2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Still Determined to Attack Hillary, Further Degrading His Own Brand
Source: Blue Nation Review by Peter DaouWeeks ago I argued that Bernie Sanders had already done damage to his own brand but hadnt yet realized it.
His fateful (and likely fatal) decision to go hard negative on Hillary in 2016 was one of the reasons for Hillarys clean sweep on March 15th and her prohibitive delegate advantage.
*****
Ill repeat: Bernies Wall Street dog whistle is a barely concealed attempt to accuse Hillary Clinton of corruption, despite the fact that he lacks a scintilla of evidence to support that claim.
No matter how lofty and inspiring his message (and progressive values are inspiring), it is deeply unjust and frankly, reckless to run a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillarys character through false innuendo.
If Bernie and his campaign want to keep running in the face of improbable odds, then how about running against what Republicans stand for? How about making proposals on issues and letting the people decide if they like them? How about dropping the artful smears against Hillary?
Read it at: http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-still-determined-to-attack-hillary/
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)that's when you are supposed to vet your candidates.
I guess if your candidate has a lot of bad baggage, I can understand how you'd want to skip that part.
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)revolution. Big mistake.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
riversedge
(70,347 posts)going to further do him in. IMHO
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)when you are losing.
tazkcmo
(7,303 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)Sanders still?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Since Clinton is part of the corrupt matrix of wealth and power, she gets the fallout.
Sorry but that's the way it is.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)When you said "it is deeply unjust and frankly, reckless to run a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillarys character through false innuendo"
I would say it differently
it is deeply just and frankly, honest to run a campaign premised on the vetting of Hillarys character through telling historical facts about her
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)party, Hillary, and now Trump. Hillary has raised much money for down ticket Dems. It really is a pipe dream to believe that they all would turn their backs on her in favor of Bernie.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)MBS
(9,688 posts)Also, considering that the supers are either elected Democratic representatives or serious volunteer activists for the Democratic party, Bernie's professional history as an independent has to be a problem for them from the get-go. Certainly, I could easily understand how an independent would not/could not be the first choice for folks who have devoted big chunks of their lives to working within the Democratic party, even if Bernie is working within the system now.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)In February, the Democratic National Committee rolled back an internal policy, pushed by Barack Obama in 2008, that barred it from taking contributions from federal lobbyists. Campaign finance reformers were rightly outraged. In addition to the questionable optics, it gave big corporations yet more ability to influence the party. At the same time, this was exactly the kind of inside-baseball, process-based story that tends to fall on deaf ears.
But it quickly blew up into a major controversy, due largely to a common misperception that the DNC had relaxed the prohibition in order to help Hillary Clinton win the Democratic primary. Headlines like DNC makes sweeping changes to save Hillary, How the DNC Helps Clinton Buy Off Superdelegates, and The DNC Just Declared War on Bernie Sanders Political Revolution quickly spread across social media, enraging many Sanders supporters. Largely lost in translation, however, was the fact that the DNC was working with the campaigns to raise money to support the eventual Democratic nomineeand Democrats up and down the ballotin the general election, not in the primaries.
The DNCs decision should have outraged people on its merits. But the story only caught fire because it fit so neatly into a common view among Democratic base voters that the DNC has its thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-is-exposing-the-dark-underbelly-of-the-democrats-money-machine/
global1
(25,285 posts)If they sense that the GE will go the way of the Repugs because of Hillary - they'll turn their backs and support the candidate that can beat the Repugs. If that happens to be Bernie - so be it.
They are not crossing over now - because they - like Bernie - they realize that there is half the country that didn't get a chance to voice their opinions yet.
Down ticket Dems will attach to the coattails to whichever candidate will get them re-elected. They're fickle and like most Americans - want to keep their job.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... he's using it as a gimmick to give false-hope to his supporters. Perhaps so that they'll continue to make donations? (I don't know.)
I've criticized Bernie for many things, but his INTELLIGENCE is not one of those things. He's smart enough to see the numbers. He's smart enough to know what the future holds for his campaign. He's smart enough to know that he doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination.
So, considering how smart he actually is, we can only assume that there must be some other motive for him to continue to peddle the fantasy that he's going to SWEEP the remaining primaries and caucuses.
But even then, it's not enough for him to merely "win" the state... he MUST do so with an overwhelming BLOWOUT each time. That's just not going to happen.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Didn't Bernie promise never to go negative?
I guess its like his "supers are evil and undemocratic/against the will of the people"...till he needed to subvert the will of the people and flip supers to win
Loudestlib
(980 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)He has small caucuses like Idaho, Utah, Washington and Hawaii coming up in the next 10 days that he can flood the zone with his supporters and win. So he still wants to compete against her. But he needs to cease and desist his attacks in a couple of weeks when New York and Pennsylvania weighs in. As for burning bridges, the guy us 74, this is his biggest and final salvo.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Isn't that they way losers think?
-none
(1,884 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)actually helps Hillary.
So much baseless innuendo has been slung at her for so long
it's lost it's potency.
Bernie's not doing anything that RW media hasn't been doing for the last 20 years.
And they don't even use a dog whistle, they just make shit up and speculate wildly.
Maybe this will yield results for Bernie but it hasn't yielded anything for the GOP.
She's doing very well with Democrats.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Bernie does well with all the parties.
OwlinAZ
(410 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)In fact he's in a bit of hole and is going to need
some blow out wins in some delegate rich states.
In any case, moderates, AAS, women, and more than enough indies
will break for her in November.
She did beat Bernie decisively in the swing states of OH, FL, and VA.
It's hard to make the argument that he's the most electable if he can't
get out of the primary.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Why should we surprised.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)about Bernie having to win the nomination first.
It's hard to make the case that he's the most electable
if he can't get out of the primary.
Which part of that is incorrect.
If he's the nominee, I'll vote for him but he has to win the nomination first
and right now he's behind.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)of David Brock
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)their daggers and now it is time to slice and dice. Very respectable and something to admire.....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)They think this OP is about Bernie!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Buns_of_Fire
(17,201 posts)Rename it "The Hillary Channel". Here Comes Hillary! Keeping Up With the Clintons. The Bill Show. Make a couple million. Retire.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Bernie has raised a very legitimate question as to the intention of those who paid millions for speeches over years.
Let's wait until after the next round of primaries to see what damage his brand took for daring to ask such a bold question.
In my estimation Hillary has decimated her brand by her own campaign tactics and stealing the Bern.
B2G
(9,766 posts)They ain't see nothing yet.
Just wait until the GE.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)They don't want Bernie to campaign against Hillary. That means they obviously feel that when someone campaigns against her she will LOSE.
Isn't that the fundamental way all losers think?
Simple as that.
If you can't handle someone campaigning against you, then maybe you shouldn't run for office.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Voters decide how to interpret what it means..and Brock should help her
with a fact. Hillary's low trustworthy ratings were low BEFORE a voter
asked for her to release the transcripts at a town hall meeting.
casperthegm
(643 posts)I've not seen any HRC supporters take issue with her shots at him regarding the auto bailout double down lie, the one issue candidate smear, and the Koch brothers insinuation.
Now it seems that these threads often have a lot of back and forth but seldom break things down, issue by issue. I've done that below. If you disagree with what I've stated for Clinton's positions or actions feel free to reply with what you think is incorrect, as I think it's important to have a dialogue on the issues, rather than smear candidates with general terms.
Clintons position on Keystone (or lack of one). She waited until the same week that Obama made his decision before announcing where she stood. In my opintion that's not standing up for the environment. That's politics.
Clinton accepts Wall Street money. Whether it's impression or reality, it's there and it can't help but make me wonder. Generally speaking, it's hard to imagine the banks and Wall Street throwing all of that money at her and saying "here you go, we don't expect anything in return."
Clinton refuses to release the transcripts. I'm well aware that the HRC supporters see this as a non-issue. This is a fact/opinion matter. Fact is they are not released. Opinion is whether or not it matters. It matters to many of us because we feel that the Democratic party should expect more from their candidates.
Her opposition to Glass Stegall.
She supports fracking.
Her Iraq vote. You may be sick of hearing about it but it's a big deal. It was poor judgement and lack of foresight. Sanders saw that it would destabilize the region. And it did. Now we not have the legacy of the Iraq war, we have the current ISIS situation.
Speaking of that, there is the no-fly zone proposal. Another poor foreign policy decision. What happens when Russian jets cross that line? You have to be prepared for that and I don't see it.
The email and server investigation by the FBI. Sorry, it's real. It very well could end up being nothing in the end, but what if it's not? What if it drags on until the general election and then she gets indicted? Then you end up with a republican in the White House. Unless you work for the FBI or DOJ you can't simply wave it off, as if you know nothing is going to happen.
Gay marriage. You can see how she has flip flopped over the years, as confirmed via politifact. Another change based on the political winds.
She supported NAFTA
Her support of the TPP before she changed and now opposes it.
These are all things that I, and I suspect other people are very concerned about when it comes to HRC's credentials. They are real issues, not stuff that is made up. I think it warrants a real discussion.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)in anything but advancing the interests of their Queen.
casperthegm
(643 posts)Why don't we see more conversations that compare and contrast the candidates?
Let's line 'em up and compare. Bernie has flaws. I'm willing to acknowledge that. I think when the comparisons are done though he is the clear winner.
Enough with the rhetoric of one is a "good leader" or "has experience." Let's run through the actual issues. Why is it so tough to get those conversations going here? I thought when I joined the DU we'd see more of that, instead of the insane jabbering out there on places like yahoo...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Every point has been endlessly debated and refuted ad nauseum.
But it's like the Little Dutch Boy and the dike. Pointless.
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. - George W. Bush
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)I bet you are a lot smarter than I think you are.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I expect the bitter, negative attacks not only continue, but escalate in vitriol. Hopefully that will guarantee his campaign "berns" out sooner rather than later, giving Hillary more time to just focus on the tRump.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Nothing cynical about that.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And then blames Bernie for it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)florida08
(4,106 posts)Really? The candidate who takes private prison money that incarcerate blacks unfairly, who supports the party that has Debbie Wasserman Shultz as their chair who is all for charging low income emergency loans 300% should not be question??
Artful smear? Hardly
It seems there are as many progressives in the bubble as conservatives these days.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)PeoViejo
(2,178 posts)Bullshit is Fair Game.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)hillary-propaganda.com
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)You mean 'point out policy positions and past statements and votes to contrast between them' then, yes, you are correct.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)Am I the only one staring at that phrase in disbelief?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)And Barack, and Bill, and Chelsea, and TPP, and NAFTA, and the Clinton Foundation, and on and on. That's how he launched and that's how he's run since day 1.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Yet cite Blue Nation Review - a wholly owned entity of her super-PAC - as truthful.
Wow. Words fail me here at the level of hypocrisy.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)If they did, Hillary wouldnt have millions more votes than her rivals, Democratic or Republican. She wouldnt have so many endorsements, won so many states or had the support of so many prominent public figures.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Not just because it's going to be SO much more relentlessly and viciously exploited by the GOP nominee, but because it indicates a person totally unsuited, in terms of character, to the presidency...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Most Americans have a low opinion of every politician there is, it is part of the rightwing plan to de-legitimize "government" itself.
After 25 years of unrelenting attack and smear, you really think Hillary can't take it?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Good strategy to count on low-information voters to not know the difference between "socialist" and "democratic socialist."
That said, I certainly agree with you about the decades-long effort to paint government as the enemy, perhaps an even more destructive legacy of the Reagan (long may he rot) years than deregulation. When the government is, at least in theory, us, that attitude's pure poison.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)That is a critical, fair, and even-handed response.
The kind of discourse we should be having regarding our primary candidates.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)GD: P is basically a flame forum, and while I'm not a long-time DU'er (c. 5 years), I'm not sure I've ever seen this level of division. I rather suspect it is, for many, irreparable, and they'll be leaving after June or November. I'll likely be one of them.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)To what impulse do you imagine it panders? Do you believe it unjustified?
The corruption is plain. It's not a dog whistle.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)and vice versa. Thanks so much for this confirmation!
frylock
(34,825 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)21st Century Poet
(254 posts)Bernie Sanders's campaign is quite possibly the mildest one to have ever been run, certainly the mildest one to get so far. Most primary campaigns are so brutal, it's surprising that anyone comes out alive the other end let alone goes on to win the presidency. It would have been much more negative if more people had thrown their hat into the ring.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Using the smear merchant who slimed Anita Hill to spew propaganda for your campaign.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Yeah, I'm really going to pay attention to that shit...