Sanders was on Univision yesterday.

[lunamagica]

Last edited Tue Feb 26, 2019, 04:26 AM - Edit history (3)

Jorge Ramos asked him if Hillary had hurt his campaign.

His reply was: "The evidence was overwhelming. The DNC favored Secretary Clinton".

Either Sanders is unable to understand that when a candidate receives 4 million more votes than their opponent, s/he wins the nomination, or he is still fuming that she beat him.

Regardless, this, plus choosing Turner to head his campaign -which was a slap to every Hillary supporter out there- tells me he is not interested in party unity. He has done nothing to reach to Clinton supporters; quite the opposite, he seems to go out of his way to alienate us.

I find this strategy quite odd. he either thinks he can win the nomination without Hillary's 16.9 million voters, or he is in it to disrupt.

Which is it?

ETA: Just to be clear, this is about the primaries

[Cha]

1. Did he ask him about his taxes? Or being "too busy"?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

I think BS should take responsibility for himself.

Gracias, Luna!

[lunamagica]

2. No Cha. Unfortunately he didn't ask him. He just ler him go on, and on

But it was hilarious to hear Sanders say with a straight face that he he was ahead with Latinos and other minorities.I try to avoid him so I don't know if this is his usual demeanor, but he seemed convinced he is going to be the next POTUS.

Ans when has Sanders taken responsibility for anything?

[WeekiWater]

3. Trump is obsessed with Fox.

At this point I’m confident Sanders is hooked on:

https://m.

[TexasTowelie]

4. About the next to last paragraph:

Isn't that supposed to be 16.9 million voters that supported Clinton in the primaries or the 65.8 million voters that supported Clinton in the general election?

[lunamagica]

5. Primaries. I thought that was pretty obvious.

[TexasTowelie]

11. In that case it would be 16.9 million voters

instead of the 4 million that you mentioned near the end of your OP. The four million that you mentioned was Hillary's margin of victory in the primaries rather than the total number of people that voted for her.

[lunamagica]

12. You are correct. Thanks for posting this

Fixed

[TexasTowelie]

16. I doubt that many of the 16.9 million Clinton voters in the primary

are going to be persuaded to vote for Bernie in the 2020 primary. I also have doubts about how many of the 65.8 million voters for Clinton in the general election will be persuaded to vote for Bernie in either a primary or general election. While I expect that DU members will support the eventual nominee (whomever that might be), there aren't any Terms of Service for the general population.

[lunamagica]

21. Still, I'm surprised how he seems to go out of his way to alienate Clinton voters

I find this whole thing really bizarre and suspicious

[betsuni]

7. I think he's overly influenced by people around him.

After the Podesta emails were leaked he said, "Trust me, if they went into our emails ... I'm sure there would be statements that would be less than flattering about, you know, the Clinton staff. That's what happens in campaigns." But then later he bought into the "it was rigged" nonsense.

So many things, like insinuating that Hillary's racist by saying the word "super predator" in a speech about drug cartels when he said the same thing, which was the thinking at the time: "It is my firm belief that clearly, there are people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society." And promoting conspiracy theories about her speeches and the Clinton Foundation.

In my opinion, he thinks he can win because the people around him tell him he can.

[CentralMass]

8. I think he has eyes and can see.

[betsuni]

13. His eyes are not the problem.

[Cha]

18. ..

[Cha]

9. Then why does he have to pretend this was "taken out of

context" when it clearly wasn't.. if he's so confident he has this all sewed up?

Link to tweet

Yeah, no doubt the people around him are telling him he's ahead of everybody by miles.

[betsuni]

15. I think he didn't hear the question until Wolf Blitzer (man) asked it.

Everybody around him is telling him he's been voted Most Popular.

[Cha]

17. Not who I want for potus.

[lunamagica]

24. Right, that kind of peronality reminds me too much of you-know-who

That's the last thing we need right now.

[Garrett78]

10. He got treated with kid gloves and was media darling. Check out headlines after NH primary:

These run contrary to the revisionist claims that the mainstream press minimized Bernie's win in NH by focusing on superdelegates:

From The Guardian:

Bernie Sanders secures decisive win over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire

Scale of defeat for Clinton will raise questions about her appeal among younger voters and women, especially after closer-than-expected Iowa result last week

From the WSJ:

Bernie Sanders Wins New Hampshire Democratic Primary, Defeating Hillary Clinton

New Hampshire primary results: Sanders victory boosts his momentum heading into states where he’s expected to have weaker showings

From Vox:

Bernie Sanders just easily won the New Hampshire primary. It's a remarkable achievement.

From NBC:

Sanders Trounces Clinton In NH

Will Double Digit Loss Prompt Clinton Campaign Shakeup?

From CNN:

Outsiders sweep to victory in New Hampshire

Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders swept to thumping outsider victories in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, seizing on the fury of grass-roots voters to rock the elites who control American politics.

(Absolutely no mention in the lengthy article about superdelegates.)

No, Sanders didn't lose because of media coverage--in fact, he benefited from media coverage against the long-vilified Clinton. And he didn't lose because of superdelegates. He lost because he got crushed among POC and non-millennial women. Revisionist history doesn't change that.

[lunamagica]

14. He will not be that lucky this time around

[Cha]

25. Oh yes he was! ".. media fave.." For

obvious reasons. (*_^^*()_)_)^^ %$$) Media******

[betsuni]

27. Kid gloves are marked down to 85% off in the bargain bin.

Nobody needs to buy them anymore.

[ucrdem]

19. She killed him in that first debate.

I don't think he's ever gotten over it.

[lunamagica]

22. It is so obvious he still holding a grudge

[Cha]

23. ...

[C Moon]

20. You mean President Hillary Clinton? The GOPutin machine cheats, lies and kills.

[lunamagica]

26. Yes, that's who I mean. And you are right about GOPutin

[C Moon]

36. I wasn't picking on you. I was letting out my ire of that party and last election.

Kind of a rhetorical question.

[lunamagica]

37. I know! I was just agreeng with you. She will always be President Hillary Clinton to me.

[RandySF]

28. That won't help him expand his base.

[Cha]

29. It shouldn't. He should have taken

responsibility for what actually happened.

[comradebillyboy]

43. When has he ever taken responsibility?

[Cha]

44. He did apologize for the "sexual harrassment"

climate.. saying he "was too busy" to know about it.. but then said.. that it "was taken a little bit out of context"

Link to tweet

So.. No responsibility for his own words.

[blue-wave]

30. Well, I'm undecided for the primaries at the moment but

I will tell you this: I will not vote for someone who was a never been until he was on again, off again, on again Democrat. I will vote for someone who is and has been a solid member of the regular Democratic party. IMHO.

[Croney]

31. Me too.

[Kentonio]

32. I think you're deeply out of touch, if you really think 16.9m primary voters care about this stuff

The whole 'who said what to whom in 2016' is a game pretty much reserved for hardcore politics nerds like us, and especially here at DU for some bizarre reason.

[betsuni]

34. No.

When you're viciously personally attacked, you don't forget. It's not "stuff" and not a "game." The tables have turned. Game this.

[lunamagica]

35. This is about his actions NOW. Badmouthing Hillary and the DNC. Funny that he wants to run in a

party he considers to be corrupt, and that plays dirty when it come to him. It doesn't make sense.

[Cha]

33. BS should take responsibility for

the reality of what went down.. not be trying to shift any blame.

He also should not be saying something was taken "out of context" when it Clearly was NOT.

Link to tweet

And, you're definitely NOT "out of touch", Luna!

[disillusioned73]

38. So, giving honest answers is now a problem??

[lunamagica]

39. Seriously? If Sanders thinks the Democratic Party is corrupt, and it played dirty against him, why

he using it to run again?

It's absurd!

[disillusioned73]

40. Take it up Debbie Wasserman Schultz,

Donna Brazille & E. Warren - I applaud them for speaking out.. Debbie I guess didn't speak out.. but she did step down..

[Hortensis]

41. Huh. Shouldn't he have also pointed out that

dozens of STATE Democratic Party organizations "stole" primary victories from him? At least that's what he claimed all through several months of primaries. He even filed lawsuits (all dropped before he would have had to provide evidence in the discovery phase), and threatened to file many more as the months wound on.

Understandable that he chose not to mention that the DNC decided 9 other Democratic candidates would not be eligible for the debates and put Sanders on the debate stage in place of one of those Democratic candidates. To put it mildly, this benefited Sanders enormously, but that wouldn't fit the victim theme he's pushing now.

But it did happen that when Sanders asked the superdelegates to illicitly overset the majority choice of 17 million Democrats to effectively name him the nominee they of all refused. He could have pointed out how they failed him also. That one IS true.

[Hortensis]

42. With this and Sanders' new campaign director, Faiz Shakir,

he's dumped the dirty baggage that would have drawn some way overdue negative scrutiny and has instead aligned more with the party's progressives. We already see he won't be moving so far that he drops his insults and attacks on the party, though.

In any case, Shakir's record suggests that he operates on a completely different moral plane than the 2016 Sanders Campaign sorts.

In hiring Shakir, Sanders brings into the fold one of the Democratic Party’s better-traveled operatives—an official with limited campaign experience but with ties to the party’s think tank infrastructure, its Hill operations, and the larger progressive universe.

Shakir joins the Sanders operation from the American Civil Liberties Union where he served as national political director since early 2017. Before joining the ACLU, he was a senior adviser to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and before that he worked with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). He first made a name for himself as an editor at the website ThinkProgress, the news arm associated with, though editorially independent of, the powerhouse Democratic think-tank Center for American Progress.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-hires-top-civil-liberties-advocate-faiz-shakir-as-campaign-manager

[Scurrilous]

45. ...

[NurseJackie]

46. These are not the qualities and values that I look for in a national leader.

I want better, that's all.