In Which States has Sen Sanders endorsed or campaigned supportively for the Democratic challenger?

[Bfd]

Just wondering why he chose certain States & not others where a Democrat was in a very tight race.

[demmiblue]

1. My guess:

1) His endorsement wouldn't help the Democratic challenger (strategy, ya know).

2) They may not have asked him/don't want his endorsement (a lot of Dems may want to keep it local).

3) He can't be everywhere (I don't think either of my Senators have stumped for any out of state campaigns).

4) You're just asking (the intent of this thread is obvious ).

[vsrazdem]

2. ++

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. Yep. A week before the election and some people just can't let it go.

[demmiblue]

5. There has been enough ugly this week.

I wish some people would just STFU and concentrate on taking our country back.

Words can't express how important these midterms are.

[George II]

7. Exactly. Some just have to take pot shots at the majority of the members here. Sad.

[R B Garr]

10. Funny. I took this thread more as questioning the unity and

cohesive strategy of Democrats winning and your take is that some people should just STFU and not question Sanders' commitments.

[Cha]

14. Excuse me.. Who are you to tell members to "STFU"?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. Strange how some can't recognize that, or simply don't want to... thankfully, Bernie does.

[George II]

12. Yes, you're 100% correct, SOME people just "can't let it go".

[grantcart]

50. I see what you did there

[George II]

52. .....

[R B Garr]

22. Are your signature gifs about "letting go"??

Maybe you should take your own advice.

[lapucelle]

57. ...

[R B Garr]

83. ...

[George II]

84. Bazinga! At least your little girl isn't getting thrown through a window or into a lake to drown.

[Cha]

96. Yeah, that'd be great.

[Bfd]

6. Yes. I am just asking where he has endorsed. His voice is influential.

My there sure are a lot of daggers thrown on this thread. Have no idea why the knee jerk snarling reaction to a question about who & where he is campaigning.

I haven't kept track of him so when i see a headline noting his appearances for Dem candidates in tight races, I wondered which of the many other Dems he has campaigned for.

I think some really need to "let it go" when a legit question is asked as to BSanders.


I asked a question because I don't have the time to keep track of everything going on un the pol world today.
I try to keep up but that is why I asked this quite innocent question.

And the snark & ire this question was met with really is pretty nasty & absolutely not necessary.

I expect some apologies for such a reaction.
Thank you in advance.

Ugh!

[George II]

8. Some good theories (actually more than theories) - #1 and #2 are very plausible, but as for #3....

....I don't think he's made a single appearance, or if he has very few low key appearances that haven't made the news, for the historic Democratic candidate for Governor, Christine Hallquist.

Yes he can't be everywhere, but I wonder about the "wheres" at which he's chosen to campaign.

[pangaia]

60. +++

[CentralMass]

4. Bernie is busy helping Democrats across the country and helping to get the vote.

Like this:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211346933
and this:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1280223662

There are and have been numerous posts here about his travels and rallies for candiates that he has attend literally every day,

[Bfd]

9. Thank you. That is what i wanted to know. Much appreciated.

I see there is a block or ignore feature on DU.

I think I will have tto start using it, judging by some of the reactions to my question.

The question you seemed to answer politely without taking some odd offense to.

Thanks. It tells me more about who he is today.

He isn't one I pay a lot of attention to, but lately he's staying solid with some Dems in critical races.
Good thing as the end of this midtermis nears.

I don't know if he has campaigned as much for other key races.
I know of Michigan & Florida.

[Cha]

97. Look what Kamala Harris is doing..

Link to tweet

[Bfd]

98. Wow! She is so smart & serious. I have the absolute highest respect for Sen Harris.

I want her to be our President.

[Cha]

99. I Retweeted it.

[Bfd]

103. Thanks Cha! Move the message along.

Harris 2020 💙

[George II]

11. That second one doesn't specifically say GOTV for Democrats.

Has he held any GOTV for Democrats in Vermont? Campaigned for the Democratic candidates for Governor or Congress?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. Bernie's doing the heavy lifting, as usual... but, of course, that's not good enough for some.

[R B Garr]

13. Great questions. Nothing wrong with wondering what the unifying

strategy is about electing Democrats.

[Bfd]

17. Thank you. With so much on the line come tuesday, strategy is key & its interesting to witness how

it all pulls together for a Dem majority in every contest across every State.

For all the millions of dedicated people who have worked so hard & against such big odds, fundraising, GOTV, door to door campaigning & registering voters, as well as all the watchdog groups who mostly work behind the view of big media, to keep track of the crooked repubs trying to suppress votes etc, for those who file court cases against the republican cheating & criminal behemoth that threatens our American existance, I say thank you to all you admired unsung heros of all walks of life. Big & small.

[Pity Puddles]

15. Colorado had Bernie last week

Endorsed Polis and Crow, rallied the voters to vote for them in Boulder, Ft Collins and Denver. I went to a Bernie event in Denver where he was endorsing a state rep here in Colorado. Helps when having David Sirota on Bernies side..... good luck Emily Sirota, CO HD9

[Autumn]

16. You can get a lot of information on where he has campaigned at in the Sanders group

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1280

Scroll down the pages. Donkees keeps track of all things Bernie, it's a good record of where he has campaigned for Democrats.

Keep in mind it is a safe haven for supporters of Bernie Sanders.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1280215834

[Bfd]

19. Really?

Appreciate the links.
However,
"Keep in mind it is a safe haven for supporters of Bernie Sanders"
Really?

Bye. Ignore/block is a vauable DU tool.
Thanks DU.

[Autumn]

20. Groups are safe havens.

Last edited Thu Nov 1, 2018, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

not at all surprised

[disillusioned73]

112. Boy..

your easily offended.. that is the whole idea of "groups" - so that ppl with ill intent don't come in to cause problems..

[George II]

30. I make it a practice of not reading posts in groups from which I'm blocked. I wonder why....

....there still are so many blocked there?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. Bernie is everywhere... campaigning his azz off!! If everybody displayed that kind of energy...

Democrats would sweep both houses of Congress, guaran-damn-teed!

[JCanete]

18. Because there are certain issues and positions candidates take that he champions.

It really is that simple. I'm not sure where your confusion lies. It would hurt Sanders messaging and brand if he simply put his limited time and weight behind any beleaguered democratic candidate. They have to represent his values.

[Bfd]

21. His values are the Democratic values. They must be since he caucauses & votes with Dems 99%

I believe that is what i've seen posted quite regularly here on DU.
His values, then are Dem values.

Whatever. Glad he's hanging in there for Democrats next week
Thanks

[JCanete]

23. But on issues of taking pac money and campaign finance reform, etc. there is a vast divide

among democrats, and for him to actively campaign for these candidates when he could be spending his time campaigning for others who better represent those values, would hurt his credibility...would make his endorsement worth less to people who think they know what he stands for.

[Bfd]

24. So Whitmer & Gillum don't represent his values??

"for him to actively campaign for these candidates when he could be spending his time campaigning for others who better represent those values,"

Then why is he campaigning for someone who go against his values? Why would he go against what he dearly believes & campaigns against in his own race?

Cripe sakes.

I guess i have my answer.
Thanks

[JCanete]

39. I actually thought Gillum wasn't taking pac money but that doesn't look to be the case.

What he is doing is championing a 15 dollar minimum wage and medicare for all, which are also among Sanders priorities, as I'm sure you well know. Also, in other instances you can expect Sanders to put his energy behind candidates in big races like the Presidency. Gillum may not nail all of the priorities, but he does nail some of them. I'm going to assume the case is similar for Whitmer.

[George II]

47. Virtually every Democrat running this year is championing a $15 minimum wage and variations....

....of John Dingell Sr.'s "Medicare for All" (first introduced in 1943), as many have been doing for years.

They're not revolutionary, they're in the Democratic Party Platform as approved at the last Democratic National Convention.

[JCanete]

48. I don't think you're correct on Medicare for All. How do you define "variation?" Also,

I never have claimed that anything Sanders has stuck by over the years or introduced is revolutionary. That's kind of the fucking point. Why has it been so hard to get Democrats to champion these ideas over the decades?

[George II]

51. Democrats HAVE championed these ideas over the decades. Dingell's "variation"? Here:

https://www.thenation.com/article/congressman-john-dingell-d-healthcare-right/

[R B Garr]

53. The Clintons' were the true progressives about health care -- decades ago. Really.

Al Gore was also years ahead of his time with climate change. Let's stick with reality here.

[JCanete]

54. what part of that do you think I disagree with? The problem is that the Clintons learned the

wrong lesson from the backlash.

[R B Garr]

55. I didn't see Bernie running for President 25 years ago, so who was

the one worried about the backlash...? I saw the Clintons' out there fighting.

But this is the kind of negativity that is so easily bandied about regarding the Clintons. Look how easy it is for you to spread this negativity but yet so carefully guard images of one person. This is also an example of the cognitive dissonance that was brought up earlier. It's like an entitlement to spread smears about the Clintons and this has spread to other Democrats. We need to call this out.

[JCanete]

59. Nonsense. You can look over my post history and have probably read many of the very posts

where I have first, mitigated the praise that should be heaped on Sanders, because being a Vermont Senator has afforded him a certain "purity" that may have gotten him crushed in a big money election a decade or two earlier in some other state. I've also given some leeway to Clinton for being politically cautious about defining her positions, and keeping her ear to the ground, because sometimes that really is the most pragmatic way to move us forward. I don't think 2016 was the year for that. Thanks to previous movements the nation was ripe for going for big things. I'm also tired of, and have been for years, the pretense of bipartisanship. Its always been a lie. The only bipartisanship possible with these republicans is one that fucks over the people. Edwards was right in 2008. We can't work with them, we have to fight them. People are finally waking up to that fact.

[R B Garr]

64. Wow, this is really a lot of contradiction. No wonder it's impossible for Democrats

to focus on these kinds of scattered requirements. I saw another of your posts about "establishment" in another thread, and mostly all of your recollections and associations have to do with Bernie as the center of politics, and that is just not the case. You also contradicted yourself about "establishment" when you fail to say the most salient reasons he ran as a Democrat are from the man's own words -- easily found on the internet.

It's pretty safe to say why Bernie didn't run for President before, and if you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the political realities against even mainstream Democrats when Clinton ran decades ago, then it's just this endless scattering of blame and misinformation. Maybe you can describe what would have happened to a socialist candidate 25 years ago -- please some reality -- thanks.

[JCanete]

66. Nope. Show me where I have entirely centered Sanders. In threads attacking sanders, kind of

not weird that he'd be centered, since he's the subject of conversation, but where have I situated him as the only person doing anything in politics?


Also, I feel like I just said what you said about whether or not Sanders could have won as a socialist 25 years ago. I just said that he enjoyed a certain freedom because he was in Vermont. How are you contradicting me here? I agree with you here. But 25 years ago wasn't 2016.

You've made up an entire identity for me that you can't back up.

[R B Garr]

67. You should spend your own time going over your own posts, especially those that

people have pointed out and that you continue to ignore. It's a circular project, but always a distraction. Why you continue to ignore Sanders' own words in favor of your own ideations is a big clue that it is you who needs to take stock of your "identity" (your word).

[George II]

79. Twenty five years ago Sanders was a virtual unknown. With all the C-span that I've watched...

....over the years I don't remember seeing him speak on the floor of the House or the Senate, and he wasn't really in the news - nationally or locally (I've lived in NYC and CT for about 67 of my 70 years, both in very close proximity to Vermont) I really never heard of him until early 2015.

[lapucelle]

113. Democrat John Conyers introduced his Medicare for All bill in every session of Congress since 2003.

It currently has 123 co-sponsors. Advocates and activists have long considered it the best Medicare for All bill introduced. There is currently no companion bill in the Senate.

https://goo.gl/9rrPzd

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676

[JCanete]

114. That there isn't a companion bill, if thats the way Senators think it should be done rather than

Sanders plan, in the Senate, only illustrates my point that no, not everybody in the Democratic Party is championing some version of Medicare-for-All.

[lapucelle]

123. Notwithstanding Conyers's 15 year fight for Medicare for All,

the congressional Democrats' primary goal since 2008 has been to first pass and then preserve the ACA.

However, it remains a fact that the only legislator who has/had been championing a detailed, fully funded, carefully crafted Medicare for All bill for the past 15 years is Democrat John Conyers.

The two senate medicare for all bills that have been introduced in the past 12 years are problematic, to say the least. For advocates and activists, what matters most is the quality, feasibility, and viability of the legislation, rather than which legislator gets the "credit".

It is hoped that a Democratic senator will introduce a version of medicare for all that mirrors HR 676 in the upcoming session of Congress.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676_and_S915

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/S1804

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Bernie_Sanders

[lapucelle]

74. The Republican governor of VT vetoed a raise in the minimum wage

and the creation of a paid family leave program. That's part of what inspired the Democratic challenger Christine Hallquist to run for the office.

The most recent poll had 22% of VT voters still undecided. Hopefully BS will make time to help elect a Democratic governor in his home state. The people of Vermont (like all Americans) deserve a living minimum wage.

[George II]

82. She is running a historic candidacy in Vermont, I wish she got more support than she's getting....

...unfortunately she's running against a fairly popular, dare I say it, "centrist" republican governor who is way overspending her. I wish she would have gotten more visible and sizable financial support, as well as support on the campaign trail.

Sadly neither is happening.

[Cha]

95. Oh BS could actually spend

time in his own state and help elect a Democratic Gov? Wow!

Good Luck to Democratic challenger Christine Hallquist!

Mahalo nui loa, lapucelle!

[NurseJackie]

102. Gillum "nails" the most important priority: He's a DEMOCRAT seeking to defeat a GOP opponent.

Gillum may not nail all of the priorities, but he does nail some of them.

Gillum "nails" the most important priority: He's a DEMOCRAT seeking to defeat a GOP opponent. For anyone who is considered to be an "ally" of the Democrats, that should be enough. That takes priority and precedence ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE.

All I'm trying to say is that everyone should do everything possible to support DEMOCRATS and get out the vote for DEMOCRATS and that anyone who willingly does less, and anyone who chooses to withhold their support, risks putting their motives into question. It really serves no good purpose for any politician to be more concerned about his/her "brand" than they are about supporting Democrats and defeating the GOP.

[Cha]

94. But El Sayed said Gretchen Whitmer

took "**** *****".. in the Michigan Primary.. and now BS is campaigning for her.

*** I don't want to spread anymore of El Sayed disingenuous smears.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. But, but, but... Bernie's not a Democrat!! Haven't you heard?!

[Bfd]

85. Well according to bernie, he's not a Democrat. Correct?

Thanks

[NurseJackie]

88. True. Thank you.

[NurseJackie]

25. Interesting priorities.

It would hurt Sanders messaging and brand if he simply put his limited time and weight behind any beleaguered democratic candidate.

Interesting priorities. I would hope that a more important priority would be to go "all-in" to defeat every GOP candidate rather than to focus on whether the effort would "hurt Sanders' brand".

All I'm saying is that this year, more than ever before in a very long time, the DEMOCRATIC brand is much more important than one man's brand. When anyone loses sight of that simple fact it serves only to weaken the Democratic party, and this in turn benefits the GOP.

[JCanete]

27. interesting read on my point. The point is that Sanders is trusted by those who support him to

champion certain causes and candidates who are on board with those causes. He does them no service to then endorse candidates who don't align with these priorities. It hurts his credibility, and I would suggest that credibility matters. Would you disagree? Would you suggest that the races he is weighing in on are not important?

[NurseJackie]

42. I'm saying that I question his judgement and priorities...

Would you suggest that the races he is weighing in on are not important?

I'm saying that I question his judgement and priorities, and that missed opportunities are wasted opportunities. How is it a bad thing to go all in for ALL Democrats? Aren't we all on the same side? Are we trying to defeat the GOP? All I'm saying is now is not the time to be distracted by personal pride regarding one's brand. That seems reasonable to me. It's unclear why anyone would disagree with something as simple as that.

[JCanete]

44. I'm pretty sure Sanders has stated that people should vote for democrats over republicans in

every case. Specific endorsements are different, and again, mean nothing if he simply blanketly endorses the whole field.

[NurseJackie]

56. Yet his own "Our Revolution" says something entirely different.

I'm pretty sure Sanders has stated that people should vote for democrats over republicans in every case.

Yet his own "Our Revolution" says something entirely different. Hmmm.

Specific endorsements are different, and again, mean nothing if he simply blanketly endorses the whole field.

That's a cynical oversimplification. EVERY race is important. Getting as many voters to turn out and vote for DEMOCRATS is crucial... and you're suggesting that Sanders is worried about diluting whatever influence he has if he supports "too many" Democrats. Good grief! GMAFB, will ya?

Specific endorsements only "mean nothing" to out-of-state voters. But WITHIN a specific state, to those specific voters... it could make a difference that would put the Democrat over the top. Is his "brand" THAT important to him? All I'm trying to say is simply this... a true "ally" of the party wouldn't put him/herself first and would do everything necessary to defeat the GOP. It really serves no good purpose (especially RIGHT NOW) for anyone to be focused more on "their brand" than on supporting Democrats and DEFEATING the GOP. That's reasonable, wouldn't you agree?

[JCanete]

58. they make his voice mean nothing. that's the point. Then it becomes a matter of what letter is on

the Jersey and not what policies a politician is addressing. Specific support again, should not simply be given, in my opinion, to any candidate. I can say vote for Manchin, but I"m not going to go and pretend I love him.

[NurseJackie]

63. Oh brother!

they make his voice mean nothing. that's the point.

Then it becomes a matter of what letter is on
the Jersey and not what policies a politician is addressing.

Yes. Exactly. That's ALL that matters right now. That's the ONLY thing that matters right now. We don't have the luxury of being able to pick and choose which Democrats are "worthy" of defeating their Republican opponent (for the sake of someone's concern about their "brand".) That's not the type of behavior I'd expect from someone who's supposed to be an "ally".

All I'm saying is that if someone REALLY wants Democrats to win... if someone REALLY wants to defeat the Republicans, then the "D" on the jersey should be quite enough. It really serves no good purpose for anyone to put their own personal pride or "brand" ahead of the goal of defeating Republicans.

I can say vote for Manchin, but I"m not going to go and pretend I love him.

Why not? I certainly am not someone who has too much pride to do what it takes to defeat EVERY Republican.

[JCanete]

65. Because its a lie. because it wouldn't fit with our previous rhetoric. Because it WOULD make

us look like hypocrites and would do nothing to help our credibility when it comes to new voters and old. That's why you don't do it. You don't make yourself look like a sellout by lying. You can legitimately say that Manchin is your best choice in this race and that the other guy is a piece of shit. But lying? You think people never find out? You think such lies always ring true? That's the best way to just look like you're another shill. People need honesty from their politicians, or at least democrats and liberals do.

[NurseJackie]

68. Ah... so one's vanity is more important than defeating the GOP. Got it.

You can legitimately say that Manchin is your best choice in this race and that the other guy is a piece of shit. But lying?

That's not a lie. He is better than the Republican. Everyone should do everything possible to make sure that the Democrat wins! That's not too hard to understand. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Why would anyone run away from that simple truth?

That's the best way to just look like you're another shill. People need honesty from their politicians, or at least democrats and liberals do.

Shill? Good grief! I think you're confusing "honesty" with "vanity". It serves no good purpose for anyone to put more importance on monetizing one's "brand" even if it means doing nothing to help defeat the GOP.

[JCanete]

69. wow...so I just explained to you how this could do us damage and you decided to ignore that

and just repeat the same argument.

How could I be confusing that? I literally said we shouldn't lie and pretend to love a candidate we don't love, and you said, "why not?"

[NurseJackie]

72. Defeating the GOP is the ONLY concern above ALL others. Deal with it.

I just explained to you how this could do us damage and you decided to ignore that
and just repeat the same argument.

Your "explanation" wasn't convincing. I found it easy to ignore. (Sorry.)

so I just explained to you how this could do us damage and you decided to ignore that

No, you tried to justify someone's vanity by falsely stating that a "brand" was more important than defeating the GOP. It really makes no good sense for anyone to put their own PERSONAL interests higher than the goal of defeating EVERY Republican candidate.

I literally said we shouldn't lie and pretend to love a candidate we don't love, and you said, "why not?"

Defeating the GOP is the ONLY concern above ALL others. Deal with it. Who cares if someone has to swallow their personal pride? The goal is to WIN!! The goal is NOT to make excuses.

Encouraging people to turn out and VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT is not "pretending to love" them. GMAGDMFB! Jesus!

[R B Garr]

73. We also shouldn't "lie" and claim that one Senator from a small state

speaks for every constituent in every state in the country. I'm seeing some really weird requirements and accusations coming from you this close to an election.

[R B Garr]

71. Wow, look at you openly advocating NOT to vote for the Democrat! Sure, there

are myriad of supposedly presentable excuses you are offering, but it is unmistakable that you are saying it is a "lie" to vote for a Democrat, although it is a qualified and masked claim, that sure looks like what you are saying. Isn't "honesty" what local voters are looking for?? It is a "lie" therefore to claim that a politician from Vermont speaks for every single constituent in every area of the country.

There is something really funny with your suggestions this close to an election!

[JCanete]

115. No, I never said that at all. I don't know where you got that idea. I said I wouldn't pretend I

loved Manchin or his policies to try to blow smoke up people's ass so that they'd vote for him. I WOULD tell them that they still need to vote for him. That their alternative is really, really, bad.


If you can find any damn thing I've ever said that suggests its a lie to vote for a democrat, feel free to present it, but it sure as fuck wasn't in my last post.

[R B Garr]

116. You were implying lots of stuff about "lies", as if local

candidates are lying if they don’t parrot the platform of a politician from the Northeast. It’s really absurd to insinuate Democrats are lying.

edit-this isn’t a purity contest. We need his seat for the committee assignments. Google poster pnwmom’s threads on that subject.

[JCanete]

117. No, I wasn't. Go back over my exchange with Nurse Jackie. In it I said that it

Last edited Fri Nov 2, 2018, 01:22 AM - Edit history (1)

would hurt one's credibility with the voters that trust him, if a politician praised and even went as far as to lie about how great he thought a candidate who generally plays in the sandbox this endorsing politician decries, is. I said that a politician(in this case, Sanders) shouldn't lie about their feelings regarding that candidate.

To which, NurseJackie said "why not?" Which to be fair, is a reasonable question. If the argument is that that is what it takes to put dems in seats, then maybe the ends justify the means. Putting aside ethics, I mainly disagree that we achieve those desired ends that way, because what we do is we devalue the credibility of those spokespeople who are trusted by their supporters for their principles and integrity(and its irrelevant whether or not you personally think Sanders is worthy of either). One's word and advocacy would start to mean nothing to people and then that trust would be gone, after which, who would give a crap who he did or didn't endorse? We could just assume that the endorsement will go with the team.

[R B Garr]

118. This is very convoluted and contradictory, sorry. I certainly won't

be going back over any of your posts so quit asking me to. Your whole premise is that everything is viewed by what favors Bernie’s image, so it’s a dead end to go down that road.

[JCanete]

119. Fair enough, but I maintain that i've been more nuanced and less partisan than

you when it comes to issues of sanders and the Mainstream Democratic Leadership, etc. It is entirely possible that you've been rigid and unmoving because you are simply right. It is also possible that you could stand to do some introspection and determine if you ever let blind partisanship shape your side of the discourse.

[R B Garr]

120. I've been very clear that you need to read the Mueller indictments.

Your ideations don’t take the place of known facts, and I’ll stick with the reality of those facts.

[JCanete]

121. Exactly, and you've continued to pound out that line over and over, even while you have

conversations with me that have absolutely 0 to do with the Mueller indictments, like the one that led to this. Nor have you been willing to frame any argument whatsoever, regarding the Mueller Indictments. I just need to read through them and they will become my new religion, answering all. I'm saying, if you want to proselytize, give me a bit of a description of the mountaintop already.

[R B Garr]

122. Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense. Not following

this distraction.

What “started” this was your distractions and omissions as to why Bernie ran as a Democrat. You omitted the man’s own words, all easily found on the internet. Then you wanted to continue refighting the primary since that was around that time period, I guess.

The Mueller indictments are a read unto themselves. They deal with reality and known facts. Why would I go down a path of unnecessary speculation when the existing data is right there in front of you.

[Cha]

31. "It would hurt Sanders messaging and brand if he simply put his limited time and weight behind any

beleaguered democratic candidate."

Oh Good Grief. BS campaigned Against Gretchen Whitmer in the Michigan Primaries.. so did he suddenly change his "brand and values" to campaign for her Now that she beat his candidate?

[JCanete]

37. No. He liked the other candidate better, but apparently like Whitmer enough. Is this confusing to

you?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

70. It's only confusing when one twists themselves in knots looking for fault.

It leads to silly arguments and nonsense points. I mean, who cares if someone supported another candidate in the primary and then supports/campaigns for the eventual nominee in the general election? That’s how it works and how it’s supposed to go.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

76. ** THIS **

[George II]

110. Speaking of which...........

[Cha]

91. But his "messaging and brand".. El Sayed

tried to link Gretchen Whitmer to every kind of "corporatist" there is.. and BS went along with it.

Now he's campaigned for Gretchen. Are you sure it's not going to "..hurt his messaging and brand.."?

Why would you ask ".. Is this confusing to you?" It's clear as glass to me.

[lapucelle]

111. I hope BS will come out very strongly for Christine Hallquist on this final GOTV weekend.

The gun-friendly incumbent Republican governor of Vermont vetoed a living minimum wage, the establishment of a paid family leave program, and houses out of state prisoners in a for-profit prison in Mississippi.

[lapucelle]

104. I'm confused as to why BS didn't spend as much time campaigning for Hallquist in VT

since her victory in August as he spent over the summer campaigning for losing primary candidates and appearing with the winners outside of his home state ever since the GE season began in earnest.

Sanders will finally be appearing jointly with Hallquist and other local candidates this GOTV weekend. Hopefully that will be enough to unseat a gun-friendly Republican incumbent who has vetoed both an increase in the minimum wage and the establishment of a paid family leave program.

Like all Americans, the people of Vermont deserve better.

[George II]

107. He's making his first appearance for her on Sunday, two days before the election....

I wonder if he contributed any of his eight million dollar campaign war chest to historic candidate Hallquist?

Unfortunately at this late date, she's probably going to be defeated.

[George II]

106. If he "liked the other candidate better" (implying he "liked" Whitmer), why did he...

...bash her on the primary campaign trail?

[lapucelle]

75. I hope BS sees the governor's race in Vermont as a priority

and campaigns for Christine Hallquist. The incumbent Republican governor vetoed both a raise in the minimum wage and the establishment of a paid family leave program.

[George II]

108. See post #107, he's making his first appearance with her on Sunday, November 4.

[R B Garr]

26. So my Senator, Feinstein, is "beleagured"??** That sounds divisive, actually.

I think that's what this thread is about -- how is the support doled out so it doesn't look divisive.

BTW, I'm glad Feinstein didn't mention her "values" about Bernie in their reelection campaigns the way he did about her.

**who is she "beleaguered" by?? I know...

[JCanete]

32. Feinstein is leading right? is she beleaguered? Besides, she's competing against another

democrat. Either way, democrats win. But beleaguered just means beset with troubles...which I only meant as being in tight races. I might have chosen a different word and am fine with that, but I don't know what about the word you most object to. I don't know what is divisive about it.

[R B Garr]

33. I'm just glad that Feinstein didn't say about him what he said about her.

Those double standards at work again.

[Me.]

28. Well At Least You're Being Honest

"It would hurt Sanders messaging and brand if he simply put his limited time and weight behind any beleaguered democratic candidate"

But why then is he campaigning for Ben Jealous?

[R B Garr]

29. lol, thank you! I noticed that, too.

"beleaguered" by what? and "beleaguered" by whom?? Huge tell right there...

[JCanete]

35. what? You misread me. I said "any" beleagured candidate. The point is to campaign for those whose

principles align with Sanders principles regarding specific priorities. Sanders has made no bones about supporting candidates like this who are incredibly under-covered or are in uphill battles. He doesn't endorse based on likelihood of winning, and that was certainly not my suggestion, even though you read it that way.

[R B Garr]

38. 7,860,000 Californians voted for my Senator Feinstein in 2012, Bernie's

state sees only around 200,000 voting for him. That's a lot of divisiveness to tell millions and millions of Californians that Feinstein is out of touch and needs to retire. I'm so glad she didn't diss Vermont and the 200,000 Bernie voters like that.

[JCanete]

40. dude, do you know how much money goes into california politics? Do you really believe

that you can't be a longstanding politician here and be out of touch giving how easy it is to just bury the competition in media? For my part, I'll be voting for her challenger, though had he been a Republican, of course I would again, be casting my vote for her.

[R B Garr]

41. Uh, she started as mayor of San Francisco. Obviously people really like her,

but that's probably why those one-size-fits-all smears didn't play so well here. They are not a cohesive argument against politicians who are just well liked. Look how popular she still is even after a fellow Senator smears her to promote his own platform (your previous post confirms his messaging priority).*

from your post 18:
"It would hurt Sanders messaging and brand if he simply put his limited time and weight behind any beleaguered democratic candidate."

[JCanete]

43. yeah, that his message and credibility matters. Feinstein demonstrably does not support

Medicare for All, and has not been in alignment with me on numerous issues, and its entirely fair for anybody to weigh in and say so. Whether she's out of touch or not, I'm not sure her popularity can be a gauge stating otherwise, but it is certainly a gauge of whether or not people think she's out of touch with them, and to that, clearly they do not.

But then 40 percent of the population don't realize that Trump is out of touch with them on economic issues. They have no clue. That can be said over and over about Republican Senators and Governors everywhere, whether they enjoy popularity or not.

Feinstein is thankfully to the left of all of those people, and my point isn't to equate her personally to them. It is only to state what should be obvious, that people don't always have all the facts, but often have the familiarity and the generally accepted and propagated sense of their elected leaders.

[R B Garr]

45. Obviously millions and millions of Californians disagree with this slanted view

that only someone espousing benefits they have not achieved in their own state can tell a long-term elected California Senator she is out of touch and needs to retire. Vermont does not have Medicare for All. Feinstein isn't calling for Bernie to retire because he has not come through for Vermonters. I'm glad most voters are smarter and don't fall for that.

[JCanete]

46. oft refuted claim that Sanders could somehow bring in Medicare for All for his state when he is a

US Senator. The ball is still in motion, and him making it nationally more reasonable to people makes it locally more reasonable to people, and makes it more possible, not less, that states like Vermont may attempt this in the future.

[R B Garr]

49. This is more of the cognitive dissonance mentioned earlier. Democrats are

supposed to talk about something* that he has been unable to achieve in his own state. So apparently just "talking" about Medicare for All is not enough, but that is the standard imposed on others. Talk about something that has failed on a "talking" level in his own state. Obviously it takes much more than talking, so why put on other politicians what he has failed to convince others of in his own state.

*The Clinton's introduced national universal health care into the national dialogue literally decades ago.

[Cha]

93. Our Dems have the BEST VALUES..

way better than that poster can even imagine!

Did you mean why isn't BS campaigning for BJ?

[Me.]

100. Confusing

but I did mean why is he campaigning for BJ, if the response truly is that BS doesn't have time for beleaguered candidate which Ben Jealous, sadly, truly is. Hogan is ahead by double digits. Many of races with progressive candidates are very tight but not this one. I'd say BJ fits the description of beleaguered.

[Cha]

101. Oh I get it!

Sorry!

[Me.]

105. It Was Confusing & Could've Gone Either Way

[George II]

61. Is it more important to avoid hurting one's "brand" or winning elections? But I really think....

....you just said what many have been saying for a few years now about Sanders' priorities. Thanks so much.

[NurseJackie]

86. ... and then confirmed it and defended it...

... multiple times. There can be no doubts. I take him at his word.

[Cha]

92. No Worries! Most of our Dem Candidates have the BEST

Values.. way better than you can even imagine!

[George II]

109. Would it "hurt Sanders' messaging and brand" if he spent some of his "limited time"....

...to campaigning for the Democratic candidate for Governor in his home state?

[Snotcicles]

34. It isn't hard to find this stuff out

https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Bernie_Sanders

[CentralMass]

62. +1

[lapucelle]

89. Aren't those endorsements for primaries, rather than general election endorsements? N/T

[mac56]

36. Good God. Let it go.

You're just embarrassing yourself.

[Bfd]

87. I'm not embarrassed for asking a question about which Dem candidates he's endorsing or campaigning

Why would that be an embarrassment?
What a mean thing to say to me.

I have no idea why you said this.
I asked a legitimate question and you respond with this?

"Good God. Let it go.
You're just embarrassing yourself."

Maybe you can explain whaat you meant.

[Cha]

90. NO, Bfd is Not "embarrassing"

their self.