The Escalating Media Assault on Bernie Sanders

[Uncle Joe]

And, just in case you haven’t gotten the media message yet — Sanders is “angry,” kind of like Donald Trump.

Elite media often blur distinctions between right-wing populism and progressive populism — as though there’s not all that much difference between appealing to xenophobia and racism on the one hand and appealing for social justice and humanistic solidarity on the other.

Many journalists can’t resist lumping Trump and Sanders together as rabble-rousing outliers. But in the real world, the differences are vast.

(snip)

That “political center” of power sustains huge income inequality, perpetual war, scant action on climate change and reflexive support for the latest unhinged escalation of the nuclear arms race. In other words, what C. Wright Mills called “crackpot realism.”

Meanwhile, liberal Times columnist Paul Krugman (whose idea of a good political time is Hillary Clinton) keeps propounding a stand-on-head formula for social change — a kind of trickle-down theory of political power, in which “happy dreams” must yield to “hard thinking,” a euphemism for crackpot realism.

An excellent rejoinder has come from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. “Krugman doesn’t get it,” Reich wrote. “I’ve been in and around Washington for almost fifty years, including a stint in the cabinet, and I’ve learned that real change happens only when a substantial share of the American public is mobilized, organized, energized, and determined to make it happen.

And Reich added: “Political ‘pragmatism’ may require accepting ‘half loaves’ — but the full loaf has to be large and bold enough in the first place to make the half loaf meaningful. That’s why the movement must aim high —toward a single-payer universal health, free public higher education, and busting up the biggest banks, for example.”

But for mainline media, exploring such substance is low priority, much lower than facile labeling and horseracing… and riffing on how Bernie Sanders sounds “angry.”

(snip)

http://billmoyers.com/story/the-escalating-media-assault-on-bernie-sanders/#.Vqo7mnCKgJ0.twitter

This is a good read.

[Metric System]

1. Are you saying Sanders can't handle what Hillary has faced for years - a hostile media?

[Uncle Joe]

4. Where did you ever get that idea?

[riversedge]

14. From the whining Headline.

[Uncle Joe]

17. That's just an observation of fact.

[riversedge]

54. It is past time that Sanders is being vetted.

[kenfrequed]

45. Are you saying I'm your Strawman?

Seriously, how the heck does anyone pass the metric with arguments as silly as this?

[workinclasszero]

60. Apparently so

Poor Bernie, he should move back to his ivory tower and party of one.

Wait until the republicans get a piece of your hide Bernie, you won't know what hit you!

[BainsBane]

2. That's what happens when someone runs for president

He's finally starting to get vetted, which shows he has risen to the point where he is viewed as a serious candidate.

The press has a duty to look into candidates and their plans. What did you expect? A coronation?

The anger part is obvious. I don't see why Sanders supporters should find comments about that objectionable since clearly it is key to his appeal: Sanders expresses the anger many of his supporters feel. That is why he is where he is in the race today.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Regarding anger there are different types and one shouldn't confuse anger with aggression.

While Bernie derives his power from righteous anger against vast income disparity, its' affect against good government and the disenfranchisement of the people while Trump is living off of aggression whether it's against women, Mexicans, Muslims or any other handy scapegoat that he can come up with.

Trump is also consumed by the first form of anger more about his billionaire self-preservation whereas Bernie is driven by the second type of anger against deliberate harm and the unfair treatment of others.

Three types of anger are recognized by psychologists: The first form of anger, named "hasty and sudden anger" by Joseph Butler, an 18th-century English bishop, is connected to the impulse for self-preservation. It is shared between both human and non-human animals, and it occurs when the animal is tormented or trapped. The second type of anger is named "settled and deliberate" anger and is a reaction to perceived deliberate harm or unfair treatment by others. These two forms of anger are episodic. The third type of anger is called dispositional and is related more to character traits than to instincts or cognitions. Irritability, sullenness and churlishness are examples of the last form of anger.[15]

Anger can potentially mobilize psychological resources and boost determination toward correction of wrong behaviors, promotion of social justice, communication of negative sentiment and redress of grievances. It can also facilitate patience. In contrast, anger can be destructive when it does not find its appropriate outlet in expression. Anger, in its strong form, impairs one's ability to process information and to exert cognitive control over their behavior. An angry person may lose his/her objectivity, empathy, prudence or thoughtfulness and may cause harm to others.[10][16][17] There is a sharp distinction between anger and aggression (verbal or physical, direct or indirect) even though they mutually influence each other. While anger can activate aggression or increase its probability or intensity, it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for aggression.[10]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger

No one on Bernie's side ever expected a "coronation" that sounds more like projection.

"The press does have a duty to look into candidates and their plans" and we the people have a duty to look into the press.

[BainsBane]

22. Who is confusing anger with aggression?

Did the press call him violent? I certainly never said anything of the kind.

Bernie's entire campaign is built around rage at Wall Street. That is all he ever talks about. Now you're upset people actually notice?

Clearly you're pissed off anyone dare criticize Bernie. Those of us who aren't true believers have felt the consequences of our heresy for sometime. We know full well that we are expected to read anti-Clinton comments day in and day out but if anyone responds in kind--or even approaches that level--about Sanders, their post is hidden. The press, however, isn't so easily censored. Besides, if you think this is rough, you really don't want him anywhere near the general election. The GOP takes no prisoners, and they don't give even half a shit what "progressives" think. Right now they are in Sanders corner, running ads against Clinton in Iowa to boost Sanders' prospects. If they are successful and Sanders becomes the nominee, there will be a red-baiting bloodbath of epic dimensions

My use of the term coronation was deliberate. It was precisely the bullshit the anti-Clinton types floated around here for ages, when in fact the Clinton campaign nor any of her supporters ever imagined the nomination wouldn't be contested--and said so repeatedly. She did lose in 2008 after all. I know coronation doesn't have quite the same zing toward a man since its original use was clearly deliberately gendered. Still, I think it points to the double-standard well enough.

[Uncle Joe]

23. The media in portraying Trump as angry instead of being consumed by aggression and self-preservation

I never said Bernie wasn't angry at Wall Street, he should be and you're incorrect in assuming my emotional state in regards to defending Bernie.

Furthermore, you're incorrect in assuming my emotional state while defending Bernie against anyone that criticizes him.

I totally disagree regarding the press not being censored, they as an institution have a crystal clear financial conflict of interest, there is no logical way to dispute this. There are good journalists out there to be sure, but operating within the corporate media conglomerations they can only push the envelope so far

There have been multiple issues wherein the press has censored itself from the run up to the war with Iraq to coverage of global warming climate change along with vast income disparities in the U.S. just to name a few.

If the Republicans are trying to get Bernie the nomination they're making a grave political mistake if they want to win the White House.

The corporate media conglomerates did try for many months last year to give Hillary a coronation by blacking out coverage of Bernie.One can also see it in the one-sided questions they posed to Bernie and Hillary during the debates long with their instantaneous ruling by well paid pundits that Hillary won those debates despite overwhelming real time Internet and focus group beliefs to the contrary.

I have no idea where you get the word "coronation" as being gender specific as both sexes have been crowned throughout history.

[BainsBane]

24. I meant not censored by Bernie supporters

to fall in line. Sure, they can do the FB treatment, like they do to anyone who dares to endorse Clinton, but they can't stop articles examining the candidate's policies.

Clearly you think the press is out of line in its coverage of him, that they are not sufficiently deferential. You would not have posted this OP otherwise.

I don't share your view that Trump is interested in self-preservation. His business has taken a nose-dive since his campaign started. He's in this for ego. He's a showman. Bernie, however, clearly sees some overlap in the anger that both he and Trump are able to tap into, or he wouldn't have publicly announced he could win over the voters.

My guess is that Trump probably isn't angry himself. Fact is he doesn't have anything to be angry about. Rather, he is taking advantage of the white rage that is present in our society.

What you say about the corporate media trying to coronate Clinton is complete bullshit. I don't think there is a single human being in history who has been so regularly and falsely maligned as Hillary Clinton. There are people who speak more favorably of homophobic tyrants and genocidal dictators than Clinton. That they claim to be "progressive"' makes it all the more revolting.

Earlier in the year, Bernie was no where in the polls. Coverage of him has increased as his poll numbers have, as he has come to be seen as a serious candidate. Look at Martin O'Malley. He gets very little coverage, and he has a hell of a lot more to say than Bernie does.

Bernie has been on Sunday news shows more often than anyone since Donald Trump. He's constantly on the news and in the press. That entire line is ridiculous. However, rather than the empty, celebratory pieces about his crowds or the simple horse race, they are now starting to vet him, and you don't like it.

Your very assertion that the press is pro-Clinton tells me your judgement is seriously clouded.

As for coronation, I take your point. It's not a term that I've heard before in American politics, and I link it with the misogynistic images of Clinton as haggard-looking queen floated around by so-called "progressives."

[Uncle Joe]

32. There is a major distinction between debating and censoring, Bernie supporters have no

financial power over the press, they can argue, condemn, dispute, disparage, rebut etc. etc. etc. on Facebook or the Internet in general, but that's not censorship.

That's just part of democracy, the First Amendment; freedom of speech whether you agree with it or not.

I have no qualms with the press for criticizing Bernie or any other candidate, I also have no problems with defending him against said criticism if I deem it to be unfair or incorrect.

I have also posted articles that I agree with from them in regards to praising Bernie, are you denying me my birthright to do so?

I agree with you on a couple of things, Trump is consumed by his ego and that's what enables his aggression, he's a megalomaniac, Trump is also trying to take advantage of low info white rage people by misdirecting them onto easy scapegoats, Bernie is trying to straighten them out as to who the real culprits; plutocrats such as Trump are behind much of their misery.

Can Bernie save them all from themselves? No but he will able enlighten some of them.

As for the Presidential Race Bernie started his race beginning with intention announcement April 30th and officially launching May the 26th of last year, clearly Bernie has been running on populist platform from the left.

Trump followed Bernie a little over two weeks later on June 16th running on a populist platform from the right, Trump was afraid of what a Bernie Presidency would do to his billions.

As for the corporate media conglomerate's coverage of Hillary there is no doubt that she has been criticized but when it comes to how they handle the debates, their bias is obvious toward Hillary is obvious and this is critically important in regards to public perception of the candidates, polls and how the people will ultimately vote.

I also have no doubt the corporate media conglomerates would first prefer a Republican but if they can't get that Hillary is their fall back choice.

Earlier in the year Bernie started his surge and was getting record breaking crowds at rallies and the corporate media conglomerates still blacked him out for months, they were even giving more coverage to second and third tier Republicans while keeping Trump so front and center in the nation's consciousness no matter the inanity of the pronouncements because they believe his populism would weaken Bernie.

DECEMBER 11, 2015

Twitter Facebook Email Link

WASHINGTON – Sen. Bernie Sanders has made big gains in Iowa, leads most New Hampshire polls and fares better than Hillary Clinton in general election matchups against Donald Trump and other Republican White House hopefuls.

But the insurgent campaign that has drawn the biggest crowds on the presidential campaign trail has been all but ignored on the flagship television network newscasts, according to Tyndall Report, which tracks nightly news coverage by NBC, CBS and ABC.

“The corporately-owned media may not like Bernie’s anti-establishment views but for the sake of American democracy they must allow for a fair debate in this presidential campaign,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager. “Bernie must receive the same level of coverage on the nightly news as other leading candidates.”

ABC’s “World News Tonight” has devoted 81 minutes to Donald Trump’s campaign so far this year compared to a mere 20 seconds on Sanders through the end of November. NBC’s “Nightly News” afforded 2.9 minutes of coverage to Sanders since January. The “CBS Evening News” provided viewers 6.4 minutes of coverage on the Vermont senator.


https://berniesanders.com/press-release/why-the-bernie-blackout-on-corporate-network-news/

[Jefferson23]

3. They don't like the disturbance known as Bernie Sanders. Even if he loses, the disturbance

won't be going away. It's not about free stuff, people.

[Uncle Joe]

21. I agree on all counts, Jefferson.

[scottie55]

47. The Revolution Has Begun

Regardless what happens, we have Bernie to thank for igniting the spark.

I am sure the .01% agrees.

[sadoldgirl]

5. We all knew this was coming, and maybe

it is good that it comes already, so that he becomes
immunized. Besides, we also know from experience,
how the Clintons deal with an opponent.

He will be alright!

[VulgarPoet]

9. I almost feel disgusted with myself. For a moment there, I was nearly back on the fence.

Thanks for this.

[pangaia]

27. Stick it out, Poet....

[Uncle Joe]

13. I agree, sadoldgirl.

[floriduck]

6. I think what this says is

That Hillary is happy to leave Dems on the table, so to speak. Rather than maintaining your inner principles, she's fine with settling for less at the expense of getting less for the middle class and more for those in her economic sphere.

Thanks, Uncle Joe.

[DanTex]

7. I bet Trump hates when they say he's "angry, like Bernie Sanders."

[Number23]

12. The international press has connected those same dots

BBC: Battle for Iowa: Trump and Sanders play outsider card
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35422856

[Uncle Joe]

15. Trump is afraid of Bernie Sanders.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511084235

[Armstead]

8. Norman Solomon -- A truth Teller

[Beacool]

10. He's starting to get vetted.

Hillary has been putting up with far, FAR, worse than Sanders will ever have to put up in this election.

[AgingAmerican]

18. Slinging dog shed isn't vetting

[Uncle Joe]

19. Bernie will be fine and we're just getting started as well.

[Duppers]

44. Agree.

[pangaia]

28. This has has nothing to do with vetting.

And you know it.

Or, on the other hand....


maybe... you actually don't know it.

[kenfrequed]

46. If by "vetted" you mean lied about

I guess that is sort of like vetting... in bizarro world.

[scottie55]

48. I Have Seen Assholes On TV Say Bernie Wants To Tax Everyone At 90%

Many times already.

Lying scum.

[tex-wyo-dem]

65. To be fair, Hillary has brought much of her "vetting"...

On herself.

The whole email server issue could and should have been totally avoided. Extremely bad judgement on her part. I don't want a POTUS with bad judgement.

[MeNMyVolt]

16. Just the beginning. Welcome to the party, pal.

[Uncle Joe]

20. Thanks for welcoming us to the party, MeNMyVolt.

[amborin]

25. the media is of and for the status quo elite nt

[grasswire]

26. Bill Moyers, national treasure.

What a trio. Moyers, Reich, and Sanders.

Truth tellers.

[Matariki]

31. +1

[pa28]

29. The silver lining is we all knew this would happen if Bernie seriously threatened to win.

Here we are.

[orpupilofnature57]

30. G.E. MIC TPTB All have the same agenda, it's like sedition back in Rome except they can't actually

hang people on a cross,,,, It's a Clarence Thomas put it a " Media Lynching " , it's a compliment to his character, they adore the Donald .

[houston16revival]

33. I don't see how

you're going to have a political revolution of any kind

with a decent economy and (almost) the same party in the White House

Sanders would be running against Wall Street and by implication Congress

It's a tightrope for Wallenda

A candidate like that needs a party apparatus, not a reluctant DLC and half
of the party's Congressional candidates afraid of his message and unclear what
to do. A political upheaval requires crack the whip party loyalty. We are not there.

They'd be ripe for GOP attacks. If you think Obama was socialist, wait until they
turn on Bernie.

I'm not against Sanders in any way, just dishing the landscape as I see it.

Study revolutions, study movements, "The Populist Moment", William Jennings Bryan,
FDR 1932 campaign, even the October Revolution. All had real visible social strife.
I'm not saying we don't have hard times for many, just we're not even at a 2008
crisis point let alone where some of the most recognizable mass movements failed.

Bernie's legacy will be to move the pendulum left. Americans are aware of what has been
done to them, aware of Wall Street, aware of the 1%, profit margins, environmental issues,
CEO pay, billionaires. We were not at this point in 2000, nor even 2008.

[Uncle Joe]

37. I don't expect it to happen overnight, nor does Bernie however

should a self-described "Democratic Socialist" first the win the Democratic nomination and then be elected to the White House would constitute a political earth quake and the reverberations/ramifications would be felt around the nation.

The new Congress would not be the same, currently the largest caucus in the Democratic House is the one that Bernie founded and led for eight years, I have no doubt their membership would grow as a result of a Bernie victory.

During his first year in the House, Sanders often alienated allies and colleagues with his criticism of both political parties as working primarily on behalf of the wealthy. In 1991, Sanders co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of mostly liberal Democrats that Sanders chaired for its first eight years.[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

I am under no delusions that the forces arrayed against him and the movement aren't powerful but this has always been the case in American History during great transformation.

As for relative conditions, today we have greater income/wealth disparity than at any time since 1928 and Bernie is hammering that message home.

Finally the Internet itself has revolutionized mass communication, organization, fund raising, and awareness beyond any invention of human history.

Regarding FDR's 1932 campaign I don't believe it to be a coincidence of his rise to and staying in power along with the ascendance of radio in the 1920s and 1930s.

Fireside chats is the term used to describe a series of 30 evening radio addresses given by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt between 1933 and 1944. The fireside chats represent the first time in history that a chief executive communicated directly with a large number of citizens. Roosevelt spoke with familiarity to millions of Americans about the banking crisis, the recession, New Deal initiatives, and the principal purposes and specific progress of World War II. On radio, he was able to quell rumors and explain his policies comprehensibly. His tone and demeanor communicated self-assurance during times of despair and uncertainty. Roosevelt was one of radio's greatest communicators, and the fireside chats kept him in high public regard throughout his presidency.

The series of fireside chats was among the first 50 recordings made part of the National Recording Registry of the Library of Congress, which noted it as "an influential series of radio broadcasts in which Roosevelt utilized the media to present his programs and ideas directly to the public and thereby redefined the relationship between the President and the American people."

Roosevelt understood that his administration's success depended upon a favorable dialogue with the electorate — possible only through methods of mass communication — and that the true power of the presidency was the ability to take the initiative. The use of radio for direct appeals was perhaps the most important of FDR's innovations in political communication.[1]:153 Roosevelt’s opponents had control of most newspapers in the 1930s and press reports were under their control and involved their editorial commentary. Historian Betty Houchin Winfield says, "He and his advisers worried that newspapers' biases would affect the news columns and rightly so."[2] Historian Douglas B. Craig says that he, "offered voters a chance to receive information unadulterated by newspaper proprietors' bias" through the new medium of radio.[3]

Roosevelt first used what would become known as fireside chats in 1929 as Governor of New York.[4] He faced a conservative Republican legislature, so during each legislative session he would occasionally address the residents of New York directly.[5] His third gubernatorial address—April 3, 1929, on WGY radio—is cited by Roosevelt biographer Frank Freidel as being the first fireside chat.[5]

In these speeches, Roosevelt appealed to radio listeners for help getting his agenda passed.[4] Letters would pour in following each of these addresses, which helped pressure legislators to pass measures Roosevelt had proposed.[6]

(snip)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireside_chats

Bernie is doing with the Internet what FDR did via radio.

[houston16revival]

39. History only rhymes and echoes

But your reasoning and citations are well noted here.

Democrats MUST win this election. Let's not stop until the job is done.

[Uncle Joe]

40. That is true to an extent but it does have recurring themes, only time will tell how it plays out.

I totally agree, Democrats MUST win this election and I have no intent of stopping until the job is done.

Peace to you, houston16revival.

[blackspade]

34. Excellent read.

[silvershadow]

35. I think we can all agree there isn't very much actual media left these days. Most have morphed

into infotainment and entertainment and tabloid outlets. Actual media would conform to journalistic standards and ethics and tradition 100% of the time, not a minute less. And with the media consolidation and literal gutting of newsrooms, all that talent and knowledge presumably shrunk with it as many went into other fields. The dumbing down is almost complete. So it doesn't surprise me in the least that they would be complicit in a scheme such as this. Remember, I believe the media is owned by only 6 companies worldwide or something like that.

[Uncle Joe]

41. We the people on the Internet are the media as well, but it could be five or six

corporate media conglomerations own 90+% of everything the American People see on television, hear on the radio and read in print, I've seen different versions, of course but either one creates a major dysfunction in a free press.

This infographic created by Jason at Frugal Dad shows that almost all media comes from the same six sources.

That's consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983.

NOTE: This infographic is from last year and is missing some key transactions. GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn't own AOL, so Huffington Post isn't affiliated with them.

But the fact that a few companies own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice," Frugal Dad says. While some big sites, like Digg and Reddit aren't owned by any of the corporations, Time Warner owns news sites read by millions of Americans every year.

Here's the graphic:






http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

[Health Wagon]

58. It should be an OP over and over again.

Thank you for the post, Uncle Joe!

[Uncle Joe]

59. Thank you, Health Wagon.

Peace to you.

[snot]

61. Thank you. I can't understand why so few people understand this.

Most journalists I'd consider even slightly progressive have been eliminated from 90% of traditional media, and are increasingly be sidelined on the internet as well; e.g., Chris Hedges, Bill Moyers, Ted Koppel, Dan Rather; and those are just some of the big names; we'll never know how many younger reporters coming up just couldn't get traction.

Journalists who remain within the corporate-owned media don't want to see this; they want to think that they're successful solely because they're good journalists, not because they happen to toe the corporate line; but, in fact, they mostly do toe the corporate line – partly because they're surrounded by that point of view and can't imagine anything else!

I could go on.

The 1%-financed Dem politicians' (including Obama and the Clintons) refusal to recognize and address this problem is one of the reasons I find it difficult to be hopeful about their leadership.

I'm afraid Bernie is our last chance to at least make a start on turning things around.

[Uncle Joe]

64. Phil Donahue, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz If you're progressive you can only

push the envelope so far.

[pnwmom]

36. If he's the nominee this is a tiny fraction of the negative attacks he will face.

Anyone who thinks the Rethugs or media will be easier on him than on Hillary is seriously deluded.

And they obviously don't remember what happened to the war hero and Senator, John Kerry.

[Uncle Joe]

42. I don't believe the Rethugs or corporate media conglomerations will be easier on Bernie than Hillary

I do believe Bernie's overwhelming support on the Internet will be a much stronger counter balance to their one way top down propaganda.

I do remember what happened to Senator Kerry.

[scottie55]

49. When They Swift Boat Bernie

Millions will sink their boats.

They will be treated like the scum they are.

Useful idiots operating on behalf of the .01%.

[houston16revival]

38. And just to add a few thoughts

with the opposition GOP is disarray, it's a time to reclaim the center,
where the bulk of the electorate resides. Some of those Reagan Democrats,
Independents, and non-voters. There is less political risk in taking the moderate
route when the opposition is weak.

Go for broke and you can lose an entirely winnable election (Adlai Stevenson).
Go for broke and you can lose an entirely lost election (McGovern 1972).
You can even lose by being moderate (Gore 2000), if the opposition clings to
your positions as GWB did. That's not going to happen in 2016.

[Uncle Joe]

43. The bulk of the electorate supports Bernie's proposals and stance on the issues, Bernie is in

the center as for what the people believe.

(snip)

You can get a strong sense of this from the results of the “Big Ideas” poll commissioned by the Progressive Change Institute in January, which has thus far gotten far less attention than it deserves. (Full disclosure: I’m a former blogmate with Adam Green, co-founder of PCI’s affiliate, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.) PCI first solicited ideas online through an open submission process (more than 2,600 specific proposals were submitted) and then let people vote on them (more than a million votes were cast). This bottom-up process was then tested out in a national poll. The following all received 70% support or more:

Allow Government to Negotiate Drug Prices (79%)
Give Students the Same Low Interest Rates as Big Banks (78%)
Universal Pre-Kindergarten (77%)
Fair Trade that Protect Workers, the Environment, and Jobs (75%)
End Tax Loopholes for Corporations that Ship Jobs Overseas (74%)
End Gerrymandering (73%)
Let Homeowners Pay Down Mortgage With 401k (72%)
Debt-Free College at All Public Universities (Message A) (71%)
Infrastructure Jobs Program — $400 Billion / Year (71%)
Require NSA to Get Warrants (71%)
Disclose Corporate Spending on Politics/Lobbying (71%)
Medicare Buy-In for All (71%)
Close Offshore Corporate Tax Loopholes (70%)
Green New Deal — Millions Of Clean-Energy Jobs (70%)
Full Employment Act (70%)
Expand Social Security Benefits (70%)

All of the above are in line with Bernie Sanders’ politics and all are extremely popular, with support across the political spectrum. For example, the infrastructure jobs program (a key element of Sanders’ platform) had 91% support from Democrats, 61% from independents and even 55% support from Republicans—compared to only 28% who were opposed. Donald Trump can only dream of being that popular among Republicans.

One could easily write a whole story about Sanders’ strength on issues based on this one poll alone. It’s astonishing to see all these ideas brought together which have strong support among the American people, but which can barely get the time of day in the top-down world of U.S. politics today. And that, arguably, goes straight to the heart of what the Sanders campaign is all about—opening up the political process to popular ideas that just happen to be not so popular with the billionaire class, and the political system that caters so slavishly to them.

(snip)

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/11/america_is_ready_for_socialism_massive_majorities_back_bernie_sanders_on_the_issues_and_disdain_donald_trump/

Bernie's position on the issues, his long time advocacy of them and his multitudes of supporters on the Internet combined with how far the extremist Republican Party has drifted to the right will make it much more difficult for them to co-opt Bernie's policy positions.

[Uncle Joe]

50. Kicking for the 1:11 AM CST crowd.

[Todays_Illusion]

51. Today, we saw the billionaire class panic, the media was full of attacks against

Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders Supporters, oh yes there is that Iowa thing coming up.

[sabrina 1]

52. They're SCARED TO DEATH! The internal polls must be devastating to Hillary, you can see the

panic everywhere. She CAN'T LOSE. Oligarchs cannot allow the people to choose who should represent them.

It's hilarious actually, and it will BACKFIRE, it is already.

[Uncle Joe]

53. I believe so as well, sabrina.

Have a good night and peace to you.

[snot]

62. +++!!! :)

[Kentonio]

55. Couple of days before Iowa

So of course todays news is full of stories about how horrible his campaign is, and all these terrible things that have suddenly happened. So predictable..

[Uncle Joe]

56. Timing is everything and the corporate media conglomerates know it. n/t

[NCTraveler]

57. This has just become strange.

I've been telling Sanders supporters for months how the media treat us on the left. Now that the obvious has happened, it's like people are shocked. I'm very happy we have this whole new group aboard realizing how bad they treat us.

[snot]

63. Agreed!