universally frowned upon.

[namahage]

269. So why did Bernie agree to interview with them?

“I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it,” Sanders told “Rising” Hill.TV co-host Krystal Ball during an interview that aired on Monday."

One would think he would be aware, being the something-or-other of Dem outreach, of the Hill's penchant of highlighting perceived "Dems in disarray" stories...

[oberliner]

38. Hopefully this will serve to motivate Democrats to get out the vote

[zipplewrath]

46. It appears to be his intent

Not sure this is the best way to accomplish it, but then again I'm not as skilled as he is.

[Docreed2003]

58. It's almost impressive to me...

The ability Sen Sanders has to throw water on any positive action by Dems.

"I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave...I don't believe it"

Really Mr Sanders??

Such leadership and optimism!

Spare me the apologists for "All things Bernie" who believe this will somehow encourage people to get out and vote. If he is being taken out of context, I would love to know why, every single time he says something disparaging towards Democrats, it is "taken out of context".

Enough. I truly appreciate Bernie traveling the country and holding rallies for candidates, but statements like this just make it look like your motivations are driven by your 2020 goals and not the current fight.

[The Polack MSgt]

62. Yes Sir

[Tiggeroshii]

64. There has been no positive action yet

The positive action of winning may or may not occur on November 6. Sure things are looking good but if we manage our expectations in a way that convinces us and others nothing should be done, we will lose.

[Docreed2003]

68. I agree with managing expectations completely

But what good does it do to say "I don't see it" with regards to current enthusiasm? Especially coming from someone with as much political clout as Sen Sanders!

That's not a message that builds voter turnout and encourages voting.

[dalton99a]

131. Good thing he's not a football coach

"Guys, don't you dare talk about winning big!"

[JHan]

222. For some we're nitpicking, but there really is the belief out there *especially among young people*

That there's no real resistance to Trump and that both parties are the same anyway.

You see it in memes that claim Dems are kowtowing to Republicans and are Republican-lite when nothing could be further from the truth.

In his defense, he has been doing GOTV efforts, but I can't imagine a Chuck Schumer getting away with saying something like this. Also, how do you say something like "We have an entity able to stand up to [President] Trump or we don’t," - if you're aware of Voter Suppression tactics? I could have found a million different ways to express what he said in less dismissive terms:

'There's a lot of momentum out there, we have to grasp it and not take anything for granted' - or something... It's not like he's a neophyte.

[Docreed2003]

223. I agree completely...

There are a thousand ways that he could have parsed his words differently. As you said, it's not like he's a neophyte.

[George II]

145. Claiming there might not be a "blue wave", i.e., Democratic win, discourages some to NOT do somethin

[Cha]

83. I'm the opposite of "impressed" by BS always

pointing his finger at our Democratic Party with disingenuous insults.. and now.. “I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it,”

".. and all that stuff.." What "stuff"?

"Stuff" like this?

Link to tweet

Doc

[JHan]

110. Yep. ++

[LBM20]

126. This was one comment. The guy has been busting his ass holding GOTV rallies. Let's not read too much

into it.

[George II]

132. There were other similar comments, and in some of his speeches he barely mentioned Democrats...

...or Democratic candidates.

[ehrnst]

176. If a Democratic leader had said this, they would be called defeatist. (nt)

[Docreed2003]

191. +1000

No doubt!

[grantcart]

243. and after the blue wave comes many will give him the majority of the credit.

Bernie has no intention of actually running for 2020.

Not disclosing your taxes one time is OK but no one is going to be the nominee without full disclosure this time.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

65. Look at me!!!!!!

Screams Bernie.

[LBM20]

69. He is using the Michael Moore method. He doesn't want Dems to get complacent.

It is pretty obvious what he's trying to do. He doesn't want Dems to think "Well, the R's are gonna lose anyway so I can just stay home." That is exactly what happened in 2016. MANY stayed home because they thought Trump was going to lose.

So his intention is good. What I would say instead, though, is "The Dems have a chance to do very well but only IF they go vote! We can take nothing for granted. Look what happened in 2016. We must all go vote."

On the other point about standing up to Trump, he is saying we need to stand up to Trump and elect Dems who will do exactly that. Again, pretty obvious what he means: VOTE IN A DEM MAJORITY THAT WILL STAND UP TO TRUMP AND RUN FOR OFFICE BY STANDING UP TO TRUMP.

[Cha]

92. Yeah, I really don't need BS' "intentions" to be

explained to me.

“I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it,”

Link to tweet

[LBM20]

125. It is important to understand INTENTIONS even if how they do it may not be what we prefer.

Gee, I wish it was a perfect world and people framed things up just as we personally perfer all the time.

He is obviously trying to keep people from getting complacent. He has been TIRELESSLY rallying Dems to VOTE.

[Cha]

127. Nah.. "I don't believe it"

[ehrnst]

179. Or he's trying to make the case for "predicting" what voters want better than the Democrats. (nt)

[zipplewrath]

86. Wonder if Topics should get locked

Looking at all the "post removed" from this thread, it inspires the idea that threads should get locked once more than a certain number of responses get removed. One way or another, for better or worse, it seems to indicate that it is generating more conflict than discussion.

[Demsrule86]

99. After the 2020 primary...and I don't believe Sen. Sanders will run or if he does win.

This sort of thing will end. Thank God. So so sick of it. I would not vote for Sen. Sanders in a primary...not a Democrat. But I would vote for him in a general. I honestly believe his best chance was 16 and that ship has sailed.

[George II]

112. I would but only if he's the Democratic candidate. But that will never happen.

[Cha]

114. Good Point, George..

Will. NOT. Happen.

[ehrnst]

178. I agree. No one gets the Democratic nomination without the votes of women of color. (nt)

[Cha]

186. That's right.. our most loyal and energetic

Democratic Base.

[Demsrule86]

198. I won't vote for him in a primary even if ran as a Democrat in primary...vote for a different

Democrat...one who is always and Democrat and not just for one election.

[MrsCoffee]

195. He won't run. He isn't transparent enough to even get on the ballot in some states now.

[Demsrule86]

197. I agree...

[Cha]

96. The Opposite of BS.. BREAKING: #BlueWave imminent!

Link to tweet

[LBM20]

129. But then what if Dems stay home because they think, "Ah well, gonna win no matter what. No need to

go vote." As happened in 2016 by millions of Dems.

[Cha]

138. #BLUE WAVE.. IT SAYS "WHEN WE VOTE"!!!!!!

[aikoaiko]

190. "If"? Sounds like you have doubts.

That’s not very positive.

Tsk tsk

[WeekiWater]

111. When you thought you were once riding a wave of your own...

And quickly found out you were just catching the wave of a larger ship.

You might question waves moving forward.

[Cha]

137. Yeah, you just might.

[betsuni]

146. Good point.

[GulfCoast66]

113. I can't stand Bernie. But will defend him here.

Tom Perez said the same thing and is getting beat up on a different thread.

I hate it when politicians lie to me. Gerrymandering has put us behind the 8 ball. This is going to be a close race by race election that we are not at all insured of winning.

That message makes me much more likely to vote than ‘we got this’.

[beachbum bob]

139. No close calls in democrats taking the house, only question is by

what huge number?

The senate is looking more possible as Nelson is pulling away as well as Arizona race...Tennessee is a real possibility.

[ecstatic]

147. My first thought was he's (inadvertently) giving cover to trump & russia; on the other hand,

painting a bleak picture might get people off their asses and cause them to VOTE. I guess we'll have to wait and see. (Sigh)

[Oneironaut]

148. I tend to agree with him because a lot of young Democrats don't vote.

This is especially true in the midterms. They would rather whine about the outcome.

[Irishxs]

161. Dems Must Vote-No Excuses!!

Sitting at home whining wont cut it this time. Get off the couch and VOTE!!

[aikoaiko]

162. Don't boo. Vote!

[Jamaal510]

163. He apparently

doesn't doubt his own re-election chances, though. I hear more about him campaigning outside of VT than within there.

[Cha]

170. +1

[R B Garr]

164. omg, really?! Absolutely unnecessary and self-serving negative

comment.

[.99center]

165. Bernie's repeating J.D. Scholten's message to voters.

Link to tweet

J.D. Scholten Retweeted
@JTHVerhovek
#IA04 Democratic candidate JD Scholten says he’s probably the only candidate in the country that sleeps more in a Walmart parking lot in an RV than his own bed

“I don’t necessarily believe in a blue wave, I believe in earning votes.”

[betsuni]

166. What does this mean: "I don't necessarily believe in a blue wave, I believe in earning votes"?

[.99center]

167. Scholten's running in a conservative area, against Steve King.

The blue wave is associated with liberals and the left wing. J.D.'s trying to appeal to independents, and moderates, which he needs if he's going to stand a chance in King's district. Bernie's doing what he's supposed to be doing, repeating J.D.'s message.

[Cha]

168. Join the BLUE WAVE!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211306829

[marble falls]

180. I supported Bernie up to the convention and I know we're going to have Blue Wave ...

not because of Bernies "implied" reverse psychology but because we are going to fix state offices and Congress. We're going to win not because of high school cleverness to unsophisticated and timid voters. If the crap the POTUS and his compliant 5% Congress can't get us out to vote, Bernie claiming as a ploy( to get us vote) that there is no Blue Wave sure is not going to do it.

There will be a Blue Wave because if there isn't a lot of our lives are in the balance. The notion of an American way of life is in the balance. Bernie's wrong if he believes his statement, and his way to allegedly fire up the vote is wrong minded, if that's his intent to begin with and I do not believe it is.

I believe he's trying to co-opt the Democratic Party for his 2020 elections plans.

2020 is too late to take on cheetolini and his Nazi Congress. We're going to at least start the process this November, we are voting in absolutely record numbers right now and there's no reason to believe we won't keep it up until the polls close on Nov 6. Bernie and Michael Moore's attempts at high school-ish motivational psychology or not.

[Hortensis]

192. +100. Dissident politicians require the failure of those they'd replace.

Imo, that's the explanation for Sanders and what's always behind his actions.

That and a self interest that perversely ties him to the Democratic Party he's despised all his life, poor thing. He gets reelected to his highly coveted position because he verbalizes independence from all our Democratic "corruption" while voting positively and reassuringly Democratic, a winning formula Senator Sanders still depends on.

Yet I've watched Sanders long enough to believe he's a zealot who really believes what he has always said about Democrats, and himself. He's a current iteration of a type always with us. They always believe the liberal Democratic Party stands between America and a greatness lead by them, and so they must dream of ascendancy to power after massive Democratic failure. 2015 saw this one transform from a senatorial gadfly known for an I before his name to a national voice.

The strangest thing (and most tellingly irrational) to me is that these people never worry about what they'd do with the Republicans if they took over the left or (more to the point!) what the right would do with them. They never have had to find out, though. In every era, the sort who are wired to dissent instead of ally just know that first the mainstream group whose goals they share must be defeated, and so they...dissent.

Thus, there's never a surprise for me as Sanders constantly dishes these conflicting statements, as I see him forever pulled between his clashing real-life political needs to have a Democratic Party to align with, his emotional needs as a lifelong splinter in the Democratic Party's derriere, and his 2016 consolation prize of a splinter group to lead. Democratic losses never have empowered these groups, but they are always at least able to take satisfaction in losses as proof that they're right. And encouragement for the future, of course.

Dream on! "We are going to fix state offices and Congress." Yes. And election wins in 2018 will affect the 2020 census and thus help repair the disastrous 2010 redistricting. The only question there is how much better the Democratic Party will fare in future elections as a result of that, not that we will.

[marble falls]

200. "And election wins in 2018 will affect the 2020 census and thus help repair the disastrous ...

2010 redistricting." If this is the only thing that happens, it'll be huge. Its up to us not to waste a reprieve, we need to take it and make the most of it.

[Hortensis]

212. Yes. For sure. Of course this is the real world,

and thus the Republicans, right-wing-lead big business, and Russia will do their best to limit our gains. Our new kleptocrat classes certainly will fight.

It's going to be such a relief to have the all-important majority power in at least one chamber, though, and still possibly both. But even if Republicans do manage to hold a majority in the senate, if they want to get any bills through they will have to cooperate. And I suspect that should also be a relief to some of them; surely they won't all be full-bore traitorous authoritarian followers of Trump and McConnell et al.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

182. Work under the assumption he is correct

Take heart from articles like this:

Statesman: Texans smash early voting record powered by Democratic surge

But also take note of articles like this:

Marietta Daily Journal: Republicans spur high early vote turnout


...and this

NBC: Republicans outpacing Democrats in early voting in key states, NBC News finds


...and this

National Review: Those Early Voting Numbers Look Good for the GOP! Kind of. Sort of.

...and always, always, always question the motives of articles like this.....

Fox News: Early voting points to massive turnout, potential warning signs for GOP

Bernie may not be wrong, so vote like your life depends on it. Bernie is out stumping for Dems everywhere right now. He is not the enemy. The guys with "R" before their names are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

188. On one hand it can motivate folks to vote. On the proverbial other hand it can depress people.

The M$M is using them to induce the latter.

[saidsimplesimon]

226. DSB, this comment was brilliant

I was ready to respond with FU Downer Bernie. (I gave him a small donation when he was a candidate.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

236. TY. I'm still bruised from the Bernie wars.

All I will say is we need a new generation of leadership.

[MrsCoffee]

194. BETTER BELIEVE IT!

[MrsCoffee]

196. Unrec.

[Tarc]

204. Is Bernie a Democrat today?

My weather-vane is in the shop.

[NurseJackie]

255. Ha!

[Tarc]

263. Cheers!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

206. Nice of you to not post his entire comments, which are about GOTV

Yeah, yeah, I know they weren't in the article, but that article does some pretty serious framing of the issue to get a specific result. (Hint: that result is not to get us to understand Sanders' position.)

From the NYT:

“I happen not to believe that there’s going to be this great blue wave,” he said earlier on Sunday at an event in Fort Dodge, in north central Iowa. “I happen to believe that on election night, which party controls the U.S. House will come down to a very few seats.”

In an interview after the parade in Ames, as he finished a sandwich, he elaborated.

“I think that may happen,” he said, about Democrats taking control of Congress. “I’m doing everything I can to make it happen. But one thing I will absolutely guarantee you: It will not happen if people are sitting back and are cocky and talking about how sure they are of winning.”

“I’m just issuing a warning, and that warning is that overconfidence will result in disaster,” he added.

But, hey, don't go with what he completely says; just frame it in a way that makes your point for you.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

211. It's clear what Bernie is saying... everybody knows it true.

[G_j]

231. His GOTV speeches have been intense and

very compelling

[namahage]

270. The NYT and the Hill.TV interviews are different.

Why didn't he make the same points about GOTV in the Hill interview?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

219. Way to go to depress the vote Bernie!

I wish he had never run in 2016.

[NurseJackie]

252. Many people share your feelings.

[Blue_Tires]

220. Way to piss on the parade, Bern

[NurseJackie]

253. It serves no good purpose...

... for anyone to do such a thing. It makes no sense.

[revmclaren]

260. Its more like pissing into the Blue Wave

and then having all of his 'fans' claim that all of the water is because of him!



Only! 2018 - 2020.

[Me.]

280. Too Funny

[lanlady]

237. Senator Grouch is at it again

I sincerely hope he's proven wrong.

[NurseJackie]

254. Ha!

[gulliver]

244. "Entity" sheesh. Even our plainest spoken have no internal digestion organs.

[quaker bill]

250. It is not in the bank

until it is in the bank. Bernie is right, every single vote matters in every precinct, even if we win by millions. Ask Hillary, she should know that better than anyone. See it as the desperate struggle it should be seen as. If we are winning, there still is no reason to relax, it is just time to run up the score. Every vote matters, if we are going to blow them out, why not do it huge?

We are fighting for control on turf that Trump won. All the pundits say we will take the republican seats Hillary won this time, but control lies in 2016 Trump country.

[namahage]

283. Another example of Bernie's political sense.

If the Blue Wave happens to materialize, it will be because of his warnings, and if not, it will be in spite of them.

"It's heads I win and tails you lose. Whatever they do, they will have followers. Un sot trouve toujours un plus sot qui l'admire."

[still_one]

287. Well that inspires confidence