This Is What a Republican Attack on Bernie Sanders Would Look Like

[NYMinute]

Sanders’ “superior electability” is still a myth.

Over the past year, Bernie Sanders’ supporters have repeatedly criticized the undemocratic role of superdelegates in choosing the Democratic presidential nominee. In February, for example, MoveOn, which had endorsed Sanders the month before, started a petition saying, “Democracy only works when the votes of the people—not the decision of a small number of elites—are what determines the outcome of elections.” The fear, then, was that Sanders would win the most pledged delegates but that Hillary Clinton would use her pull with insiders to trump the popular will.

It is more than a little ironic, then, that Sanders is now urging those same insiders to ignore the intention of the primary electorate—which has given Clinton an edge in both pledged delegates and raw votes—and bequeath the nomination to him instead. In a Washington press conference on Sunday, Sanders, who has no discernible path to a delegate majority, outlined a plan to force a contested convention, where he apparently believes some superdelegates will flip to his side on the basis of electability. “The evidence is extremely clear that I would be the stronger candidate to defeat Trump or any other Republican,” he said. Sanders reiterated this on Monday at a rally in Evansville, Indiana, saying, “We appeal to virtually all the Democrats, but we do a lot better with independents than Secretary Clinton. And I hope the Democrats at the national convention understand that while independents may not be able to vote in certain Democratic primaries, they do vote in the general election.”

I have no idea if Sanders is serious about this superdelegate plan. It might just be a rationale for him to keep fighting until the end of the primaries, garnering delegates that he could leverage to push Clinton and the party leftward at the convention. But if he is serious, then what he is proposing is a presumption based on a falsehood.

The presumption is that there is anything progressive about a plan that asks powerful figures to cast aside an electoral majority built on the choices of women and people of color. The falsehood is that Sanders’ superior electability is, as he asserted on Sunday, “extremely clear.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/05/bernie-sanders-electability-argument-is-still-a-myth.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. "He's a New Dealer! A Roosevelt Lover!"

Knock yourselves out.

[brooklynite]

2. I'm confused; what does a story from 2016 tell us about Republican attacks?

They'll go after Sanders for his policies and his self-described Socialism. Nobody will care about how he got the nomination.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. My point: Don't let the Republicans "re-brand" Sanders as a Socialist when his policies

are returning to the principles underlying The New Deal. Middle class Republicans like my father got their success from the G.I. Bill, G.I. mortgages, fair distribution of federal taxes, allowing more Jews into medical school for the sake of equality, etc.

[brooklynite]

9. They don't HAVE to "re-brand" Sanders; he's a self-acknowledged Socialist...

...who chose to give a speech defending Socialism as part of his campaign.

[skh500]

13. A "Democratic" Socialist!!

Just FDR.

When Michael Moore was asked "What is a democratic socialist? He responded "That's what the democratic party used to be."

Just think...social security, libraries, medicare, police, firemen, unemployment etc etc

Sanders is a self-acknowledged DEMOCRATIC Socialist.

[The Valley Below]

14. FDR wasn't a socialist.

Social Security, libraries, medicare, police, firemen, unemployment etc etc are NOT SOCIALIST.

Claims to the contrary are both grossly untrue, they are also right-wing talking points.

[Joe Brunoli]

18. FDR was not a Socialist, but he was attacked for being so.

The Roosevelt Institute does a good job of describing just how much FDR was viciously and roundly attacked as a Socialist

FDR’s New Deal—including his passage of unemployment insurance and Social Security—was attacked as “undisguised state socialism” by one senator. Others went so far as to insist that FDR was a communist, including FDR’s erstwhile colleague Al Smith, who, as one of the founders of the right-wing American Liberty League, warned in the 1936 election that “the people could either breathe the clear fresh air of America, or the foul breath of Soviet Russia.”

Remember there was at that time a very active and growing American Communist Party, an American Socialist Party, and a vibrant and expanding USSR.

None of those things obtain currently, however, so such attacks are bootless in 2020.

[The Valley Below]

58. Again, don't repeat false right-wing talking points.

[Cha]

76. BS says he himself IS a "Socialist".

[whathehell]

32. Republicans said he was..

and they hated his guts, while he was extremely popular with the majority -- There's a reason he was elected FOUR times.

[The Valley Below]

57. So? Don't spread Republican lies.

FDR was a liberal Democrat. Not a socialist.

The socialists of his day called him a capitalist plutocrat and a war-monger.

That wasn't true either.

[whathehell]

64. Lol..Defensive much?

"Don't spread Republican lies"....Huh?..Are you KIDDING?

Now, I know the best defense is supposed to be an offense, but trying to hide your problem with inference behind an absurd attack of that sort really doesn't help.

No, dear, what I'm 'spreading' is historic fact, something you clearly need more knowledge of.

[The Valley Below]

66. The facts are that the socialists of FDRs time attacked him as a plutocrat

and a war-monger.

That BOTH the right and the left lied about his record doesn't excuse misrepresenting the truth today.

FDR was NOT A SOCIALIST, saying that he was is dishonest.

[whathehell]

67. It's time to go BEYOND labels and learn about actual Policies..

It's not surprising FDR would deny being a Socialist, given the incredible hostility he was receiving from Republicans WITHOUT using that label. As far as the socialists of his time, it WAS eighty years ago and since then, different types of socialism, like Democratic Socialism, the most "capitalist" of the socialist systems, have evolved

Roosevelt's "cred" with the socialists of his day would likely have increased (along with Republican attacks) had he lived long enough to enact the National Health Care System he wanted.

[The Valley Below]

68. He denied it because it was the truth. FDR understood full well the nature of socialism.

Democratic Socialism is totally anti-capitalist. This ideology hold that liberal capitalism is irredeemable and MUST be replaced with collective ownership of the means of production and distribution.

The socialist of his day despised FDR. And the feelings were mutual.

I stand with FDR.

[brooklynite]

27. SOCIALISM (noun):

A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. -- Oxford English Dictionary.

When you say: "No, he's a DEMOCRATIC Socialist", you've already lost the debate.

[whathehell]

33. Um, that's Communism..

Try again.

[brooklynite]

35. Gotcha: SOCIALISM (Noun)

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" -- Merriam-Webster.

[whathehell]

38. Lol..Try to keep up

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/socialism

[brooklynite]

39. Again, this is your problem...

The only people claiming that Socialism has achieved a new "meaning" in political debate are Socialists ("Democratic" or otherwise). Sanders gave a speech advocating "Democratic" Socialism early in the campaign. it didn't have any impact on either support for Socialism or for his candidacy.

Sanders is a progressive who says he's a Socialist. Biden is a moderate who says he's a Capitalist. Which is doing better?

[whathehell]

40. No, dear..It's yours, and you obviously didn't read the link

The fact is, every major poll taken of Americans finds them FAVORING progressive "socialist" policies like Universal Health care and higher taxes on the Rich.

Your Biden/Sanders comparison is lame:. First of all, the election season is still young. Secondly, Bernie is hot on his heels and you One Percenters are oh so nervous about it.

[brooklynite]

41. Yes, people support progressive policies....

...only Sanders et al are trying to brand them as Socialist.

[whathehell]

43. Lol..Without having to run to Webster's dictionary again,

explain, if you can, the difference, in your mind, between 'progressive" policies and those of Democratic Socialists.

[brooklynite]

46. FDR was branded a Socialist and said he wasn't...Sanders is branded a Socialist and say he is

I see a difference between the success of the two.

[whathehell]

53. Lol..Really?

Is that the best you've got?

You can't even even define the difference between the two terms you've been using?..Sorry, bro, but that fact may make your arguments even less persuasive than an endorsement from The Wall St. Journal!

[whathehell]

30. Exactly.. People need to learn more about Democratic Socialism

Having lived under FDR's Democratic policies, I can assure you that Michael Moore is basically right. They may have called it "The New Deal", but that's basically what it was, and it was FAR more popular with most Americans than the Third Way policies espoused by more recent Democratic administrations.

[brooklynite]

37. The only people who claim that "Democratic Socialism" means something different from "Socialism"...

are Democratic Socialists.

[whathehell]

42. Socialism has lost its sting and the only people Terrified of it

are One Percenters like yourself.

[brooklynite]

48. In 2016, my wife and I went to a Sanders rally and agreed with all of his policies...

...the problem was, we saw no ability for him to achieve them. Starting with an inability to actually get elected.

A friend of mine (one of those pesky "one percenters&quot organizes an annual fundraising event for women in Congress (generally challengers and 1st termers). The consensus of the House members there was that a Sanders candidacy would lose the Presidential Election and the House of Representatives

[Joe Brunoli]

17. Socialism, where is thy sting?

Bernie supports DEMOCRATIC Socialism. There is a big difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism, that is why Bernie gave the speech.

But in reality, Socialism has lost its sting. 70% of Millennial voters would vote for a Socialist, and we have all seen the myriad articles touting the fact that for the non-boomer generations, Socialism is more popular than Capitalism.

So let the Right bark on about Socialism, let them rave about hammers and sickles. They have been doing that about EVERY Democratic candidate that has run since 1948. Obama was vilified by the Tea Party as a combination of Mao, Stalin and Hitler and he still won 2 terms.

The fact is that the ONLY damage done to Bernie with the "Socialism" attack line was a case of friendly fire leveled repeatedly by Claire McCaskill, who, having barely squeaked out one victory only to be trounced in the following election, nonetheless thinks she is entitled to tell us about what people in the Midwest want.

[gopiscrap]

91. welcome to DU

[TidalWave46]

19. They wouldn't have to rebrand him.

I’m shocked by how little people know about Sanders.

[betsuni]

20. It seems his supporters know the least about him.

Strange.

[empedocles]

28. BS supporters seem to have and oft mentioned resemblance to diehard rw trumpers.

[betsuni]

31. They were very upset at this, yet couldn't debunk any of it.

Because all it's true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1287254033

[Cha]

77. Ikr. We're here to

educate.

[whathehell]

36. I'm shocked by how little people know about FDR, New Deal policies,

and Democratic Socialsm.

[TidalWave46]

49. I'm not as shocked by that.

Doubt anyone in their right mind would be.

Reasons are obvious.

[whathehell]

63. Of course you're not..

but being bright and educated, not to mention 'in my right mind", I'll leave it to you to explain how supposed "Democrats" could be so pathetically ignorant.

[TidalWave46]

65. It's not pathetically ignorant.

I get that the cool thing to do is for people with a certain defined knowledge to claim others to be pathetically ignorant if they are not educated on the same defined topics, but that is more of a personal statement than a statement directed at others.

My statement above was clear, accurate, and on point.

No one in their right mind doesn't understand why we don't have a bunch of FDR historians walking among us. Common sense.

[whathehell]

69. Yes it is, especially for Democrats

Not only do Democrats frequently view FDR as THE most important and transformational Democratic president ever, (There's a reason he won four terms), historians rank him as the 3rd Greatest American President ever*

Are you grasping the significance, now?

Travelling historians are unneeded -- What you didn't learn in public school history class can be acquired by reading, watching, and listening.

* Some historians rate FDR as 2nd greatest American president.

[The Valley Below]

82. And FDR was a pro-capitalist, globalist, free-trader, who wanted the US to enter WWII.

He was NOT a protectionist, isolationist, anti-trade socialist.

And he despised populists on the right and the left. And they attacked him as well.

He was a great president. But totally unlike what you seem to be claiming he was.

FDR was a liberal Democrat.

[whathehell]

83. ..And his mother wore combat boots!

. Anything else?

[The Valley Below]

84. I think Sara Delano Roosevelt was more partial to mink stoles.

Socialists of the 1930's attacked her and her son as capitalist plutocrats and war-mongers.

[whathehell]

85. Lol..Only you would take that literally

You're funny.

[The Valley Below]

86. What's "funny" is people who are not remotely comparable to the great liberal Democratic

Franklin Roosevelt trying to steal his mantle.

I guess that's actually not funny. Scratch that.

[whathehell]

88. Lol..Keep telling yourself that.

but I suggest you calm down before you have a heart attack.

[The Valley Below]

89. Count on me not keeping silent when the legacy of the Democratic Party

is misrepresented.

My heart is fine. And I'm calm, clear-headed, and ever-vigilant.

But thank you for your concern.

[The Valley Below]

87. Yeah, me too.

Shocking ignorance.

The New Deal wasn't socialism and FDR was not a socialist.

There is some serious "re-framing" going on.

Democrats need to study our history to understand revisionism when they see it.

[George II]

55. Sanders brands, not re-brands, himself as a socialist:

[TwilightZone]

3. I doubt they'd bother with his switch on superdelegates in 2016.

They'll be too busy playing the "socialist/communist" card and making silly ads about his old writings and his honeymoon in Moscow.

Though, in the present political climate, they all seem to approve of Russia, so maybe the latter won't be an ad target.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. .

[Autumn]

7. Is something coming down the pike?

There's a nervousness in the air.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. .

[ritapria]

6. Those voters in WI, PA, and MI

are going to embrace a candidate that supported NAFTA ? That constitutes "Playing it Safe " ? That plays into Trump's hands...

[stopdiggin]

8. this OP is almost 100% 2016. I thought we weren't doing replays of 16?

[progressoid]

11. Yep. Dated May 02, 2016.

[NurseJackie]

12. Is anything factually or historically incorrect? What's changed?

[stopdiggin]

15. my understanding that DU rules call for no replays of 2016

(particularly primary). I've seen posts flagged for (what I think is) this infraction. Am I wrong in this?

The point of the rule being (as I understood it) an attempt to stop "relitigation" of old wounds and offenses, and foster common ground going forward.

[NurseJackie]

21. Nice try.

[Joe Brunoli]

44. Things have changed quite a bit since 2016

Well, for one thing, we know that the following excerpt is completely inaccurate, given the subsequent revelations in Donna Braziles book, the forced resignations of DWS and other high ranking DNC officials, etc.:

[div class="excerpt"]The Sanderistas appear to believe they were treated unfairly, even viciously, in this primary. In fact, they’ve been handled incredibly gingerly.

What has also changed is that Sanders supporters have developed a good rapid response system to these types of attacks, particularly those coming from within the Democratic Party.

Also, we know now that identity politics and the politics of shame only work for Democrats, if they even work at all. Trump was elected despite all his disgusting acts, the scandals, etc. It's authenticity that people want now, and Bernie has that in spades.

One other thing that has changed is that Bernie now has the highest name recognition of any candidate, even equal to that of Biden. He is not coming from behind as he had to in 2016.

[ismnotwasm]

47. "A good Rapid response system"

How clever of you to embed the link. It includes gems like this:

It must be noted that many centrists, like so many diehard Hillary fans, is deeply mired in the muck of Neoliberal-fuelled Identity Politics. Roy himself essentially admits this in his latest fusillade of baseless ad hominem trash bombs:

“I’m just sick of Bernie. This isn’t because of policy disagreements, or lingering bitterness from the primary. I just think he’s a thoroughly awful man.”
After such an introduction, I honestly don’t know why anyone would read further, but then I, like most Bernie supporters, reject any argument based solely on Identity Politics in favor of a more comprehensive view that Identity and Class are inextricably linked, and that Economic Justice is the pathway to Social Justice.

Nonetheless, the defenders of the Establishment and Hillary Clinton always use personal smears when “punching left.” They dare not oppose Bernie or any other real progressive on policy, because that would expose their own corruption. Yes, Hillary did literally shout that Single Payer would “never, EVER happen” and yes, that did put her at odds with 81% of Democrats (not to mention FDR, Truman, etc.), but this is something that most establishment Democrats will not want to bring up when attacking Bernie. They prefer to attack Single Payer on the basis of “I support it in theory but it is just not practical or affordable now” (translation: “The Republicans won’t let us.”)

Clinton supporters had almost a cult-like fixation on Hillary as a person, her CV, her personal story, the religious belief that she was indeed “the most qualified candidate ever to run for President.” It was and remains all about HER.

Hillary supporters thus think that they can nullify the progressive revolt they face by denigrating what they consider to be its “leader”. Get rid of Bernie, they think, and the movement for change and reform within the Democratic Party will wither and die.

They are wrong.

.

https://www.euroyankee.com/the-troll-smears-against-bernie-must-be-stopped%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aheres-how-to-do-it/

This is dangerously close to refighting the primaries of 2016, and not to be taken seriously. The rest of it is also poorly written, and not exactly a glowing positive response, rather, quite reactionary in the finest “ Us against Them” style.

[NurseJackie]

51. And with all those "advantages" he's doing worse NOW than before.

One other thing that has changed is that Bernie now has the highest name recognition of any candidate, even equal to that of Biden. He is not coming from behind as he had to in 2016.

And with all those "advantages" he's doing worse NOW than before. His followers are loyal and loud... there just aren't enough of them to secure him the Democratic nomination. His donors like to give small amounts dozens of times... but they can only vote once. And that's assuming that they show up to vote at all, because the disgruntled youth-vote that he's building his campaign around has a long and well-documented history of being one of the least reliable demographics around. And all that, coupled with the fact that he's consistently at 20% in the polls (and likely not even to break the minimum 15% requirement of some states).

All I'm trying to say is that in the Real World, the BS campaign is in trouble and for someone with the "highest name recognition of any candidate" that doesn't seem to be helping him much at all. And it's a possibility that his "name recognition" could be working against him.

[George II]

56. "Bernie now has the highest name recognition of any candidate..." Maybe not the highest, but...

...your point is valid. One wonders, then why, with his high level of name recognition he's so much lower in the polls than in the past.

My guess is that name recognition in some cases isn't necessarily a positive thing.

[treestar]

61. Bernie's past hasn't changed

It is not relitigating that primary to discuss Bernie's past that can be used against him NOW.

[ehrnst]

62. So you think that this part is "inaccurate?"

The Sanderistas appear to believe they were treated unfairly, even viciously, in this primary. In fact, they’ve been handled incredibly gingerly.

And about this:

What has also changed is that Sanders supporters have developed a good rapid response system to these types of attacks, particularly those coming from within the Democratic Party.

What types of attacks should the Sanders supporters be expecting from "within the Democratic party?"

The content at the link you embedded is quite... interesting. I take it that you are promoting these views?:

It must be noted that many centrists, like so many diehard Hillary fans, is deeply mired in the muck of Neoliberal-fuelled Identity Politics. Roy himself essentially admits this in his latest fusillade of baseless ad hominem trash bombs.
..................................

Nonetheless, the defenders of the Establishment and Hillary Clinton always use personal smears when “punching left.” They dare not oppose Bernie or any other real progressive on policy, because that would expose their own corruption. Yes, Hillary did literally shout that Single Payer would “never, EVER happen” and yes, that did put her at odds with 81% of Democrats (not to mention FDR, Truman, etc.), but this is something that most establishment Democrats will not want to bring up when attacking Bernie. They prefer to attack Single Payer on the basis of “I support it in theory but it is just not practical or affordable now” (translation: “The Republicans won’t let us.”).
.......................................
Indeed, the entire Russian hacking story was predicated on the idea that the DNC emails were hacked by Russian operatives, then passed to WikiLeaks in order to damage the Clinton campaign.

This story has since been debunked and proven to have been a hoax that was “cooked up” by John Podesta and Robby Mook on the night of the election. Still, the Anti-Bernie crowd still want to believe it, because to not do so would be to place blame somewhere else (like at on the candidate), and they feel that Bernie played a role in this.uring the ensuing year, calling the FBI investigation a “security inquiry” and basically obfuscation the true nature of the investigation.
.....................................

This is laughable. It has been well-documented that the Sanders delegates were misled and mistreated by the NV Democratic Committee, and that a fraud was perpetrated at the convention. The plain fact is that Sanders had 2,124 delegate slots to the State Convention and Hillary Clinton had 1,722 delegate slots to the State Convention. And yet Clinton ended up with 33 more delegates actually being seated. The Bernie side maintained that 64 Sanders delegates were improperly denied seating, which tipped the balance to Clinton. This caused a nonexistent riot that was reported by one biased reporter to discredit Sanders and the sanders supporters.

https://www.euroyankee.com/the-troll-smears-against-bernie-must-be-stopped%e2%80%8a-%e2%80%8aheres-how-to-do-it/

[treestar]

60. Bernie is still the same candidate in 2020

so the same issues would be brought up by Republicans in a general election. Those issues aren't going away.

[betsuni]

16. Why not a replay of "Bern Your Enthusiasm"!

[NYMinute]

50. lol nt

[RandiFan1290]

22. I love how much time you guys spend on Bernie

It tells me I am on the right track

[betsuni]

24. On the right track of pissing off Democrats?

[RandiFan1290]

25. aww

[betsuni]

26. Pissing off liberals!

[Cha]

90. lol.. and you didn't know?

[brutus smith]

29. Imagine if Sanders people spent all of their time attacking Joe?

Bernie talks about real issues.

[JudyM]

59. +1. Sick of the obsessive sniping. We would do far better w/adult discussion of the real issues.

[myohmy2]

34. May 2, 2016...

...very old news...

...Bernie-Bashing...

...not nice...

...

[LongtimeAZDem]

45. The republican attack on Bernie will not be anything subtle or nuanced

Get ready to hear audio of crowds chanting, "Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die!" playing over the top of Sanders rallies, endless video of Sanders saying "I'm a socialist", ad after ad portraying him as crazy.

People need to do is get outside of the DU bubble, and look at stuff the right is already showing.

[Hortensis]

52. This! Exactly. Attacks.

[Blue_true]

71. People that don't believe the repugh won't dredge up every Bernie statement

from the time he started his political career and even before have their heads in the sand. Hell, republicans are going to make Daniel Ortega his running mate, because we would see Bernie and Ortega marching arm in arm to infinity, or at least through Election Day, heck, that ad would be on every 30 minute play loop mode.

[Hortensis]

54. The RW are masters at not just character assassination but designing

and implanting nationally appalling new identities for their opponents. NO one would have to read a word to get their messages. The swiftboaters provide the 24/7/365 "news" the media must fill their hours and pages with. Every day.

And it works. Their outstanding success, in synergistic relation with Sanders' own efforts, in creating an evil Hillary identity is proven by the inability to this day of many who came under their influence to realize what was done to her and them.

And, of course, with the usual help conspiracists would multiply and go crazy frantic to see Sanders tried and shot for treason before he took over our country and started sending conservatives to death camps (or maybe he already has been and visiting to eat children's faces? After all, the SW deserts are closer than Mars.). Nothing is too extreme for these people. With the material Sanders provides, no need to scrape the bottom and struggle to turn a boring home server and nothing else, as we now know, into a scandal.

Violent, murderous socialist revolutions, all failed, but only after wrecking their nations and deaths of unknown numbers "disappeared" by their own governments. Oh, yeah.

Sanders' only protection that I can see is on one vulnerability alone: that the Repubs' effective alliance with Putin should make it a lot harder to use Sanders' huge Russian "commie" vulnerability. Or not? They have no problem with double standards and could make a special one just for him, maybe Ukraine would turn out to be Sanders' plot against America. A very short time ago a socialist extremist-Democrat-Russian conspiracy would have played right into the right's LW commie threat paranoia, a giant wet dream for RW identity-redesigners, and still might.

Because some of those reported five 2016 "scandals" they designed and had ready to launch have be about Sanders-Russia. Besides his past sympathies, travels, etc., Russia's secret assistance to Sanders when he ran for president (!) in 2016 is proven. They must in 2019 be panting to incorporate a number of Sanders' recent votes, skipped votes, and stated positions that all have benefited Russia, including dismantling NATO. Talk about "quid pro quo"!

They absolutely would. No lie is beyond them.

[Blue_true]

72. The repugnants won't tie Bernie to modern day Russia,

their boy that they drool over pictures of him bare chested on horseback is leading the shitshow there now. What they will do is tie Bernie and his honeymoon in Russia to the real old fashioned Russian commies, the ones that left store shelves empty of basic foodstuffs while they ate caviar.

To top that off, they will try to lure Bernie into talking about the stuff that he will nationalize, even though he wouldn't have said that. Nothing is beyond those bastards, there is no swamp too deep and fetid for them to wade into.

[Gothmog]

70. I have seen a ton of oppo on sanders and I think I know how trump would attack sanders

There is a ton of great oppo on sanders. None of the Democratic candidates are using this oppo because no one really thinks that sanders has a chance of being the nominee. There are tons of video of sanders praising Fidel Castro, the old Soviet Union, Central American socialists and other enemies of the United States that would make great attack ads. trump has the money to run these ads on a constant loop so that sanders would be lucky not to repeat the results of the 1972 election.

In addition, Russia targeted African American voters last cycle to depress or suppress their vote.

Link to tweet

Without strong African American voter turnout, no Democrat stands a chance. sanders has made Russia's efforts easy in that all Russia has to do is play videos of sanders delegates booing John Lewis, Elijah Cummings, Stacy Abrams and others. There is a ton of anger out there about this stunt by sanders delegates at the National Convention.

I am glad that we will not have to find out. I will support the nominee of the party but I really doubt that sanders will be the nominee. No Democrat has wasted their time going negative on sanders because no one thinks that sanders has a chance of being the nominee.

[Blue_true]

73. I try not to think about the convention, the lead up to it and the aftermath,

because every time I do, my blood starts boiling. All that was preventable, and the actions of one person insured that the disruptions came to be.

[Gothmog]

74. I was at the convention

I saw some stuff that still makes me angry

[Blue_true]

75. My friend, you clearly have more self restraint that I do.

If I had been present in the hall when the disruptions started, my picture would have been splashed all over the world as police led me out in handcuffs for fighting.

[Gothmog]

79. Delegates to a national convention represent their candidate

Part of the process is that each candidate has the right to vet and remove any delegate that they are not comfortable with. I helped vet Clinton delegates and I know who vetted me. The concept is that a candidates delegates represent that candidate and should do anything that would hurt their candidate.

We were told this repeatedly by the Clinton campaign to ignore the horrible conduct of the sanders delegates and we honored the wishes of the campaign. This was despite the fact that the sanders delegates telegraphed their stunts and the Clinton campaign warned us when a stunt was coming. I knew 20 to 30 minutes in advance that the sanders delegates were going to boo John Lewis. This was a planned stunt.

In addition, my youngest child was my guest and had a visitor pass for the first night of the convention. At the hotel she was cursed at and called the c-word by sanders delegates for refusing to try to get me to change my vote.

If sanders becomes a viable candidate, the incidents that occurred at the convention will be used. Texas and Georgia shared a bus to the convention site and I know that there were some senior people in the Georgia Democratic Party who were not happy at Stacy Abrams and John Lewis being booed.

Right now there is no need to go negative on sanders because no one really believes that sanders has a chance of being the nominee. There are too many real Democrats who have good memories and who will not forgive or forget

[Blue_true]

80. Thanks for the behind the scenes recollection of what was happening.

Also, thanks for patiently working your way up to becoming a delegate, that must have been an honor at what was, even given what later happened, a historic political convention for this country (a woman nominated for President by a major party for the first time).

[Wabbajack_]

78. Is he actually a socialist?

I would call him a social democrat. I don' think he's against capitalism.

Doesn't he prefer the term progressive?

I think all he ever said was he didn't *mind* being called a socialist.

[Blue_true]

81. He espoused socialist economic solutions into his early forties.

I think that he changed only after that proved to be political suicide in this country.

[Gothmog]

92. Bernie Sanders' real problem isn't Elizabeth Warren. It's Donald Trump

In the real world, trump would destroy a weak candidate like sanders. It would be really sad to see trump destroy sanders and I agree that sanders chance of being the nominee or being elected is nil

Link to tweet

Nonetheless, Sanders faces serious obstacles to obtaining the Democratic presidential nomination. The gentle treatment he received in 2016 from the media and the Hillary Clinton campaign (which ran few negative television or media ads against him) means that many Democratic voters haven’t yet learned about the distinctly non-progressive positions he has taken on certain issues throughout his senatorial career.....

The chances of Sanders actually becoming president, however, are also close to nil. I say this because in 2016 I got a glimpse of the Republican party’s opposition research book on Sanders, which was so massive it had to be transported on a cart. The Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald, who got to see some of its contents, declared that “it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn [Sanders] apart.”

According to Eichenwald, the book includes damning material such as the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to Texas where it would be dumped in a poor Hispanic community, that he honeymooned in the Soviet Union, and that he appeared at a 1985 rally in Nicaragua at which Sandinista supporters chanted “Here, there / the Yankee will die.” And then there’s Sanders’ fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men…

After the Trump campaign and Fox News got through weaponizing this research, the usual conservative charges against Sanders – that his domestic program would cost nearly $100tn over the next decade, that he would ban individual health insurance, send taxes into the stratosphere, and sympathize with terrorists and leftwing regimes – would seem almost benign. The Republican campaign against any Democratic presidential candidate is guaranteed to be ugly, but against Sanders it would be gruesome. The result most likely would be a Democratic wipeout on the scale of Labour’s under Jeremy Corbyn.

That’s why Sanders is the preferred Democratic nominee of Trump and his aides. It explains otherwise puzzling stories such as Trump coming to Sanders’ defense against Warren’s no-female-president claim, saying sexism is “not his deal”. And while living in Washington has made me cynical in some ways, I would not be in the least surprised if conservative dollars are swelling the coffers of Our Revolution, Sanders’ dark-money Super Pac which doesn’t have to disclose its donors.