Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: NY Times article on the infighting within Sanders campaign [View all]Jarqui
(10,125 posts)77. The feel of the article doesn't add up
It spins one thing:
These people described Mr. Sanders team as decidedly less emphatic in private discussions about having more primary debates than they have been in public, realizing that debates are not his strength.
No quote from "these people" to back that assertion up.
Then :
Mr. Briggs denied that claim. .... Mr. Briggs said the team would welcome more debates that included Mrs. Clinton as well.
O'Malley whined but ignored the consequences of debating without Hilary = no more debates with Hillary.
Of course the Sanders campaign would like more debates with Hillary as most second place candidates would. It's a chance to get their message out and a chance for Hillary to make a mistake. The rest is pure nonsense in comparison.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
107 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Waiting for the obligatory "The Times is part of the MSM/in the tank for Clinton" post
brooklynite
Dec 2015
#1
The Polls Are ALL BS and Cannot By Definition Be Random Given The Structural Change in Means of
CorporatistNation
Dec 2015
#39
I don't doubt that one bit. A lot of people want to go for her jugular. Not just a small
Hiraeth
Dec 2015
#30
Damn right a little friction is healthy.. Used to be a major trait of the Dem party....
raindaddy
Dec 2015
#47
And instead you get what, you've never seen politics before? Let's do a quick review!
Bluenorthwest
Dec 2015
#10
Interesting how the Clinton fans used to disparage the Corp-Media and now have switched
rhett o rick
Dec 2015
#15
I know you didn't mean this but this post reads like a throwaway line to me
Depaysement
Dec 2015
#50
It is along the same lines that Bernie uses and then claims it was not mysoginistic.
Sheepshank
Dec 2015
#86
There is "no upside" to Sanders debating O'Malley. And what is the upside for Hillary
pnwmom
Dec 2015
#73
Why waste time and energy on a debate that does not include the frontrunner?
passiveporcupine
Dec 2015
#45
Really? Sen Sanders went from relitive unknown to millions of supporters in a relatively
rhett o rick
Dec 2015
#17
What you mean is that Conservative Democrats run the leadership of the Party and
rhett o rick
Dec 2015
#36
She turned her back on the Democratic Party in 2002 and chose to side with the Republicons.
rhett o rick
Dec 2015
#84
Millions love Trump also and that's who we will get if she wins the nomination.
rhett o rick
Dec 2015
#91
Thanks for posting. There is no doubt in my mind who the NYTimes supports. But why
rhett o rick
Dec 2015
#20
Really interesting after the massive amount of hair pulling from sanders supporters
FloridaBlues
Dec 2015
#28
Is this the reason Clinton is astro-turfing? Clearly a “tell of a losing campaign"
dorkzilla
Dec 2015
#43
If his campaign thinks "debates aren't his strength," then why the conspiracy theory here...
Hekate
Dec 2015
#53
The last paragraph in this article is telling of the effectiveness of Weaver combined with the facts
Uncle Joe
Dec 2015
#56
Sure sounds like Weaver is running the incompetent campaign here. Wait a second....!
JonLeibowitz
Dec 2015
#83