General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDear America: Meet Bernie Sanders. PROPERLY, THIS TIME
Share with Friends......
~snip~
This is an open letter to the American people.
In the race to decide the next President of your arguably great nation, there is one candidate who has been drawing the largest crowds of any candidate visiting the key primary state of Iowa (including the Republican primary candidates, who probably estimate about 1 percent of the American population at this point). A candidate who out-fundraised Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul in any of their first 24 hours as candidates. A candidate whose policies align with the majority of Americans on everything from income inequality to money's role in politics to the minimum wage to federally financed political campaigning to abortion to overturning Citizens United to global warming and government taking action to combat it to the affordability of a college degree to gun control to government surveillance to passing a law legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states. A candidate who was one of the thousands of Americans who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. in his historic March on Washington in 1963. A candidate who has served as a mayor (being one of the earliest proponents of a lot of the policies that are nowadays commonplace in municipal government), a congressman and a senator, with deep knowledge of the American political system and equally deep, authentic convictions that he has held onto for his entire political career.
There is also only one candidate who so far has been either ignored or ridiculed by the massive majority of the American media during his entire campaign. A candidate whose campaign kickoff had the most attendees of that of any candidate so far, and yet was mostly ignored by most media outlets, or relegated to a side-note about a general story on the race, while candidates like ex-Governor and current-who-are-you-supposed-to-be George Pataki got major coverage. A candidate whose disproportionately tiny actual coverage includes headlines such as "Bernie Sanders for President? Why Not?" and flattering subtitles like "Why Sanders draws the crowds, excites the base, polls relatively well -- and still won't make much of an impact in 2016." A candidate who straight-up got asked by Katie Couric whether he'd like to be Hillary Clinton's vice presidential candidate and who is constantly reminded that "success" would be pulling Clinton's campaign farther to the left on certain policies. I mean, come on. That candidate's name is Bernie Sanders, and he could, and should, be the 45th President of the United States of America.
Saying what I've just said shouldn't be a controversial thing. If anything, it's by all means a perfectly sound thing to say when writing about a political candidate. So, I will now address the groups of people that somehow remarkably make saying "this old white heterosexual American man whose platform is entirely in touch with most of mainstream American politics should be President" a weird, taboo thing to say. First off, the general news media. Apart from what I said above, there is really something genuinely worrying about the concept of a news media largely owned by millionaires (and in some cases billionaires) who employ millionaire anchors and writers shunning the one candidate in favor of major redistribution of wealth away from America's top earners and into the middle class. The media can make or break a candidate, and, unlike ever before, the current 2016 presidential race coverage seems determined to break Bernie Sanders, with some exceptions currently applying the ol' "oh would you look at that he's actually doing well maybe we should stop blatantly dismissing his campaign" approach to reporting. Looking at you, New York Times. This is not a matter of bias. It is a matter of math. Sanders is polling better among the Democratic primary electorate than any candidate in the Republican electorate. That is a fact. He is drawing larger crowds than any other candidate in Iowa. Also a fact. Hillary Clinton only beat him by 8 points in a recent Wisconsin Democratic Party straw poll. Fact. His positions are not far-left or fringe; by the mere definitions of those terms, they cannot be if they are accepted by a majority of the American people. Fact. So, why is the media ignoring and/or acting like a gang of grade school bullies about Bernie's campaign?
Don't make it about socialism either, now. FDR and Martin Luther King, Jr. both got called socialists in their day, so good luck arguing that it's a step in the wrong direction, Sanders just happens to use the label. A majority of Americans don't identify as libertarians, but the media is not treating Rand Paul like a fringe candidate. A majority of Americans don't identify as sympathizers of the Tea Party, but the media is not treating Ted Cruz like a fringe candidate. Also, one quick thing, he's a democratic socialist. There's a difference." target="_blank"> One word. An entire word that references a completely different set of policies, a different set of foreign examples. Granted, the U.S. has had a major issue with communism in the past century, and communists tends to associate themselves with socialism, and some people argue that it's difficult to get Americans to even understand the difference between the two. But it is no -- actually, no, wait, let me just say this next bit with the fancy bold font: It is not the media's job to decide what the American people can and cannot hear. That is dishonesty, that is lying. It is the media's job to keep the American people informed. That's what it's there for, and doing anything else is simply abusing the trust millions and millions of Americans have for the current news media system. Speaking of the American public, I'd like to speak directly with everyone who is hesitant to support Bernie Sanders. Statistically, reader, that's probably you. If you're scared of a vote for Bernie being a vote thrown away, firstly, we're only talking about primaries as of right now, losing the race doesn't put anybody in office or screw anybody over, it just means somebody else gets the Democratic candidacy. That's it. Vote for the candidate you believe in, period. If you're disillusioned with the voting process as a whole, stand up, get yourself together, take some time out of your day and go vote for Bernie in your state primary (you might want to find out when your state primary is, first). That sort of lazy, voting-won't-work attitude is exactly what those who rig the process want the American public to fall into so as to make pushing their horrible agendas easier.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/emil-mella/dear-america-please-get-your-bernie-sanders_b_7536276.html
DJ13
(23,671 posts)appalachiablue
(44,022 posts)Initech
(108,782 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)No candidate is ever inevitable and no candidate is ever doomed -- that is not how democracy works. A society that continually wishes to achieve political change in the most passive way possible is not a society that will ever achieve political change. A candidate is only inevitable or doomed if the voting public decides that to be the case...."
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It worked so well for Stevenson, McGovern, Mondale....
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Cracklin Charlie
(12,904 posts)It is better not to tell potential voters that they have their head misplaced.
I like Bernie. I also like Hillary. I think either could win the whole enchilada.
It just seems a bit early to be exploding my head everyday over all this minutiae.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)McGovern and Mondale ran against entrenched incumbents. One of them was a dirty trickster whose "plumbers" broke into the national headquarters of the Democratic Party a few months before the election, then a couple of weeks later he pulled an "October surprise" by announcing the imminent end of American involvement in the Vietnam War, thereby taking one of McGovern's main campaign issues away from him.
Mondale shot himself in the foot by promising to raise people's taxes. He was also tied to the "failed" presidency of Jimmy Carter.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Because he ran as a centrist.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)by, among other things, being totally amazed with supermarket scanners and thinking that $19 was a reasonable price for a loaf of bread. There was also that recession that hit toward the end of his term. Not to mention the "Read my lips! No new taxes!" thing where he ended up raising taxes after all. And he was also a pretty lousy campaigner. The only reason why he won in '88 was that his opponent was an even lousier campaigner.
Well, that, and the Willie Horton ads.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)sank himself in that grocery store. His cluelessness was difficult to quantify. He was also, as you point out, a horrible campaigner. He had the same common touch as Thurston Howell III.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Read his 1992 acceptance speech
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25958
Bush was clearly out of touch-- He had no idea about how the average person lived, as exemplified by his amazement at supermarket scanners, and thinking that $19 was a reasonable price for a loaf of bread. There was also a recession at the time which Bush did not acknowledge ("It's the economy, stupid!"
. Bush was also a lousy campaigner who was running against a charismatic and youthful opponent.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)McGovern was also sabotaged by bitter old guard bastards within the democratic party that were upset that the he managed to win the primary and preferred to throw it to Nixon over losing control of the apparatus.
Paka
(2,760 posts)I lived through all of that, and more. My first vote was '64. Not a happy one..
Neither the country nor the voters were ready for those good men, they chose the dark side instead. I started running away a lot after that; two Peace Corps stints in Africa and other extended overseas residencies.
Still I never lost my hope that the right person would come along at the right time. We thought we were there in 2008 and got a little let down on that one, but it's hard not to feel the difference in both the country and the voters now. We can learn a lot from the past, but let's not use it against ourselves. Let's take the lessons and more on and make it work this time.
Bernie is not a longshot at this point in history. He is the President the country needs and the voters, you know those real people that live in scattered places outside "The Beltway," once they hear him and the passion he brings recognize he is the real deal and has doable solutions.
GO BERNIE
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)I can't remember a time since then when I have been as enthusiastic about a presidential candidate as I am with Bernie.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)government to Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street? Frack that schit. I recognize that the billionaires and their hand picked candidates have unlimited resources, but some of us are going to fight anyway.
The billionaires are not going to solve our poverty, infrastructure, domestic spying, continuous warring, and gross inequality problems. We will have to fight for solutions. Sounds like you are not with us.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I have no idea for whom I will vote in the primary. I'd like to see some debates first.
I'd like to see Bernie Sanders do well. He's a great guy and I like him a lot.
"If you won't vote for me, you have your head up your ass" would certainly be a novel approach. I surely hope that Sen. Sanders is more clueful than some who purport to support him.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,707 posts)But people who use lines like that are not doing him a favor.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)They really are not doing him and his campaign any favors.....in fact I think it's contrary to his campaign methods.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)before they sold out to the corporate mafia and Wall St.
Bernie is a candidate of The party of FDR,Harry Truman,JFK and Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter
If you like Hillary you cant like her as well as Goldman Sachs.
Though to be fair, Carter deliberately chose to separate himself from the Humphrey/LBJ/FDR history of the party. Which is why I supported Mo Udall and then Jerry Brown in the primaries that year.
He's been a shining example of what an ex-president can and should be, but he was the first Dem to drink the Chicago School Kool-Aid of deregulation.
My reasons for disliking HRC are limited strictly to her chosen alliances, her hawkishness, and that she is joined at the hip to the MIC and the billionaire class.
Paka
(2,760 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and pals around with human sewage like Lloyd Blankfein - chief of the Vampire Squid Brigade - has any business being in the WH regardless of their gender. It is that simple to me. I would oppose any male Dem with the same kinds of associations and policies who might be running for president just as fervently.
Bernie is for the PEOPLE, not those who want to enslave the people.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)and doesn't do your preferred candidate any favors.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and then complaining that the electorate was too stupid to really understand him...
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Are they not an elit?...but Sanders is because he comes from Vermont?
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)If you want to support Sanders you are welcome to jump in with the rest of us amatuers and help out! I personally welcome anyone that wants to step up to the plate in this little corner of cyberspace.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)Go Bernie!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)Bernie supporters will have to do more than send $25 to his campaign and he knows that. It is up to us. He doesn't have donors paying writers to write glowing articles about him like the rest do. (Yes they do that, have you seen how little they make?)
Bernie has long odds because of a variety of factors, all unrelated to his policies which are common sense solutions to our worst problems. The biggest factor in my opinion is people want to back a winner. When our candidates strength is determined by how much campaign bribes they have taken in the most recent financial reporting period you know we have a totally jacked up election system rife with corruption. This is the root cause of most of our problems! I don't want to hear any of that SCOTUS John Roberts crap that there is no Quid Pro Quo, the Princeton University study that demonstrated that "It's the money stupid!" No other candidate is really talking about fixing our corrupt campaign finance system. I would like to get Hillary's honest answer to the question, "What do you have to do for all of that money?" We should show up at all campaign events with signs stating how much that candidate has raised to date and ask this question. Imagine hundreds of people with only those two signs, the dollar figure they raised and what do they have to do for the $$$$!
It is my hope that enough Americans hear Bernie's message and decide they have had enough of the same old corruption and influence peddling to break out of this rut we have been in. Bernie knows it will take nothing short of a peaceful revolution to make the macro changes we need to save our country and our environment. He knows that it will take tens of millions of Americans almost Occupy style, but with a lot more people. I for one will do everything I can to try to make it happen!
To all Hillary supporters, I hope you can honestly consider her answer to that question. I do respect you passion for her and I will admit we can do a lot worse than Hillary in this election, but we can do no better than elect Bernie!
Change has come
(2,372 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)McKim
(2,426 posts)I am supporting Senator Sanders because he has the best platform, best ideas and the best track record of following through on his convictions and promises. Obama? No follow through, words, words.
bonniebgood
(958 posts)'feel your pain' if you elect her. what's the problem?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)after pretending to give a shit about the common people.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)for a Magical Listening Tour!
msongs
(73,753 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,707 posts)Not!
I have a lot of respect for Sanders but I don't know why some of his supporters think flinging shit will win people over.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)you could ask the same of Hillary supporters.
Or maybe you prefer a more passive aggressive form of shit slinging.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,707 posts)"But they do it too."
Maybe you should follow Bernie's example. He seems like a class act.
And for what it's worth Hillary wasn't the topic.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)That is why they have ZERO change of winning...people don't forget.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,876 posts)Keep in mind the extremely short attention span of the average American.
Large numbers of people in this country deny facts on a regular basis. I reguarly come across people who are convinced that THE major problem with government spending is welfare and food stamps.
The (by now) old adage is increasingly true; "While it is true not all Republicans are stupid, most stupid people are Republicans"
And there are a shit ton of them.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)If they live long enough....

Young people don't believe the TV newz. They're coming out for Bernie BIG TIME on social media.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,876 posts)but I have yet to see any polling data that tells me the split in the electorate has changed very much. We are still a nation of 35 to 40% liberal, the same numbers conservative and the rest in the middle.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Also, a lot of these polls are rigged to favor Conservatives.
Gallup admitted they were throwing out responses from Democrats and calling the result "Likely Voters" because they claimed Democrats don't show up half the time to actually vote.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)young people don't do polls.
Rex
(65,616 posts)BUT I hope they keep it up! People can decide for themselves...and that SCARES the shit out of the PTB! Must NOT have people making decisions for themselves! Could be dangerous!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)the more the M$M will be loading its collective trousers. He fits NONE of their predigested formulas.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Yeah the M$M is shitting a pants load over this!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Bernie will NOT be taken off-message. Just ask Wolfie Blitzer.
Rex
(65,616 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)like a cricketer who had just been whacked smartly over the head with his own bat, was priceless. Pwned doesn't begin to describe it.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)so I'm recc'ing this for the linked article.
But imo your thread title is offensive, unfair, untrue and very unhelpful.
Segami
(14,923 posts)for CHANGING their header AFTER the fact.
I just checked with the article's link only to find their original header (as I originally posted) has been changed.
I am adjusting my header.....
Thanks for the heads up.......
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I thought it was your title.
I'm glad they changed it because it did suck as a title. I feel better now knowing you didn't write it!
Segami
(14,923 posts)Yes, I did change the header after realizing they had made adjustments also. They're still showing some portion of their original header within their url path.
Its all good now...
SaranchaIsWaiting
(247 posts)We are very lucky for him to go through this political gauntlet and harsh mess for us all.
I appreciate that very much, Mr. Sanders! Keep it real, I know you will. Don't let them get to you!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)It's a "conservative Democrat" (sic) thing, apparently.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)seem to wield a lot of power here although in the minority.
madokie
(51,076 posts)our next President btw.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)and rec!!!
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)diamondhead
(54 posts)I worry about the general election if Democrats actually nominate him. An old, north eastern Jew who calls himself a socialist is going to take the south and the midwest how, exactly?
GoneOffShore
(18,020 posts)And for helping to kick the thread.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Bernie is a whole lot of awesome!
George II
(67,782 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)many non-political people outside of Vermont know who he is.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Well, the rest of the piece was alright. But this is just stupidity coupled with a bit of arrogance.
First:
Well, maybe that's because MLK was a socialist by the end of his life?
Second:
This author has no clue what communism is any more than the Americans he thinks are too stupid to understand. The US had a major issue with communism? Wtf? When? And yeah, socialists associate with communists. Maybe that's because they have a lot in common--certainly more so with each other than with capitalism, which appears to be what the author is trying to get us to believe.
Summary: "socialism isn't bad, so don't be mad at Sanders, but it's okay because he isn't even a socialist and he's definitely not a dirty commie". Smh.