Nor do I get why you are approaching me that way, do you?
But, okay, to my response.
Which reality?
The reality that what Scuba suggested in his Reply 2, primarying corporate candidates and finding new ones and getting them to run and to support Bernie is tough to accomplish. Do you disagree with that? If so, please elaborate.
"Normal candidates need a major party and its donors and its media juice. The DNC and the party's most desirable campaigners, including Obama, are all behind Hillary and so is msm."
Yep, I posted that,
preceded by a statement that indicated that Bernie is not the normal candidate, but a phenom, which you did not quote. It replies to this, from Scuba's Reply 2:
We need to primary a bunch of corpo-Dems from the left and having them state support for Bernie's positions is exactly the glue that will change Washington.
But, which part of the language that you did quote from my post do you actually find to be false or misleading as a response to Scuba or which part of the language that you quoted do you actually disagree with and why?
Would you say this describes Bernie's campaign?
Can't answer. No idea what "this" in your sentence refers to. The language you quoted is expressly about what normal candidates like the ones Scuba was hoping to come up with need to win. It makes no reference to Bernie's campaign.
Bernie's success is staring us in the face yet some still recommend traditional campaigning
?
If "some" in your sentence is intended to include me, please quote the part of my post that recommends that Bernie campaign in a traditional way, or indeed, where I made any recommendation whatever about how he or anyone should campaign.
If this is your belief, how will Bernie win?
Again, no idea to what "this" in your prior sentence refers. My post was not about how Bernie will win.
= new reply since forum marked as read