One thing is for sure, Trump is afraid of Bernie, not so much of Hillary.

[Uncle Joe]

Trump wants to keep Hillary's name front and center in the corporate media as just exhibited on CNN even over the most inane issues, Hillary can say that Trump is lying and Trump will suffer no repercussions because of Hillary's long history of trust issues.

They cancel each other out, Trump saw thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey after 9/11, etc. etc. Hillary experienced sniper fire in Bosnia etc. etc.

On the other hand Bernie can call Trump a "Pathological Liar" and from Trump all you hear are crickets, he knows better than to take Bernie on regarding issues of integrity for Bernie would kick his ass.

[Dem2]

1. I think it's pretty obvious that Hillary wants Trump

To be the candidate she faces. That was my take away from her calling him out. His response is irrelevant obviously.

[Uncle Joe]

4. By Trump's response he has the same motivation, that's why he called her out on a bathroom break,

that's why CNN spent 20 minutes with a large video of Trump bloviating,

Trump wants Hillary as his opponent in the general election so he has no problem attacking her because it keeps her name and front and center for all the people that hate or dislike Trump or Hillary.

Trump is afraid to respond to Bernie's call that Trump is a "pathological liar" he doesn't want the corporate media to have a reason to raise Bernie's profile because Trump is afraid to face him.

[Dem2]

12. I don't really agree with that logic

I can't imagine Trump not making fun of Bernie if he were to win the first couple of primaries.

[Uncle Joe]

29. If Bernie starts winning the primaries, Trump will have little choice but he's not going to do

anything to raise Bernie's profile in the meantime, even when Bernie calls Trump a "pathological liar."

[tazkcmo]

38. I agree

They play for the same team. The Oligarchy is in full throat right now and Sanders is their biggest fear so Trump is following orders by not attacking or even saying "Sanders".

I also agree that at some point trump will have but only after given permission. The problem is, there aren't any scandals or sudden evolution or just plain lies to use with Sanders. All he'll have is "Come on, he's a Commie! And look at his hair! Besides, he's a Jew so his loyalties are with Israel, not the US! I'm just sayin.".

[JaneyVee]

15. Trump is already down by 12 to her.

By the end of the first debate she will have a 40 point lead.

[pangaia]

22. Bernie will have a 55 point lead.

[JaneyVee]

25. Bernie can't even beat Hillary in a debate.

[Uncle Joe]

31. That's totally subjective and the on line polls along with the focus groups in the first debate

had Bernie overwhelmingly winning.

The corporate media; want a Trump/Hillary match because they win either way.

[redstateblues]

44. Online polls? Like Hannitys polls

[Uncle Joe]

49. Does Hannity run all of these polls?

Who won the third Democratic debate? Hundreds of thousands of people voted online, and an overwhelming majority declared Bernie Sanders the top-performer. Of the 60,000+ people who voted in Time's poll, 84% thought Bernie Sanders won.



In Slate's poll, 86% declared Bernie Sanders the winner.



Even 91% of Fox's conservative viewers thought Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton.



According to the Political People Blog, Bernie Sanders won in a landslide.



In the Wall Street Journal's poll, Bernie took home the gold and 49% of the online vote, while Clinton and O'Malley both failed to break 30 percent.




In the Washington Times poll, Bernie dominated with 86% of all votes.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/bernie-sanders-sweeps-onl_b_8847040.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251932967

[redstateblues]

52. Clickety click. LOL

I was a multi clicker when Kerry ran. SEC Kerry ALWAYS won the online polls. I don't do that anymore. It's a waste of time.

[Uncle Joe]

53. Clickety, clickety clickety. LOL

Bernie Sanders passes Obama fundraising mark

Bernie Sanders has gotten more individual donations than any other presidential candidate ever through the campaign's off-year — topping President Barack Obama's mark of 2,209,636 donations through Dec. 31, 2011 — his team announced following Saturday night's Democratic debate.

Sanders passed Obama's re-election total during the debate, his communications director Michael Briggs said.

The news comes just one day after the campaign raised over $1 million amid a major blowup over its role in accessing Hillary Clinton's campaign data, and just two days after the campaign said it brought in $3 million at the beginning of the week. While it has trailed Clinton's effort in fundraising overall, it has shown major muscle in the online and small-dollar fundraising department.
Sanders' average donation during the debate was under $25, said Briggs.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/sanders-campaign-passes-obama-fundraising-mark-217008#ixzz3usfsqCRy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251928349

Clicketies don't just equal votes, the people are putting their money where their mouths are.

[BlueCaliDem]

57. Lots of Republicans donated to Nader's campaigns in 2000 and 2004. Republican strategists are

supporting Sanders' campaign, tweeting for him, even donating and calling for other Republicans to donate to his campaign. There's a reason why. Maybe you should ask yourself what that reason is. Unlike most people on this board, these Republican strategists do political strategy for a living, and they know which candidate they want to win in the Democratic primary - and it ain't Hillary Clinton.

[Uncle Joe]

60. Nader ran outside the Democratic Party, his poll numbers never approached Bernie's and yet

the corporate media gave Ralph much more coverage, why is that?

Bernie is running within the Democratic Party and that's a major difference, if Bernie were to lose in the primary, his campaign dollars would most likely go to the DNC or perhaps Hillary's campaign, that's seems like a mighty big gamble for Republicans to put their dollars on a such perceived long shot at winning the primaries.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie's message of income disparity, too many intricate ties between Wall Street and D.C. and unlimited dollars corrupting our government has persuaded some Republicans, not to mention Independents to back him.

We've always asked ourselves over and over why do Republicans vote against their own best interests? Bernie's crystal clear message addresses that like no other candidate has in recent memory.

[Ed Suspicious]

75. You are on point, Uncle Joe. Keep it up.

[Uncle Joe]

115. Thank you, Ed Suspicious.

Peace to you.

[Ed Suspicious]

73. Oh it's fucking hilarious, isn't it? You don't find it a little odd that EVERY online poll

contradicts your screened polling? Hillary supporters don't have click buttons on your mice?

[RoccoR5955]

33. That is a matter of opinion. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

45. P.S. Did you notice that Trump isn't calling on Bernie to apologize for calling him

a "pathological liar"?

[sufrommich]

2. "On the other hand Bernie can call Trump a "Pathological Liar" and from Trump all

you hear are crickets". I don't think that means what you think it means.

[MeNMyVolt]

3. +1

[Uncle Joe]

5. What do you think it means if I'm incorrect? Trump has no answer to it

and he damn sure doesn't want to take Bernie on.

[sufrommich]

7. I think it means Trump doesn't think he'll be running

against Bernie.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Trump only insures that by not mentioning Bernie's name it's the name that shall not be spoken

even if Bernie attacks Trump with an accusation that in the olden days would've resulted in a duel.

[sufrommich]

19. So you're saying that Trump,the guy who bashed the

President of the United States for the last eight years is terrified of Bernie Sanders? I don't think so.

[Uncle Joe]

21. That's irrelevant, Trump never had to worry about running against President Obama n/t

[dinkytron]

47. Bernie has conviction.

[Uncle Joe]

50. He certainly does, dinkytron that scares the poop out of Trump.

[oasis]

17. Trump needs to consult DU's expert analysts before it's too late.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. LOL ...

I know ... he'd be lost without the stellar analysis.

[hobbit709]

9. then tell us what all it means Mr. Natural?

[MineralMan]

6. Then he's more of a fool than he

appears to be.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. You are mistaking dismissiveness for fear ...

Trump isn't mentioning Bernie because he considers him a,non-factor.

[Thinkingabout]

11. Agreed.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Trump; wants Bernie to be a non-factor because he knows his major trust issues become moot

if he faces off against Hillary.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. Yeah. Okay. eom

[grossproffit]

26. Yep. You'd think that would be obvious.

[Lil Missy]

105. That's right. Trump is not afraid of Sanders. All indications are that HRC will be the nominee. And,

Trump has no reason to "fear" Bernie. oh puhleez! It's the same faulty logic around here that says Sanders is ahead when is clearly not, or that he is the only one who could win against a Republican, when all indications are otherwise.

[NCTraveler]

10. This is the fight Clinton wants.

It's all around perfect for her.

[Uncle Joe]

20. How is that? n/t

[tazkcmo]

23. She'll lose.

The only support HRC has is registered Democrats over 50 with land lines. No Republicans will vote for her. in fact, they'll be motivated to vote against her. Increased Republican turn out.

90% of Independents won't vote for her. On the Democratic side, Millenials will stay home or write in Sanders because politicians of Clinton's type do not appeal to them. Even if every registered Democrat voted for her, which they won't, that makes up only 30% of registered voters.

No thanks.

[NCTraveler]

30. I feel more confident going into the Ge...

With Clinton. Not my reason for supporting her but it does play a role.

[redstateblues]

46. Nope. There are lots of Rs who won't vote for Trump

[tazkcmo]

51. I'll bet ya

I'll bet ya shiny new nickel that Republicans would vote for Osama bin Ladin over HRC in droves and as bad as trump is, he's small potatoes in comparison. There has been millions of voting age Republican millenials that were weaned on Hillary hatred, spoon fed Clinton scandals and watched Faux Snooze their entire lives. It'll be a family values thing, they'll make a day of it.

[redstateblues]

54. They won't be voting for a Socialist

Guaranteed. Honeymoon in Moscow? Not a good selling point in middle America

[Uncle Joe]

55. The online polls, record breaking number of contributions and Trump's fear of attacking Bernie

tell a different story.

[grossproffit]

65. Trump isn't attacking Bernie because he's not polling as well as Clinton.

If he were, he'd be attacking him.

[Uncle Joe]

68. Trump is attacking Hillary because he has no fear of her, but he's afraid to raise

Bernie's profile because Trump knows that Bernie is the greater threat should he make it to the general election.

[grossproffit]

77. You don't waste your time going after someone who isn't winning.

That's how politics work.

[Uncle Joe]

78. If Trump viewed Hillary as the greater threat, why not go after Bernie and

demand an apology for calling him a pathological liar, as Bernie having his profile raised could damage Hillary?

Trump knows that ultimately Bernie is the greater threat.

[grossproffit]

80. That's not how it works. Candidates don't waste money going after those who aren't a threat.

[Uncle Joe]

81. Trump has unlimited free air, the corporate media keeps him front and center night and day,

demanding an apology wouldn't cost him anything.

[grossproffit]

85. That would bring attention to a candidate that he sees as insignificant.

If Bernie's poll numbers go up, then you'd see Trump going after him.

[Uncle Joe]

90. Trump is afraid of Bernie's poll numbers rising, that's why he doesn't bring attention.

When Bernie's numbers do go up or should he start winning primaries, then Trump will go after him because he doesn't have any choice.

But in the meantime Trump doesn't want that to happen because he knows that ultimately Bernie is a greater political threat.

[840high]

97. Trump respects Bernie.

[sabrina 1]

102. He does and he's already said he wants Hillary to win the primary because 'she will be easier

to beat'.

[Divernan]

93. "Honeymoon"?Diplomatic trip w/10 Burlington officials!

And it was NOT to Moscow, but to Burlington's small Russian sister city - part of President Eisenhower's Sister Cities International program. Yaroslavl is 160 miles north of Moscow. And Jane Sanders was not some sort of tagalong spouse. She'd been a city official in Burlington for years by that time.

(You really need to start thinking for yourself and that involves doing some of your own research. It's really VERY easy. All you have to do is google Sanders and Russian honeymoon to come up with the following facts! Please, do yourself a favor and stop mindlessly repeating the weekly meme from the Clinton camp.)

In 1956, President Eisenhower launched the program that a decade later would be called Sister Cities International, a program still in existence today. The idea was to promote peace and understanding through connections between cities in the United States and, at first, Western Europe. The program soon spread. In 1973, Seattle became a sister city of Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, then under Soviet rule. Other U.S.-Soviet sister cities soon followed despite the tensions of the Cold War.

In 1988, Burlington sistered with Yaroslavl, a city 160 miles north of Moscow. That was the same year Sanders married his second wife, Jane. In fact, the day after they married, they headed out to Yaroslavl. So, one could call it a honeymoon, and the pair have both done so, but jokingly or sarcastically. The reason for that is that they didn't go alone. There were 10 other people from Burlington who went with them. It was a trip dotted with diplomacy, official meetings and numerous interviews. Not most people's idea of a honeymoon getaway.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/14/1432075/-Cooper-red-baited-Bernie-Sanders-with-dumb-Soviet-honeymoon-claim?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29

In a 2007 interview, Jane Sanders also recalled the peculiar timing: "The day after we got married, we marched in a Memorial Day parade, and then we took off in a plane to start the sister city project with Yaroslavl with 10 other people on my honeymoon."[...]

Will made it sound as if Sanders was visiting to condone Soviet torture practices, but the Burlington trip was more of a dialogue-building exchange program. The Vermont weekly newspaper Seven Days reported in 2009 that the sister-city relationship "helped local residents who sought to ease tensions between the United States and Soviet Union by initiating citizen-to-citizen exchanges with a Russian city." [...]

Participation in the Burlington-Yaroslavl program has waned over the years, though it was viewed as a "glamorous endeavor" by many in Burlington at the time, program leader Howard Seaver said in 2009.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/12/george-will/george-will-reminds-readers-about-bernie-sanders-u/

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

114. Think the Rs will vote for Clinton?

I think they'll vote Republican, as they normally do.

And they will vote. I think Republicans go to the polls like its Christmas Mass. No matter the weather, or how they feel about the candidates or issues, they vote. They're old school.

[Adrahil]

118. I think some of them won;t vote.

I work with a lot of Republicans, and several have already told me that cannot support such a man.

[Metric System]

48. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[leftofcool]

103. Can I borrow your crystal ball?

[Hiraeth]

13. Trump ignores Bernie hoping Bernie will go away ... quietly.

One thing for sure if Trump wins, Hillary wins and if, Hillary wins Trump wins. They are two sides of the same card.

Bernie is another card altogether.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Precisely, such a race would have all the integrity of professional wrestling, and the paying fans

or in this case voters would be the suckers, Corporate America wins regardless.

[tazkcmo]

27. Nice comparison.

Who would be the twin sisters that always sat ring side be? Trump is Rick Flair like but Flair was a "champion" while trump hasn't won anything.

[yeoman6987]

36. Won anything? Billionaire even after inheritance he built a ton

Heck some get huge inheritances and it's gone in 18 months. I just think it's weird to say trump hasn't won anything.

[BeanMusical]

88. You seem to admire him.

[yeoman6987]

99. No. But I won't lie about him or anyone. I think it is tacky and ignorant.

Not to worry Hillary has my vote twice in 2016.

[Kingofalldems]

125. +1000

Big time.

[Cassiopeia]

32. They're good friends.

Even if he loses to Hillary, he'll still win.

With Bernie, not so much. Tax breaks Trump loves will start to disappear.

[Uncle Joe]

34. Exactly and the corporate media are deathly afraid of having Citizens United overturned

turning down if not off their vast spigot of unregulated campaign commercial dollars coming from all corners of the planet.

[libdem4life]

128. That's a specific angle I hadn't thought of.

[yeoman6987]

37. If congress goes along with Bernie.

Congresses haven't been kind to any president's completely. The list the come in with results in about two or three major things and that is if they are there 8 years.

[Empowerer]

39. Only if we get a Democratic House and Senate

[RoccoR5955]

35. Nobody in the clown car want to see Bernie.

They would actually have to talk about issues that concern regular folks.
Yeah, there's the socialist, communist crap, but it's just that crap, and a lot of folks know that. If young folks come out to vote (they came out to vote for Obama) they will not have had the paranoia of the USSR in their lifetimes. And there are more millenials now than there are baby boomers.
tRump is a nit. His hate will not win an election. People get tired of that crap, and want to hear what someone is REALLY going to do for them.
Bernie shall win the primaries, and after he's done there, he shall win in a landslide like never before seen.

[Uncle Joe]

40. That's precisely what Trump; is most afraid of and he knows Bernie's message can erode

his followers by bringing them back from the "dark side."

Then Sanders turned to Donald Trump and his supporters, arguing that Trump has taken the American middle class' economic anxieties and said the solution is scapegoating Mexicans and Muslims. Sanders then made a plea that perhaps the people who go to Trump rallies should support him instead. Sanders, who has made the fight against income inequality the central message of his campaign, said Trump "thinks the low minimum wage is a good idea," and that low wages are a good idea in general. You can watch below. Peter Weber

http://theweek.com/speedreads/595372/bernie-sanders-reaches-donald-trump-supporters-thinks-low-minimum-wage-good-idea

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251928454

[yeoman6987]

41. Ok realism time.

You do know never before seen means that Bernie needs to win 49 states and then win DC and Minnesota to have your historical win you state. That was 1984. You think Bernie is going to get more states then Reagan?

[RoccoR5955]

42. Absofreakinlutely! n/t

[yeoman6987]

43. Wow! That would be incredible. I wish him luck!

[Orrex]

56. You can tell how afraid they are by the fact that they've completely ignored him

I'm repeatedly amazed at how the Sanders camp invokes "fear" as the reason behind all things perceived to be anti-Bernie.

First Clinton was "afraid" of him, and that's why she held off on debating.

Then the DNC was "afraid" of him, and that's why they "marginalized" him. (DWS is indeed an asshole but that's a separate matter.)

Then Clinton supporters on DU were "afraid" of Bernie for some reason or another.

Then DU Admin was "afraid" of Sanders, and that's the real reason why they PPR'ed people who violated the TOS.

Then the GOP in general was "afraid" of Sanders, because of reasons.

Now Trump is "afraid" of Sanders because pundits say Clinton has "trust issues."

And on and on. It's amazing how often his progressive supporters play the fear card. At some point, one has to wonder what's behind it.


I now expect to be told that I don't "get it," or that I'm in denial, or that I want to stifle discussion, or that I'm a Third-wayer, or any of a dozen other pre-fab insults intended to convince me that I'm afraid, or whatever.

When one's only tool is a hammer...

[Uncle Joe]

58. The corporate media keeps fear front and center, it's the meme of the day, but it's all about

Mexicans, Muslims or terrorists.

Citizens United, record breaking income disparity and climate change are real and growing threats all but ignored by the corporate media, why is that?

Do you believe the corporate media has a dog in this hunt?

[Orrex]

59. That's a very different question

The claim is that Trump or Clinton or DU Admin or the GOP or Clinton's supporters on DU are afraid of Sanders. I find that claim laughable and entirely lacking in supporting evidence.

The claim that the media plays to (and upon) our fears is hardly new and hardly controversial, but it's really not relevant to claims that people "fear" Sanders. In fact, the "fear" claimed by Sanders' supporters is rather similar to the fear reported by the media--ginned up out of nothing in order to capture (or distract) our attention.

[Uncle Joe]

62. Why hasn't Trump demanded that Bernie apologize for calling him a pathological liar?

Why were the greatly limited number of debates scheduled for when they most likely would not be viewed?

Why did Schultz break her own written notice and ten day waiting period clauses of her contract and arbitrarily cripple Bernie's campaign?

Perhaps the questions regarding corporate media fear mongering aren't new or oddly enough controversial but how can that not be related to modern day politics?

Do you honestly believe that the mega-corporations, corporate media and 1% aren't afraid of Bernie's message, and do they have power to pull strings, cover a candidate 24/7 keeping their name front and center or blacking them out, no matter the historical ramifications of said candidate's campaign?

[Orrex]

64. Because Trump sees Sanders as insignificant.

Trump is an shithead full of bluster, but if I can make one claim about him with confidence, it's that he has given no sign that he's afraid of Sanders.

Why did Schultz break her own written notice and ten day waiting period clauses of her contract and arbitrarily cripple Bernie's campaign?

Most likely because she prefers one candidate over another, for any of a great many reasons. She might even believe that she was acting out of the party's best interest, to favor the stronger candidate for the general election. Short of wishful thinking, there is no basis for concluding that she acted out of "fear." Also, she's an asshole, as I noted already.

Perhaps the questions regarding corporate media fear mongering aren't new or oddly enough controversial but how can that not be related to modern day politics?

You are certainly welcome to do so, but it is intellectually dishonest to conflate the media's fear-based strategy and a perceived fear that all of Sanders' opponents are "afraid" of him.

Do you honestly believe that the mega-corporations, corporate media and 1% aren't afraid of Bernie's message,

I do not believe that they are "afraid of" his message, and beyond the assertions of Sanders' supporters, I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

and do they have power to pull strings, cover a candidate 24/7 keeping their name front and center or blacking them out, no matter the historical ramifications of said candidate's campaign?

Of course they do, and that's frankly a silly question. And the media could also be "blacking him out" because they don't identify him as the viable "horse race" candidate to generate ratings and revenue in the general election. That seems much more likely to me, and honestly it's consistent with their behavior over the past few elections.

If you would claim that the media is driven by fear, then you need to support this claim; to date it's simply been asserted.

[Uncle Joe]

67. If Trumps sees Sanders as "insignificant," he would work to raise his profile

so as to damage Hillary; "the perceived greater threat."

Nothing about Schultz's actions could be perceived as acting in the party's best interests considering Bernie's popularity, record breaking crowds and record breaking number of contributions. Fear trumps reason, reason trumps faith and faith trumps fear, Schultz was operating from an illogical fear mode, just before the debate and especially after Bernie's two major endorsements.

The corporate media's fear mode is directly tied to keeping the status quo in power, regime change and war, their conglomerate owners also have dog in this hunt.

Logic dictates that losing money whether by the overturning of Citizens United, Wall Street taxes or higher tax rates against the top earners must affect the decision making of the ownership, upper management and star pundits.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Upton Sinclair

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21810-it-is-difficult-to-get-a-man-to-understand-something

If as you acknowledge the corporate media and 1% have the power to pull strings and black candidates out especially considering said candidate's record breaking crowds and record breaking number contributions, whether he/she is viable or not is irrelevant, their journalistic duty should be to enlighten the nation, self-serving fear is the only logical explanation for their behavior.

Even the second and third tier Republicans have received more coverage than Bernie, I can't remember when Jeb Bush was in double digits, is he viable?

[Orrex]

82. At this point you've resorted to making stuff up

If Trumps sees Sanders as "insignificant," he would work to raise his profile so as to damage Hillary; "the perceived greater threat."

Did you actually read that before you posted it? How in the world might that work, even in theory? You're arguing that unless Trump helps Sanders, then he must be afraid of Sanders. That's simply ridiculous. If you're facing two opponents, one of them so weak as to be unable to affect you, then you ignore that opponent and focus on the stronger.

Nothing about Schultz's actions could be perceived as acting in the party's best interests considering Bernie's popularity,

Nonsense. If she doesn't believe that Sanders would prevail in the general election, then it follows that she would work to reduce his chance of landing on the ballot. And, once again, she's an asshole.

record breaking crowds and record breaking number of contributions.

Yes, I've read the propaganda. That's an argument for why you think your preferred candidate would win the general election. It is not an argument supporting the claim that his opponents "fear" him.

Fear trumps reason, reason trumps faith and faith trumps fear, Schultz was operating from an illogical fear mode, just before the debate and especially after Bernie's two major endorsements.

You simply can't be that naive. You have decided that DWS is acting out of fear, so you ignore any suggestion to the contrary. That's intellectually dishonest and it doesn't serve your preferred candidate.

The corporate media's fear mode is directly tied to keeping the status quo in power, regime change and war, their conglomerate owners also have dog in this hunt.

No shit. Nor have I asserted otherwise. But that has nothing to do with the claim by Sanders' supporters that his opponents "fear" him.

Logic dictates that losing money whether by the overturning of Citizens United, Wall Street taxes or higher tax rates against the top earners must affect the decision making of the ownership, upper management and star pundits.

Logic also dictates that they have no reason to fear Sanders if they don't perceive him as a threat. Your entire assumption--that his opponents are afraid of him--assumes outright that he's a viable contender for the general election, and that's far from certain. Hell, it's not even especially likely.

By all of this "they're afraid of Sanders" nonsense is a preemptive defense against his eventual defeat. If he doesn't win the primary, then his supporters will immediately claim that he lost because of some dishonest trickery driven by fear of him. This is not some idle prediction I'm making; it's true already because his supporters are already claiming it.

If as you acknowledge the corporate media and 1% have the power to pull strings and black candidates out especially considering said candidate's record breaking crowds and record breaking number contributions, whether he/she is viable or not is irrelevant, their journalistic duty should be to enlighten the nation,

That's lovely. Let me know when we live in that world or have ever lived in that world. You can invoke the "record breaking crowds and record breaking number contributions" all you want, but they don't support the claim that Sanders' supporters fear him.

self-serving fear is the only logical explanation for their behavior.

That is simply false. It is certainly not the only logical explanation; it's not even the most likely explanation. Raw pragmatism--the need for short-term monetary gratification in terms of page-views and the general election horse race--is at least as likely an explanation, though you choose to ignore it because it doesn't favor your assumption.

Clinton is a media lightning rod in a way that Sanders is not. Jeb Bush is a media lightning rod in a way that Sanders is not. You may not like it, and you may once again wave the "record breaking numbers" flag, but it doesn't matter.

Speaking with adults in my workplace this week, the primaries came up as a matter of casual discussion. The average person in the group could name four Republicans in the race outside of Trump, while the consensus about the Democratic race was that "It's Hillary, right? Isn't another guy running?"


You have provided no argument to support your claim that Sanders' opponents are afraid of him. Instead, you ignore possibilities that don't favor your assumption. I weary of your bogus conflations of fear, your tortured misuse of logic, and your whole-cloth reimagining of reality. I'm done here.


I do not fear Sanders or his supporters, and I will happily vote for Sanders if he miraculously lands on the ballot. However, that seems no more likely now than it did five months ago, and you've done nothing to convince me.

[Uncle Joe]

89. If Trump were to attack Bernie it would strengthen him and Trump knows it.

One thing we do agree on, Schultz is an asshole but she's not totally stupid if she were operating from a reason or faith mode, there is no doubt that unfairly crippling Bernie's campaign would infuriate his followers so how could this not hurt the Democratic Party in general and Hillary should she prevail in the primaries? Supporting Hillary is one thing but totally pissing off Bernie's supporters as a draconian retaliation could only occur from a fear mode. Bernie garnered two major endorsements just days prior to this incident.

Record breaking crowds and numbers of contributions aren't propaganda, that's fact.

If you agree with my assertions as to the corporate media's primary motivation then logic dictates they would be afraid of a Bernie Presidency for he most threatens their ample pocketbooks.

If the corporate media didn't fear Bernie then why would they ignore his message and black out coverage of him, they're just trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And it's not just Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz and Carson have gotten more coverage than Bernie.

Raw pragmatism dictates that a well informed society is most able to make wise decisions both in politics and policy, that's pragmatic.

You provided an argument to support my claim, the people in your workplace couldn't identify Bernie because the corporate media have tried their best to black out coverage of him and his message out.

Bernie Sanders Wins Endorsement of Communications Union

By MELANIE TROTTMAN
Updated Dec. 17, 2015 2:23 p.m. ET
54 COMMENTS
WASHINGTON—The Communications Workers of America endorsed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders for president Thursday, giving a shot in the arm to his campaign against Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton has secured the bulk of organized labor’s support.

Mr. Sanders on Thursday also won the backing of Democracy for America, a progressive group that led an unsuccessful effort to draft Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren into the presidential race. In addition, the Sanders campaign said it crossed a key fundraising threshold.

The CWA’s endorsement is the third and biggest Mr. Sanders has received from a national labor union, providing him thousands more grass-roots activists who can turn out voters at election time. With 700,000 members in telecommunications, media, and airlines, the CWA’s size far outstrips that of the nursing and postal unions that endorsed Mr. Sanders in recent months.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-wins-endorsement-of-communications-union-1450370382

All this just days before the asshole Schultz tried to kill Bernie's campaign.

[Orrex]

92. You have no business telling anyone what "logic dictates"

You assume your conclusion, and you ignore any argument contrary to that conclusion. You shun logic entirely except when you think you can frame it in a way that supports your candidate.

If Trump were to attack Bernie it would strengthen him and Trump knows it.

Seriously? What world do you live in where that's true or makes sense?

Record breaking crowds and numbers of contributions aren't propaganda, that's fact.

Here's why it's propaganda: the record breaking "numbers of contributions" is less significant, in real terms, than the aggregate dollar amount of contributions, and by repeatedly citing the record breaking "numbers of contributions," you hope that people will overlook this fact. It's lovely that he has so many contributions, and if this were the 2008 campaign at the tail end of eight years of a hated presidency and during a profound and long-term recession, then that might be enough, assuming that Sanders also has the support network to overcome Clinton and the GOP candidate. But this is not 2008, Sanders is not campaigning in the wake of the Bush nightmare, and he doesn't have Obama's network. Unless you account for all of that, then you are propagandizing, even if the claim itself is literally true.

And it's not just Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz and Carson have gotten more coverage than Bernie.

Irrelevant. Carson was running in close competition with Trump for several weeks, and he kept spouting such crazy nonsense that the media loved to put him on the air. Cruz is a serious contender for the ballot, so it makes sense that he be given air time. Bush is a legacy candidate, so he gets an automatic in. Rubio has been an up-and-comer for several years, and he's also perceived as offering the GOP an advantage among Hispanic voters.

In terms of click-bait media appeal, Sanders does not compare to any of those candidates. I'm sorry, but that's the truth.

You provided an argument to support my claim, the people in your workplace couldn't identify Bernie because the corporate media have tried their best to black out coverage of him and his message out.

That's not an argument in support of your claim, because your claim is that the media is afraid of Sanders, and I have pointed out repeatedly why that claim is nonsense.

Again and again--even on DU's front page this evening--Sanders supporters play the fear card, as if they truly have nothing else to offer. That's sad, and it suggests how they feel about their candidate's viability. As I noted before, it also serves as a preemptive strategy to rationalize his eventual defeat.


I'm done with you here. You're posting madness and claiming that it's logic, and it's a waste of my time to respond to nonsense with rational argument.

[Uncle Joe]

94. That's the difference between us Orrex, I'm operating from a level of reason

you're operating from a level of emotion and insult.

The record breaking number of contributions with an average of only 25-30 dollars a pop also have a larger upside ceiling than Hillary's donors in which many cases have maxed out. The fact that Bernie has received this record number of donations exceeding Obama's after a friendly Presidency has ended versus that of a catastrophic George W. Bush term makes it all the more impressive.

Your argument regarding the corporate media's fetish promoting nonsense is just another condemnation of that institution.

Jeb Bush isn't above 7% how long can a legacy last? The last time I checked Trump was running away at 41% and leaving the field behind.

As for click bait, Bernie would be the first Jewish President, and an avowed democratic socialist, surely that's newsworthy.

You have given me no logical reason as to why the corporate media; should be blacking out coverage of Bernie Sanders and his message other than you might believe that the corporate media should have the power to create self-fulfilling prophecies for the American People, ie: Bernie can't win so the corporate media shouldn't cover him despite the fact that he's in second place in the Democratic Primary race and his crystal message has resonated with millions of people, rather disconcerting considering your otherwise low opinion of them.

Peace to you.

[Orrex]

109. You do not argue from a position of reason.

You may find me insulting, but at least I am arguing from reason.

As for click bait, Bernie would be the first Jewish President, and an avowed democratic socialist, surely that's newsworthy.

Please. If the media focused on either of those facts, Sanders' supporters would immediately cry foul and demand that the media instead cover Sanders they way his supporters want him to be covered.

If they refer to him as "potentially the first Jewish president," then they will be inviting accusations of anti-Semitism for drawing attention to it. If they identify him as "an avowed democratic socialist," then they'll be accused of playing politics.

The record breaking number of contributions with an average of only 25-30 dollars a pop also have a larger upside ceiling than Hillary's donors in which many cases have maxed out.

As I've noted already, I'm aware of the propaganda. However you want to spin it, Sanders will not have a sufficient war chest to match the GOP money machine that will fund the campaign against the Democratic nominee.

Since day one, Sanders' supporters have tried to spin his very real weaknesses as if they're strengths that non-supporters simply haven't appreciated:
"Sanders will become stronger if Trump attacks him."
"Sanders' anonymity is an asset."
"Sanders' utter lack of foreign policy experience proves that he's the best for the job."
"Sanders' tiny and demographically pure constituency proves that he'll appeal to the whole population."
"The fact that the GOP is ignoring Sanders is proof that they're afraid of him."

I've seen all of those claims put forth by Sanders' supporters, apparently with no sense of irony. Try to read those claims as anything other than wishful thinking and desperation. If the identical claims were made about Clinton, you'd hold them up as proof that her campaign is doomed.

Jeb Bush isn't above 7% how long can a legacy last?

Seriously? It will last until his father and his brother weren't president. Are you entirely unfamiliar with American politics and media?

You have given me no logical reason as to why the corporate media; should be blacking out coverage of Bernie Sanders and his message other than you might believe that the corporate media should have the power to create self-fulfilling prophecies for the American People,

Well, that's a lie. I've provided several reasons, but you have provided no evidence that their choice to downplay Sanders is driven by fear. You want it to be driven by fear, so you see everything in those terms.

The reasons to ignore him are many:
1. They want a horse race campaign that Sanders will not provide: Sanders does not engage in the gamesmanship that the media wants in a candidate, so it will be harder for them to frame it as a head-to-head matchup
2. They don't want to support the likely loser: I believe that they believe that Sanders would be destroyed in the general election, not least because he has no experience dealing with the GOP attack machine.
3. He's not really a Democratic candidate: He's a carpet-bagger who joined the party less than a year ago for the express purpose of running for President. He lacks credibility for that reason alone, regardless of the validity of his ideas.
4. It is likely not in their interests to support him: I'm sure you'll agree that Sanders is perceived as less corporate-friendly than Clinton or any of the GOP candidates. The media has no interest in supporting a candidate whom they perceive as potentially damaging to their bottom line. Despite your wishful thinking, this is not fear; it's pragamatism.
5. On the national level, Sanders remains semi-anonymous, whereas Clinton has been a household name for decades. The media has no interest in doing Sanders' leg-work for him, and it is not their job to get his name out there.

That's five reasons, which I'm sure you'll dismiss because they don't support your assumption.

Further, you've still done nothing to support the claim that Sanders' opponents or the media are motivated by fear of him, even though this claim is still being made daily on DU. It is unmistakable wishful thinking intended specifically to rationalize his eventual failure.

second place in the Democratic Primary race

Yeah, second place in a field of two.

his crystal message has resonated with millions of people,

Pure propaganda. Maybe you could post a picture of a flag in a meadow while you're at it.

rather disconcerting considering your otherwise low opinion of them.

Nice try, but that's your own false assumption, and I'll take no blame for it. My "opinion" of Sanders' supporters is informed directly by their behavior here and elsewhere, their attacks on Clinton and her supporters, their declared scorched-earth intention not to vote if their candidate isn't on the ballot, and their insistence that Sanders has terrified everyone. I have nothing against his supporters personally, but in the aggregate their demands, their methods, and their expectations are not consistent with reality, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise simply to make them feel better about it.

[Uncle Joe]

112. It all depends on the spin that the corporate media puts on those dynamics, Obama would be

the first African American President, there is nothing wrong stating that fact, Rubio would be the first Latino President, there is nothing wrong with stating that, Bernie would be the first Jewish President, there is nothing wrong with stating that.

Bernie would be the first democratic socialist President, there is nothing wrong with stating that so long as African Americans, Latinos, Jews, or socialists aren't demonized in the process. It's the substance of the commentary that matters.

You're making some illogical assumptions here.

Since day one, Sanders' supporters have tried to spin his very real weaknesses as if they're strengths that non-supporters simply haven't appreciated:
"Sanders will become stronger if Trump attacks him."
"Sanders' anonymity is an asset."
"Sanders' utter lack of foreign policy experience proves that he's the best for the job."
"Sanders' tiny and demographically pure constituency proves that he'll appeal to the whole population."
"The fact that the GOP is ignoring Sanders is proof that they're afraid of him."

I don't know of any Bernie's supporters that believe anonymity is an asset when running for President, you're the first person to state that.

The same holds true for your foreign policy assumption, you're the first person to claim that one, that I'm aware of. I do believe Bernie's foreign policy proposals are superior to Hillary's because her's have been a disaster and not too different from the Republicans love of regime change, chaos and empire.

Your claim about assumptions regarding Bernie's demographics as being an asset in and of themselves are also false, I don't know where you came up with that?

What proves that Bernie will appeal to the whole population is the fact that his message is universal appealing across racial, cultural and demographic lines, with perhaps the exception of Wall Street. Bernie's biggest challenge in obtaining the political rewards for his message and proposed policies are his relative anonymity, however as time goes by that negative dynamic will diminish and this takes us directly to the corporate media's reticence to cover him and his message in depth, they know this to be the case, that's what they're afraid of.

And that leads us to why Bernie would be strengthened if Trump attacks him, anonymity is Bernie's biggest obstacle, Trump is a bully and like all bullies; a coward at heart. He can say anything he wants about the weak and disenfranchised or his little Republican Opponents because they're too reliant on the monster that decades of hate and fear Republican Propaganda have fed, he can attack Hillary with impunity because Trumps knows she can't attack him on truth or trust because of her own significant vulnerabilities there.

In regards to Jeb Bush, legacy is no excuse for the corporate media's behavior no matter how much you may wish it to be.

Of these excuses that you make, only #4 and #5 have some degree of truth.

1. They want a horse race campaign that Sanders will not provide: Sanders does not engage in the gamesmanship that the media wants in a candidate, so it will be harder for them to frame it as a head-to-head matchup
2. They don't want to support the likely loser: I believe that they believe that Sanders would be destroyed in the general election, not least because he has no experience dealing with the GOP attack machine.
3. He's not really a Democratic candidate: He's a carpet-bagger who joined the party less than a year ago for the express purpose of running for President. He lacks credibility for that reason alone, regardless of the validity of his ideas.
4. It is likely not in their interests to support him: I'm sure you'll agree that Sanders is perceived as less corporate-friendly than Clinton or any of the GOP candidates. The media has no interest in supporting a candidate whom they perceive as potentially damaging to their bottom line. Despite your wishful thinking, this is not fear; it's pragamatism.
5. On the national level, Sanders remains semi-anonymous, whereas Clinton has been a household name for decades. The media has no interest in doing Sanders' leg-work for him, and it is not their job to get his name out there.

You mention horse race and Bernie can't win against the Republicans yet he leads the coward Trump in a head to head matchup by almost twice as much as Hillary.

If the presidential election were held today, Republican candidate Donald Trump would lose to either of the two leading Democratic candidates, a new Quinnipiac poll found.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, would actually be more successful than Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton, leading Trump 51 percent to 38 percent. Clinton's lead is smaller: She would beat Trump 47 percent to 40 percent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-donald-trump-trails-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-in-matchup/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251936595

Whether Bernie was a long time Democrat or not, he is the ID of Democratic Ideals whether it be domestic or foreign policy.

Clinton and fellow presidential candidate Bernie Sanders agreed on disparaging Trump’s ISIS strategy, but clashed on foreign policy issues, with Sanders tying Clinton’s push to oust Libya’s dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, to her plans for fighting ISIS. "I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be," Sanders said. "We have got to get our foreign policy and our priorities right. It is not Assad who is attacking the United States -- it is ISIS."

(snip)

The idea of bombing an area to attack ISIS, according to Sennott, does not take into account the inevitable civilian casualties. “Take city hall in Raqqa,” Sennott said. “Raqqa is this little hovel where ISIS/Daesh has built its headquarters. The city hall has become where a lot of the leadership is stationed. And right beneath their offices in city hall are the cells that are holding all of these NGO workers, and Iraqis and Syrians and civilians who they’ve picked up, women, young men, anyone who they don’t like is sitting there rotting in these cells, and you’re going to kill a lot of civilians in that one little airstrike.”

But if that sentiment of obliterating ISIS via bombs resonates with everyday U.S. citizens, afraid for their lives, Sennott said he can understand Trump’s appeal to that demographic. “ is the physical Id of the Republican party,” Sennott said. “And as much as I think Donald Trump speaks to the Id of the Republican Party, ‘yeah, I’m greedy, yeah, I don’t really like minorities, yeah I do want to build a wall, what about it?’ ...I think Bernie Sanders is the Id of the democratic party, which is, ‘yeah, why shouldn’t we take care of poor people, and yeah, income inequality is a big issue, and yeah, war and wealth are connected.’”

During the debate, Sennott said Sanders asked a really important question: Where are our alleged allies in this fight? “When he went after Saudi Arabia and Qatar, he said, ‘yeah, we need troops on the ground, but where are the Saudis, where are the Qataris?’ That is a great question,” Sennott said. “When talks about the billions and billions of dollars the Qataris are spending on exploiting workers for the World Cup, he turned the corner back to why do you do that, and you won’t invest in someone who’s put an enemy on your doorstep?”

http://wgbhnews.org/post/bernie-sanders-take-we-need-allies-fight-isis

Your number #4 statement about the corporate media's concern about their bottom line vs the well being of the nation is precisely what I'm talking about when I state they're afraid of Bernie's policies. The conglomerations, mega-wealthy and Wall Street will pay a price and they know it.

In case you forgot, the Democratic Candidates are a field of three not two and Bernie was in second place when they were a field of five.

Regarding your last paragraph I wasn't referring to your opinions of Bernie's supporters I was referring to your seemingly low opinion of the corporate media, or at least I was trying to, it was late when I made that post and the paragraph could've been more clear on my part.

You have given me no logical reason as to why the corporate media; should be blacking out coverage of Bernie Sanders and his message other than you might believe that the corporate media should have the power to create self-fulfilling prophecies for the American People, ie: Bernie can't win so the corporate media shouldn't cover him despite the fact that he's in second place in the Democratic Primary race and his crystal message has resonated with millions of people, rather disconcerting considering your otherwise low opinion of them.

[grossproffit]

83. Thanks for a dose of reality.

[Orrex]

84. Good grief! I can't believe some of the nonsensical wishful thinking I've read here!

It's like trying to argue with the barefoot guy who tries to sell second-hand lunchmeat just outside the Fort Pitt Tunnel.

[grossproffit]

87. It's a bit scary.

[jalan48]

61. The trust issue may do Hillary in.

[Uncle Joe]

63. It certainly won't help her against Trump. n/t

[brooklynite]

66. So Trump is AFRAID of an insult by Bernie Sanders?

Right.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

[Uncle Joe]

69. Actually it does make a sound but Trump is too afraid to venture into the woods. n/t

[quickesst]

70. Haha....

....He doesn't mention him because I don't think Trump knows who Bernie Sanders is. Could be that name recognition thing........maybe?: I'll bet he did not know the name of the heckler in the audience that called him a bigot tonight either.

[Uncle Joe]

71. The corporate media have certainly done their best to make that a reality, but

I believe even a dumb ass like Trump knows who Bernie is, he's just afraid to confront him.

[quickesst]

107. I'm sure he does

Thought I'd toss a Funny Bomb instead of setting off a 10 Nega-ton Blast. Too close to Christmas.

[Skittles]

72. he is not afraid of either

[Uncle Joe]

76. Bernie is best positioned to do the most damage to Trump and Trump knows it.

That's why when Bernie called Trump a pathological liar, Trump just whistled past the graveyard instead of demanding an apology.

[Skittles]

86. sure

[sadoldgirl]

74. The thing is that Trump has called out for

Hillary to be a liar, which is somewhat true since she
cannot prove her claim. Instead she doubles down on
her statement. Thus both seem to be liars, which may
appeal to the repugs for Trump, but not necessarily to
to the majority of voters.

However, I agree that Trump and HRC would love
nothing more than to fight each other in public.

[Uncle Joe]

79. Precisely, sadoldgirl as for the trust issue, they balance each other out and Trump can

can continue to make outlandish, bigoted, racist and xenophobic statements that are knowingly false without regard to the truth because his opponent has her own issues with the truth.

[Paulie]

91. Well, Bernie does look a bit like a

Bald Eagle...

[gwheezie]

95. I really don't think trump is afraid of anyone

He doesn't see Bernie as a threat and he thinks he can take Hillary down.

[Uncle Joe]

96. We have asked the question "why do Republicans vote against their own best interests?" over and over

the answer is because fear and hatred is used by the Republicans to divide the people while the mega-wealthy laugh all the way to the bank.

Trump has pushed that envelope to the limit more than any other Republican Candidate in recent memory.

Bernie's crystal clear message of income inequality, institutional racism, corruption of elections and in turn the government by bowing down to the almighty dollar is the greatest antidote to Trump's poison and Trump knows it.

[gwheezie]

100. I doubt that

Trump is run by polls, Bernie doesn't have the numbers.

[840high]

98. I agree.

[sabrina 1]

101. That's for sure Uncle Joe. They want Hillary, Trump has said so as 'she will be easier to beat'.

[grossproffit]

108. LOL

[sabrina 1]

110. Would you like a quote? Or some polls which clearly Trump is looking at? I think it's funny too

that Trump is scared of one of the poorest candidates we've had running for President in recent history. All that money can't help him beat Bernie, as he knows.

What's wonderful is that Bernie is proving that if money talks, as they claim, we the people can use it for the same purpose and we have. And will continue to do so until we get a government that takes that money OUT of our politics altogether and ends the purchasing of Politicians by a small, wealthy and mostly corrupted part of our system

[leftofcool]

104. ROFLMAO

[Lil Missy]

106. Trump doesn't bother with Sanders because he thinks of him as a gnat to brush off his shoulder. n/t

[Betty Karlson]

111. K&R for exposure. eom

[Godhumor]

113. Correlation, causation and all that n/t

[fleur-de-lisa]

116. Kick!

[Adrahil]

117. Trump has no respect for women.

He thinks he'll be able to push her around. He is in for a rude awakening.

[NCTraveler]

119. Lots of truthiness in your op. nt.

[Uncle Joe]

120. Truthiness doesn't mean that it's not true.

truth·i·ness
ˈtro͞oTHēnis/
nouninformal

the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.

In this case I believe it is true.

[NCTraveler]

121. And I think you believe that. We fully agree on that point.

[Uncle Joe]

122. And I think you believe it as well but don't want to admit it.

[NCTraveler]

123. Truly one of the best things I have seen typed here. Thanks.

Truthiness seems to be a part of your being. It is impressive to say the least. Happy Tuesday!!!!

[Uncle Joe]

124. Happy Tuesday to you, NCTraveler.

[senz]

126. Ah, but there's something to be said for

smugness and insincerity NCTraveler, so please don't feel left out.

[NCTraveler]

127. True that.

Happy Wednesday!!!!!

[Sheepshank]

129. baloney

Trump is attacking Hillary with everything he has....he is freaked out over a head to head match up with her. Trump rarely even mentions Bernie....Bernie is no threat.

[Uncle Joe]

130. Trump helps Hillary in the Primary when he attacks her, he won't mention Bernie's name even

when Sanders calls Trump a pathological liar, because Trump doesn't want to face Bernie in the G.E.

Bernie does better than Hillary against Trump in a G.E. match up.

Why Does Bernie Sanders POLL BETTER Than Hillary Clinton Against Donald Trump

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=940760