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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bernie Sanders

Showing Original Post only (View all)

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Wed Jan 13, 2016, 10:38 AM Jan 2016

Why Going Negative on Bernie Sanders Never Works [View all]

by Taylor Gipple

After seeing polling trends continue to rise, it seems as though Hillary Clinton has become more aggressive in "attacking" Bernie Sanders throughout the last couple weeks. Don't say this too loud, but a note to the Clinton camp if they intend to get more aggressive: going negative on Bernie Sanders has never worked and has always backfired on his opponents.

After reading a few biographies, Outsider in the White House and Why Bernie Sanders Matters, which tell the history of Bernie Sanders and his previous elections, I've deduced this firm conclusion.

Bernie Sanders is seen as an anti-politician because he has a long history of being an Independent, doesn't look or act like a politician, and spouts ideas that don't instantly appear as "mainstream." However, if you look at Sanders's history, you will see he has already participated in 20 elections throughout his life. You read that right. Twenty elections. Now, he did not win all of these (14/20), but batting .700 is pretty good.

After reading about the outcomes of these 20 elections, it was clear that whenever a Sanders's opponent would go negative against him, it would backfire and Sanders would end up winning the election.

more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-gipple/why-going-negative-on-ber_b_8964266.html

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The cool part was SmittynMo Jan 2016 #1
Exactly. tazkcmo Jan 2016 #3
Hillary's hubbie set the standard... Wounded Bear Jan 2016 #14
And sending out Chelsea to do her dirty work...I know she's an adult an all, but she's a libdem4life Jan 2016 #2
Next, they'll try to send this little fella to slander Sanders! Helen Borg Jan 2016 #15
Only because Sanders wants to dismantle his leg! mhatrw Jan 2016 #19
No they won't. I'll puppysit to make sure. Cutey Pie for sure. libdem4life Jan 2016 #20
It is sad that a Democrat should be attacked by another Dem for declaring the healthcare is a right, Doctor_J Jan 2016 #4
And going negative is their ONLY weapon. Good luck!! FlatBaroque Jan 2016 #5
Negative is one thing. Dishonest is another. merrily Jan 2016 #6
Amazing n2doc Jan 2016 #7
She talks in riddles. Nothing you can really "pin on her" when it changes. But Chelsea does not libdem4life Jan 2016 #21
Seriously? Nyan Jan 2016 #9
Yes, seriously. merrily Jan 2016 #12
And more important - she has no videos of him saying jwirr Jan 2016 #18
A very Rovian attack The Blue Flower Jan 2016 #8
Kickin' Faux pas Jan 2016 #10
I read Outsider in the White House. You are absolutely right. thereismore Jan 2016 #11
Imagine if that actually caught on? Saviolo Jan 2016 #13
I've witnessed a few campaigns in my day... Wounded Bear Jan 2016 #16
It would be revolutionary indeed. nt thereismore Jan 2016 #17
You mean like in Norway? Betty Karlson Jan 2016 #22
I will admit to being ignorant Saviolo Jan 2016 #23
The more negative he goes the more money and support he raises Rosa Luxemburg Jan 2016 #24
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Why Going Negative on Ber...»Reply #0