The 'swarm': How a subset of Sanders supporters use hostile tactics to drown out critics

[George II]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/bernie-sanders-social-media-attacks-invs/index.html

By Curt Devine, Drew Griffin and Scott Bronstein, CNN

Updated 5:45 PM ET, Fri February 7, 2020

(CNN)When the progressive Working Families Party announced its endorsement of Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president in September, anger reverberated across the SandersForPresident Reddit page for days.

One of the Reddit group's then-300,000 members encouraged fellow supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders to "spy" on the Working Families Party's activities and "organize counter events."

On Twitter, Sanders supporters lobbed hundreds of critical messages at the Working Families Party or its leadership, which included personal attacks that called them "corrupt," "shameless" and "bloodless scumbag hacks." One pro-Sanders account tweeted that "slave masters" had coerced the support of the party's national director, who is African American.

Three days after the endorsement, a WFP spokeswoman tweeted a screenshot of one message that wished she and her colleagues would "all get cancer you are f**king trash." She also said they received private messages saying "eat sh*t and die" and "drop dead dumb c*nts."

[Voltaire2]

1. Somebody on the internets was mean!

[frazzled]

9. I think the point is ...

that other candidates' supporters are not engaging in this kind of (coordinated) activity. Sure, individuals have arguments and opinions they express, but not coordinated campaigns to undermine.

I wouldn't dismiss the rancor this sort of thing inspires in voters, and they will blame the candidate him/herself when their supporters engage in this sort of folderol. After all, when a candidate such as Trump sits back and says nothing when his supporters yell "lock her up" we know where to place the blame.

So I wouldn't be smug about this. It will come back to bite where you don't want it.

[Dream Girl]

10. The fish rots from the head

[Quackers]

13. Seriously?

They harassed them and posted their personal info and home addresses. They should not be allowed to become the new normal in our society.

[LisaM]

24. No, it shouldn't, but I see calls here for doxxing all the time.

I don't ever, ever think that's the right thing to do.

[sheshe2]

17. This is way beyond mean and not at all funny. nt

[Scurrilous]

77. ...

[krissey]

71. Why are we seeing this from only one candidate's supporters?

[George II]

82. Cute. But it's not just "somebody", it's lots of people and includes high level Sanders staffers.

[JoeOtterbein]

2. Break out the fainting couches! nt

[sheshe2]

18. The fact that you...

The fact that you find these attacks funny is beyond my comprehension.

[LisaM]

26. Someone on another thread accused people of "getting the vapors"

about some of this behavior.

Fainting couch? Vapors? What is wrong with people?

[sheshe2]

30. I am surprised none of them mentioned the"clutching of pearls".

I have no clue what is wrong with them, Lisa.

[JoeOtterbein]

53. If we can't have fun in a Primary, when do we?

Please don't take lighthearted for anything else. Some of us are just plain happy!

(and often we break down in rolling tears over the pain all humans suffer too)

[MineralMan]

66. Fun? Really?

Just no!

[JoeOtterbein]

69. Just yes!

Why be glum?

[MrsCoffee]

81. Because there is nothing fun about the misogynistic bro behavior described in the OP.

The only people who find that shit “fun” are the bros. Here in California it’s illegal to harass someone online like that. They all belong in the basket.

[betsuni]

87. +1

[ehrnst]

94. Frantic attempts to minimize or dismiss this as harmless aren't working.

They just look frantic.

[gollygee]

60. Responding to stuff like this with gendered responses like "fainting couches" and "clutching pearls"

turns me off to Bernie even more. And he got my vote in the last presidential primary. Why do people respond to people being upset with jokes about Victorian women? It's obnoxious and I'm done with it.

[ehrnst]

84. +1000.

[MineralMan]

65. Really, Joe?

For goodness' sake!

[ehrnst]

85. If you or your daughter was the target of such swarming

I doubt you would be so frantically trying to minimize it.

[betsuni]

88. +1

[sheshe2]

91. +1000

[dalton99a]

3. What a blasphemous article.

No such thing happens

[DanTex]

4. Uh oh. People on the internet. Saying mean stuff.

[Dream Girl]

11. Trump like cultists....the fish rots from the head

[Quackers]

16. They posted their personal info and home addresses.

Come on, are you seriously saying you’re ok with that?

[DanTex]

22. Not OK with that. Also not OK with the stream of articles attacking Bernie supporters, and

only Bernie supporters, for mean things people do on the internet. Check twitter. Supporters of all candidates are attacking each other. I'm quite sure that at some point some supporters of other candidates have also doxed people. But for some reason there's no CNN article about that.

[sheshe2]

40. Hm.

DanTex
22. Not OK with that.

….but.

Also not OK with the stream of articles attacking Bernie supporters, and

only Bernie supporters, for mean things people do on the internet. Check twitter.

Alrighty then these streams of articles that you speak of...nah I won't bother asking for a link, you never provide one.

Doxing is not a "mean thing" it is illegal.


What is 'doxing'? (Yes, it is illegal!) (REPRINTED)
Doxing violates the terms of service of most legitimate online news / information / opinion sites. REPORT IT!

Have you ever seen your personal information on a public forum? Have you even seen your personal information "grayed out"? If you have, know that it is not only cowardly, but also illegal. There is a name for it: doxing.


According to Wikipedia:

Doxing (spelling variant Doxxing) is an abbreviation of document tracing, the Internet-based practice of researching and publishing personally identifiable information about an individual. The methods employed in pursuit of this information range from searching publicly available databases and social media websites like Facebook to hacking and social engineering. It is closely related to cyber-vigilantism, hacktivism, and cyber-bullying.

https://patch.com/massachusetts/malden/what-is-doxing-yes-it-is-illegal

Supporters of all candidates are attacking each other. I'm quite sure that at some point some supporters of other candidates have also doxed people. But for some reason there's no CNN article about that.

Really? All Dem candidates are lying and doxing their competition. Yet ya haven't seen any of that? I wonder why? Oh wait never happened.

[DanTex]

45. No Dem candidates are doxing anyone.

This article is about certain Bernie supporters doxing someone, and calling people names. I'm quite sure that there are also isolated incidents of supporters of other candidates doxing people. The media narrative, as usual, is to attack Bernie supporters as the mean ones, and ignore all the things supporters of other candidates do on the internet.

It's not accurate, if you go to twitter, you will see things flying in all directions. But the media narrative is what it is. It's silly, the NYT article had about "Bernie Bros" a week or so ago, turns out one of the very people they interviewed for that article about how mean Bernie supporters are had been on twitter throwing insults as well.

[sheshe2]

20. Doxing is okay with you?

[MineralMan]

67. Just stop, please.

Did you read the post?

[DanTex]

68. I did. Another hit on Bernie's supporters. Trying to attack Bernie indirectly because of what some

people on the internet did. And then the same people say it's crazy to say the media is against Bernie. Head-spinning.

[krissey]

72. Why are we seeing this from only one candidate's supporters?

[DanTex]

75. We're not. It flies all directions.

[krissey]

97. No, it doesn't.

[Gothmog]

79. This is the same type of conduct that vetted sanders delegates engaged in at the National Convention

Normally going to a national convention is a once in a life time experience. I have worked really hard inside the party on campaigns and voter protection issues for a very long time to earn this trip. Too bad that sanders and his vetted delegates ruined that experience and did their best to help trump. A candidate has absolute approval rights over their pledged delegates because these delegates can change their votes and these delegates represent the candidate and campaign. I helped vet Clinton delegates and I know that I was vetted. The Clinton campaign told us that we represent her and that our actions would reflect on her and her campaign.

In contrast, sanders sent one very weak text the Sunday night before the convention and then did little or nothing to control his delegates. It was nasty I was there when the sanders delegates booed Congressman John Lewis. I was warned about this stunt 30 minutes before it happened by the Clinton campaign whip. According to my whip, sanders was asked to stop this event and declined. That incident will be used against sanders by Russia to suppress the African American vote just as was done in 2016

Link to tweet

Russia will just run material showing sanders delegates booing John Lewis, Elijah Cummings and others to suppress the vote of African American voters and I feel that this tactic would be very effective

I was at the Texas delegation breakfast when a group of sanders delegates marched in and demanded that we condemn Clinton and change our votes to sanders.

sanders spoke to the Texas delegation the next morning and his speech was again solely about himself. There was a mini-riot due to his delegates the prior morning and the only thing that sanders talked about was himself. sanders did nothing to deal with the fact that his delegates were out of control and did nothing to try to help Hillary Clinton win the general election.

Finally a group of sanders delegates yelled at my daughter and called her the c-Word because she would not try to get me to change my vote. Again sanders was asked to tell his delegates to behave during the convention and sanders refused

The conduct describe in the OP does not surprise me

[hlthe2b]

5. with likes of Nina Turner, David Sirota, Briahna Joy Gray, and others advising/directing campaign...

how can anyone be surprised? I like Bernie just fine. Some of his campaign managers, endorsers, supporters? Not so much. At some point, though, such behavior is either tolerated or not and it has to come from the top.

[scheming daemons]

6. Sanders supporters' tactics are no different than the MAGA cult.

Trading one cult for another is not a big win.

[DanTex]

25. Calling supporters of a leading candidate a "cult" is not helpful to defeating Trump.

It's really not.

[scheming daemons]

28. Telling the truth is never the wrong thing to do.

[DanTex]

31. It's your opinion, and it's not always necessary to share your opinions in blunt words.

Bernie is currently the favorite to win the nomination, but he may not actually be the nominee, in which case we are going to need Bernie's supporters to vote for whoever the nominee is. Calling those people names makes it more difficult.

[scheming daemons]

35. Cult-like behavior is cult-like behavior... and it needs to stop

If calling it out disturbs you, I'm sorry about that.


This 4chan-style "swarming" of any entity that dares endorse a candidate other than Sanders is not helpful.


Since you're so worried about things that are "not helpful" and all.... maybe you should call this behavior out too.

[DanTex]

36. Again, that's your opinion. It doesn't disturb me, I've seen plenty of attacks on Bernie's

supporters from the media and from twitter and everywhere. What the name-calling does is make it more difficult to unify behind whoever the nominee is.

Beating Trump is what matters.

[scheming daemons]

39. Got it.

So you're ok with name-calling and bullying that is in favor of Sanders.... but upset with name-calling that is against Sanders.


"Beating Trump is what matters"... but thug behavior toward candidates NOT named Bernie Sanders doesn't disturb you.


You want Democrats to "come together" behind the nominee... but only if the nominee is Bernie Sanders.... otherwise, you're quite ok with burning the whole thing down.

[DanTex]

42. I'm against name-calling and bullying.

Unfortunately, on the internet, some supporters of all candidates engage in it. Check twitter, it's flying in all directions. The less, the better.

[scheming daemons]

55. What about doxxing?

Because the supporters of only ONE candidate are doing that.

[DanTex]

59. That too. All of it.

Obviously, it's not like Bernie supporters invented doxing or are the only ones who do it. The media, predictably, likes to highlight whenever any random Bernie supporter on the internet does anything wrong. And that leads to people generalizing that all Bernie supporters are evil, and blaming Bernie for something he obviously has nothing to do with and so on.

And all the name-calling just hurts our chances of beating Trump.

[ehrnst]

107. Well, some Sanders supporters are doing this...

Link to tweet

[dsc]

8. I am mystified why people aren't more concerned that one candidate and only one candidate

has online supporters who behave like Trump's. That should bother us more than it apparently does.

[Fresh_Start]

12. I am beyond concerned

understand that his supporters actions are a direct result of Bernie's strategy just like Trump's supporters actions are a direct result of Trump's strategy.

And Bernie studied political science so its very likely that he studied the topic in detail.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/trump-populism-le-pen/523491/

[Voltaire2]

14. Have you been to the twitter?

It’s a hot mess. The blame is universal.

[George II]

23. You should follow Gray, Sirota, and Turner.

[sheshe2]

41. Now they are one hot mess.

[DanTex]

34. It's not just one candidate's supporters. Just that the media harps on only one of them.

Check twitter. It goes all directions.

[sheshe2]

43. Link?

Oh never mind.

[DanTex]

46. Link to someone saying something mean on twitter? Really?

[sheshe2]

48. Twitter links are posted here all the time. nt

[DanTex]

49. Umm, OK. Well, here's just one of a million examples.

This one is telling, because a person the NYTimes interviewed in their story pushing the "meany Bernie Bro" narrative turns out to have a twitter temper. Kind of says it all.

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

58. You answered me!!!

Wonderful, however if you read the Times article I don't think says what you thought it did.

Bernie Sanders and His Internet Army

At the start of his 2020 bid, the Vermont senator told his supporters that he condemned bullying. Is it his problem if many don’t seem to listen?

snip

He had been milling about on the Senate floor one day in the summer of 2017 when a colleague, Kamala Harris, stepped toward him. “Do we have a problem?” Ms. Harris asked, according to Democrats familiar with the exchange.

Some prominent Sanders supporters had been flaming Ms. Harris publicly as the preferred choice of the corporate Democratic establishment against which Mr. Sanders had long railed, a view amplified among Sanders-boosting accounts across social media. “Pre-emptive strike,” one person wrote on the popular SandersForPresident Reddit group, where Sanders fans were sharing details of Ms. Harris’s recent fund-raising swing in the Hamptons with former Hillary Clinton donors. “Start the conversation now, end it before 2020.”

snip

Some progressive activists who declined to back Mr. Sanders have begun traveling with private security after incurring online harassment. Several well-known feminist writers said they had received death threats. A state party chairwoman changed her phone number. A Portland lawyer saw her business rating tumble on an online review site after tussling with Sanders supporters on Twitter.

Other notable targets have included Ady Barkan, a prominent liberal activist with A.L.S. — whom some Sanders-cheering accounts accused of lacking decision-making faculties due to his illness as he prepared to endorse Senator Elizabeth Warren — and Fred Guttenberg, the father of a shooting victim from the 2018 Parkland massacre, who had criticized Mr. Sanders’s statements about gun violence.


snip

For some perceived Sanders critics, there has been mail sent to home addresses — or the home addresses of relatives. The contents were unremarkable: news articles about the political perils of centrism. The message seemed clear: We know where you live.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/bernie-sanders-internet-supporters-2020.html

Sorry. You have not proven your point at all. I see no current candidates supporters sending death threats, doxing and stating we know where you live.

I haven't seen that at all.

[DanTex]

62. Not like it was hard finding anti-Bernie people flinging insults on twitter.

Did you think it would be? That particular example, a person interviewed in a NYT story smearing Bernie, doing exactly the kind of thing that the Bernie supporters were being smeared for, was a find, yes. But anti-Bernie people insulting people? Happens a thousand times a day.

The real question is why the media only focuses on the insults that Bernie people throw, and not the ones the anti-Bernie people throw. Could it be that the media is full of people that think stuff like this is legitimate news?

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

63. ...

[DanTex]

64. Yeah, I'm with you. That "Bernie turtles" thing was embarrassing.

Stuff like that goes a long way towards explaining why the media keep trying to paint Bernie's supporters as evil. I mean, if the other option is talking about his "turtle posture", yeah.

[RazBerryBeret]

54. one word for you...

PUMA... remember?

[sheshe2]

61. Not really.

I was an Obama gal from day one. Actually it was the 2004 key note speech. He had me then.

Link to me where Hill supporters back then were doxing Obama supporters and sending death threats. I will wait here.

[melman]

51. Because it's not true?

Like, at all? That could be it.

[krissey]

73. The only one that claims to not be a Democrat.

[Dem2]

83. What's worse, it makes it very difficult to tell if the poster is a troll or not

If gives trouble-making trolls from the other side cover and thus allows them to stir discontent - very frustrating!

[not_the_one]

96. sort of makes one want to ask how many of the "swarm"

are actually bots and trolls...

[lapucelle]

15. Didn't BS promise to "do better" after the whistle blowers' expose of the toxic predatory

culture on past campaigns?

[hay rick]

19. If one "Sanders supporter" posts something inappropriate online...

CNN will report it and someone will post the story here. Giving this kind of story legs sows division when we need unity.

[George II]

21. Clearly it's more than one supporter.

[betsuni]

32. It's that same drunk guy from the bar just blowing off steam...

[George II]

33. bwahahahahaha!!!!

[sheshe2]

44. Zing.

[sheshe2]

27. It wasn't just one supporter.

Nor was it just online. They are on TV saying this Bullsh*t.

[Fresh_Start]

29. please go to Twitter and see how many there are for yourself...

it isn't just one, ten, 100, 1000,....its a disgusting number of them.

[ibegurpard]

38. Anyone can make a Twitter account

That's the problem with Twitter. Taking it at face value is a big mistake.

[Scurrilous]

50. One?

Never Pete:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NeverPete&src=recent_search_click

Bernie won Iowa - this is so illustrative of the craziness.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23BernieWonIA&src=recent_search_click


#PetesBillionaires

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23PetesBillionaires&src=typeahead_click

[democrattotheend]

57. Exactly

That's what seriously pissed me off in 2016. The vast majority of us supported Hillary after the primaries were over, but the media gave way too much attention to the few who didn't.

[JudyM]

76. The goal seems to be division.

[ibegurpard]

37. The trolls posting stuff like that

are, for the most part, the russian bots designed to foster division. Equating them people who are saying things you disagree with and who are going after billionaires is disingenuous.
To be sure there are plenty of obnoxious Bernie Sanders supporters out there. I know some personally and have to expunge some from some groups I've moderated. But no one that has a real person behind them that has engaged in the kind of behavior you put forward as an example.

[hay rick]

47. I organized events for Bernie in 2015.

I had a contact list of 140 people in our area. None of them engaged in or complained about the kind of behavior that is routinely reported and discussed here.

[ibegurpard]

70. The stuff talked about here is hate speech.

It's beyond the pale. And obnoxious, opinionated, and pushy does not meet that threshold.

[ehrnst]

92. That does not mean that the behavior is not widespread.

I saw it during the 2016 GE on FB, and was a member of a few secret groups for Hillary supporters. We would talk about being swarmed - even by friends on FB who were Sanders supporters if we dared to post anything about Sanders but praise or links to flattering articles.

I saw false rumors being spread - during the GE - about Hillary on their FB pages, and if I tried to provide evidence that it had been debunked, I was swarmed by their Sanders supporting friends and called a "correct the record shill." Sometimes when I posted a positive article about her on my FB page - during the GE - some Sanders supporting friends would ask about "how many lives her Iraq War mongering took." I had to manage my privacy settings to hide those posts from them. Some I just had to unfriend, it got so bad.

Then my Sanders supporting friends would comment on how "nobody they knew was posting positive things about Hillary on their FB pages" (that they were allowed to see, in any case) so that meant "everyone was just holding their nose" to vote for her, because "nobody they knew...."



Anyone who knew me while volunteering on the HRC GE campaign would not have known my online habits, so I imagine that you would not know the online habits of those in your group. But yes, the online swarming was a topic of conversation when we went out for drinks after canvassing.

Those secret pro-Hillary FB groups were the only place I felt like I could talk about her campaign without being swarmed aggressively by Sanders supporters.

Yes, it was real, it is real, and the hundreds of other people in those groups know it was and is real as well. We are experiencing Deja vu because of the behavior is back, and even worse in some cases.

[hay rick]

103. My online experience has been different from what you describe.

I just looked up my Facebook account. I am a member of 84 groups and have 550 "friends." The majority of my Facebook friends are political acquaintances or connections. Ditto the groups. I get occasional troll-ish remarks from Trump supporters but virtually none from supporters of Democratic candidates. I'm sure there is bad behavior out there, particularly if one sets out to find and document it, but my experience leads me to believe that the hype exceeds the reality.

It is also obvious to me that this is a fight that can only damage Democratic candidates.

[ehrnst]

104. People's online experience do differ greatly. And FB settings allow us to exist

in silos and echo chambers.

It takes effort to get beyond them. I make that effort, and I have seen what I wrote about.

If you know what hashtags to look for on Twitter, you can see a massive river of sewage and hate.

[hay rick]

105. Why look for those hashtags? That creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I spend time inside and outside of the echo chamber, but I don't go looking for confrontation. I think there are more productive ways to invest discretionary time and effort.

[ehrnst]

106. I don't confront or even engage. I simply look to see what is going on.

If you're not familiar with Twitter, you may be interested, or not, to learn that it doesn't take even 15 minutes to look at a hashtag trend.

I think that there are more "productive ways to invest discretionary time and effort" than scolding someone who doesn't confirm or otherwise validate your online experience or image of a certain group of people.

[Doremus]

52. Those Joe followers aren't too shabby either, lol.

[ehrnst]

93. Whataboutism for the win!

But I'll play...

Why don't you give us some examples of reporting on this kind of swarming behavior among Biden supporters.

Or Warren supporters.

Or Buttigieg supporters.

Or Klobuchar supporters.

[gollygee]

56. I voted for Bernie in the last primary season

But I'm starting to get turned off by him. Particularly by his more ardent supporters, who seem to be doing the same kinds of things they did last time. I have a friend who keeps spouting off with stupid conspiracy theories. It drives me crazy. You can like Bernie best without thinking everyone else is evil.

I still don't know where my vote will go and I'll probably change my mind over and over again before it gets to Michigan. I will vote blue in November, though, and I have no time for anyone who even suggests anything else.

[lanlady]

74. This is why I don't like Sanders

He benefits from the worst instincts of a vociferous few. Did it in 2016, is doing it again in 2020. He pretends to be all for unity but in reality, he does little to distance himself from the crazier elements in his campaign. He needs them - because he doesn't have much to show for his long career in the Senate.

[Gothmog]

78. The "swarm": How some Sanders loyalists attack online dissent - CNNPolitics

I have seen this in action at the National Convention and on twitter

Link to tweet

[George II]

80. Drew Griffin did a full segment about this on CNN. It's disgustingly true.

[ehrnst]

86. Why so many Clinton supporters formed secret FB groups in 2016.

This kind of abuse and vitriol throughout the GE never let up.

[betsuni]

89. +1

[Gothmog]

109. These attacks on Fred Guttenberg by sanders supporters are sad

Link to tweet

[Zolorp]

90. That's just straight up MAGAt tactics

[ehrnst]

95. Senator Sanders is not known for tolerating dissent or disagreement on any issue well.

It's one of the reasons that I don't think he would be an effective POTUS, who needs to encourage those around him/her to be honest about disagreeing with him/her, especially if they think he/she is making a big mistake (like those in CA who counseled him, in vain, to stay away from Cenk's congressional campaign). More effective than Trump, of course, but not nearly as effective as we need in the era after Trump.

Unfortunately, I see it reflected in many of his most staunch supporters.

I've seen him get visibly irritated with reporters who ask followup questions, like a good journalist does, and don't simply nod and go to the next question. I imagine that's why he stated he was starting his own media outlet. A POTUS in an acrimonious relationship with the free press will not fare well in terms of credibility, as we've seen.

Requiring that everyone walk lockstep on every talking point, and attacking any dissent as heresy may make for a dynamic protest, or even a campaign, but it will kill a movement.

And stop a revolution in it's tracks.

[Cha]

98. too bad

[Iamaartist]

99. All seems like it was planned against Joe...my opinion....💙

[Cha]

100. KICK!

[getagrip_already]

101. subset? More like a superset.....

While I fully acknowledge that there are non-dem-voting shite-stirrers out there, they are heartily welcomed by the majority of bernie fans I run across.

They did the same thing with hillary, laughing at the mean old memes, yet applauding them at the same time.

That makes it even worse imho. It has the ability to make any candidate, even (or especially) bernie, uneletectable.

That of course, is the outsiders plan. Don't play along.

[revmclaren]

102. Kick.

ONLY!!! 2020 and beyond.

[Gothmog]

108. SNL had fun with sanders and his nasty supporters

Link to tweet