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
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]reddread
(6,896 posts)96. no stolen elections in our history
I wish those conspiracy theorists would just cut it out.
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