Politifact: Hillary Clinton wrong that no negative ads have hit Bernie Sanders - FALSE

[Triana]

Clinton has a point that compared with her, Sanders hasn’t really felt the burn of negative ad blitzes from Republican groups. But her claim that he hasn’t had "a single ad ever run against him" is an exaggeration.

Dem-on-Dem negative campaigning

Many of the attacks we found on Sanders in the Political TV Ad Archive actually come from other Democrats, including by Clinton supporters.

Generation Forward, a pro-Martin O’Malley super PAC, went after Sanders while O’Malley was still in the race. In an attack ad, the group highlighted Sanders’ and Clinton’s Saturday Night Live portrayals and less-than-serious moments on the campaign trail (i.e. dancing). It ended with O’Malley saying a presidency shouldn’t be about entertainment.

Another ad attacked Sanders for his record on guns: "Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill — background checks and waiting periods. ... Bernie Sanders is no progressive when it comes to guns." (We rated the claim about background checks Mostly True.)

The Sanders campaign referred us to web videos by Correct the Record, a super PAC hybrid known as a Carey committee that supports Clinton. The group’s YouTube channel includes at least 13 negative videos about Sanders.

. . .

We should also note 2016 is not the 74-year-old’s first time around the block. He has, after all, competed in political races since the 1970s.

Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs pointed to "blistering negative ads in his first Senate campaign." In 2006, Sanders’ Republican opponent Richard Tarrant spent millions on ads accusing Sanders of wanting to protect child molesters and voting against single-working mothers. They didn’t end up doing much for Tarrant, who lost to Sanders by 33 percentage points.

. . .

We rate her claim False.

LINK: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-wrong-negative-ads-bernie-sanders/

[Duckhunter935]

1. Knew she was lying again

[oasis]

2. False statement on the part of Politifact. Hillary said "I don't think

a single ad was ever run."

They conveniently left out "I don't think".

[Kall]

9. ...

Yeah, you run with that.

[oasis]

10. Suddenly important details don't matter. Okay. As long as

I no longer read another 1,000 OPs about a chair not actually being thrown.

[jeff47]

12. Time to parse the definition of "is" again. (nt)

[oasis]

14. Good. From now on when YOU say "I think" we'll assume you're

stating a fact. See how that works?

[jeff47]

17. "How it works" is people are not literalists.

Slapping "I think" in front of an obviously wrong statement does not suddenly make the rest of the statement disappear. The intended message gets across just fine, even with the weasel words in front of it.

For Clinton to actually think Sanders has never faced a negative ad is utterly absurd, since he has an extremely long political history. The claim would be that all of the dozens of opposing campaigns he faced were utterly and truly incompetent. Which is about as likely as the sun being purple tomorrow.

Therefore, she either intended everyone to skip over "I think", or she is utterly disconnected from the realities of modern politics. Which would you like to be true?

[oasis]

18. It obviously wasn't ads during "Extremely long political history" Hillary

was referring to. It was in reference to his presidential run. But then, you knew that.

[Henhouse]

3. Bernie wanted to protect child molester's...Wow, that's news...!

Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs pointed to "blistering negative ads in his first Senate campaign." In 2006, Sanders’ Republican opponent Richard Tarrant spent millions on ads accusing Sanders of wanting to protect child molesters and voting against single-working mothers. They didn’t end up doing much for Tarrant, who lost to Sanders by 33 percentage points.

[Henhouse]

4. Well..lets hope the MSM digs up and replays all these ads as proof.....n/t

[NorthCarolina]

5. MSNBC and CNN have been pretty much all negative, re Bernie, all the time.

The people know the true score. They see the corruption in our election system when the establishment has it's back against the wall. They see the media pundits all parroting the same anti-Bernie clap-trap...but, but, but...he's a Socialist for chrissake. Polling problems, rampant voter registration "snafus", miracle coin tosses, and the list goes on.

One thing nobody can deny, the curtain has been pulled and the emperor really has no clothes.

[AgingAmerican]

6. Hmmmmm

[MattP]

7. O'malley hasn't been in the race for months

[MattP]

8. The ad was from june 25, 2015 and it was online

A year ago a online ad

[moriah]

11. Comparing O'Malley's 10k of negative ads and a few web videos to...

... the millions spent against Hillary by PACs is still silly.

[pmorlan1]

13. That would be silly but that wasn't the issue

It wasn't an issue about comparing the number of negative ads run against Clinton vs the number of negative ads run against Sanders. It was showing that there have been negative ads run against Sanders.

[moriah]

15. I agree. "Practically none", or "Nothing likw what's been run against me", though...

... would probably not rate false.

[pmorlan1]

16. Yup

[Uncle Joe]

19. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Triana.

[JSup]

20. Politifact is a Hillary shill...

...how can you trust them with this?