Overexertion that is only a concern if you have an aging/weak heart. Everyone currently has a busy schedule, and that's people aged from 37 through late 70's. Only 1 of them had a heart attack in the process. Nobody is worried Mayor Pete or Tulsi are going to have a heart attack and drop dead.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It’s Ignoring Bernie Sanders
- Thread starter Tracygill
- Start date
Overexertion that is only a concern if you have an aging/weak heart. Everyone currently has a busy schedule, and that's people aged from 37 through late 70's. Only 1 of them had a heart attack in the process. Nobody is worried Mayor Pete or Tulsi are going to have a heart attack and drop dead.
Nope, but I'm sure we will get hours of coverage of the miraculous rise of Pete in Iowa and his wonderful plans endorsed by community leaders.
Media only cares about the horse race, Bernie is actually out there building a movement that will become his legacy - a movement fighting for a better world for future generations. The things Bernie's campaign is fighting for don't seem interesting to the media and wealthy class
-Nobody's proposals are going to make it through Congress under the current paradigm. Obama could not even get Republican proposals through.
-Bernie has like a D rating from the NRA, but as a supporter of the Socialist Rifle Association, gun control is incredibly low on my list of priorities given the huge stockpile of guns owned by right-Wing chuds and the cops and the current likelihood of hugely destabilizing climate and economic collapses.
-Bernie has the best current policies in addressing many issues of systemic racism, and this is a totally disingenuous representation of his position on these matters.
-Bernie's history with the international Left is cool and good as hell.
Fortunately those years of Obama centrism and trying to work with the opposition stopped the voters whipping back to the right so the country is in terrific shape right now.
Lmao yep. Theres an entire thread of endless clear examples.
"PLAYING THE VICTIM AGAIN, EH BERN"
Some folks just cant be honest. It's really weird, and oddly Trumpian
Holy shit, the hyperbole surrounding Sanders is truly baffling
Last edited:
User Warned: Inflammatory drive-by
This thread once again reminds me that Era is such a neolib community, it's sad to see.
This man is right. I like Bernie, and maybe one day we will have someone like him in the whitehouse. But at this point in time, he would get destroyed in an election against trump.
So where is a better place to get your news from? I've never been into watching the news until recently and just kind of fell onto MSNBC, but I don't like hearing it's like fox news for the left.
I mean, the OP shows that if you don't ever want to hear anything bad about Bernie, you CAN watch MSNBC. Just only watch Rachel Maddow apparently. She has apparently never said anything negative about him.
But also, she has a good show and she's a good journalist. Stay away from scum shows like Hardball that are just designed to rile you up and get you angry but not educate you on anything. That's fine advice even when Bernie isn't in the picture. Its not that hard to tell the difference between the two either.
The bitterness from some towards Bernie in this thread isn't surprising but it is starting to be amusing. If he wasn't doing do so well in the polls y'all wouldn't be working this hard.
Bernie is definitely one of the more electable Dems against Trump.
Bernie is definitely one of the more electable Dems against Trump.
Lol that's a lie. The person who told you that must be an alt-right nutty.
I love the on where they say 'oh he's third/fourth' when in the vast majority of those recent polls it's a statistical tie for second place at worst.
Yep.
This is not evidence, it's a conclusion with creative statistics to prove their point.
It's a corporate media entity that when it comes down to it wants to help maintain the status quo. Not to cast blame for watching it (I do it myself) but they have the same interests as most of the rest of the press class. I find it's a helpful lens to view them with, cause for every decent panel or segment, you get a Bill Kristol or Jon Podhoretz appearance to remid you of the limits this organiazation has.
I have no idea what to think of Bernie these days. I think him sitting in third place for so long has kind of dulled his message.
PROS:
Pushed party and other candidates leftward
Helped people relate to Warren better
Agree with many/most of his policy positions
Agree with his direction on policy specifics where I don't agree on details or method
Has a cranky but practical sort of charisma
Is definitely not evil
Has enough experience on the Hill to make deals
Finally revealed his taxes with no skeletons
He's not Hillary or Gabbard or Yang
CONS;
Useful vector for foreign trolls and GOP scum to manipulate his base
Not pragmatic or unifying - actually injects chaos and infighting which is easily and frequently exploited by the above
Has a small but loud cult of personality that is not interested in anything but Bernie winning and will vote Trump or stay home if he doesn't get the nom
Frequent own goals like guns, race and the pointless obfuscation of his taxes (nowhere near as many weird gaffes as Biden mind you)
Press will focus on his health, age and "socialism" aka "communism"
If he wins the nomination I'll absolutely vote for him though. That's true of all candidates except Tulsi and Yang, who have no chance, so I don't need to ask myself that question. But I know the answer anyway. Anyone but Trump. Jesus imagine having to vote for Gabbard just to check D on a box. Or more likely "I" if she does what her sponsors want her to. Which of course would eliminate the issue.
And lord knows I don't want to think about Buttigieg - his negatives and potential exploitation of those negatives are scary to think about. Everything from race relations to his sexual orientation are red meat for modern social media manipulation. Not to mention a serious lack of experience and networking - although I get the sense he'd be a generally intelligent and moral person with a lot to learn.
PROS:
Pushed party and other candidates leftward
Helped people relate to Warren better
Agree with many/most of his policy positions
Agree with his direction on policy specifics where I don't agree on details or method
Has a cranky but practical sort of charisma
Is definitely not evil
Has enough experience on the Hill to make deals
Finally revealed his taxes with no skeletons
He's not Hillary or Gabbard or Yang
CONS;
Useful vector for foreign trolls and GOP scum to manipulate his base
Not pragmatic or unifying - actually injects chaos and infighting which is easily and frequently exploited by the above
Has a small but loud cult of personality that is not interested in anything but Bernie winning and will vote Trump or stay home if he doesn't get the nom
Frequent own goals like guns, race and the pointless obfuscation of his taxes (nowhere near as many weird gaffes as Biden mind you)
Press will focus on his health, age and "socialism" aka "communism"
If he wins the nomination I'll absolutely vote for him though. That's true of all candidates except Tulsi and Yang, who have no chance, so I don't need to ask myself that question. But I know the answer anyway. Anyone but Trump. Jesus imagine having to vote for Gabbard just to check D on a box. Or more likely "I" if she does what her sponsors want her to. Which of course would eliminate the issue.
And lord knows I don't want to think about Buttigieg - his negatives and potential exploitation of those negatives are scary to think about. Everything from race relations to his sexual orientation are red meat for modern social media manipulation. Not to mention a serious lack of experience and networking - although I get the sense he'd be a generally intelligent and moral person with a lot to learn.
Bill Kristol has a super important role to play - which is the re-establishment of conservative principles and the idea of an intellectual right. Bill will always be wrong on policy and will always support a party that he disagrees with on lots of fundamentals, but he's one of the last remaining voices and if we're going to be stuck with a two party system - I'd rather one of them at least had the veneer of lawfulness and morality, Because what we've got now is terrifying to think about.
And to be fair to Bill, he hasn't crumbled under a nonstop attack by people he used to support.
This is not data:
Selectively giving the numbers within the text of the article is not data. It is, at best, cherry picking.
I don't disagree with the premise that Sanders gets less coverage relative to other competitive candidates. The notion that its an intentional bias is the Sanders campaign trying to paint an "us vs. the world" victim narrative though, which itself is disingenuous.
A core concept needed to understand how most people act is this: Never assume deviousness when stupidity/laziness is an equally valid reason.
Brian Williams and Chris Matthews, the two oldest, longest tenured hosts, give Sanders the last coverage. How is that surprising? They're both long time neolibs. Matthews still gushes over 3rd way dems when he has them on his show. Their target audiences are those same neolib/third way dems. Don't go to a burger shack expecting steak.
Hayes, Melber, and O'Donnell, by the unscientific graph above even, give Sanders more generally positive coverage than Biden by some abstract amount. So by the time you get to where younger liberals are tuning in Sanders is the second favored candidate.
Then Maddow, their headliner, is generally universally positive about both Warren and Sanders and comparatively one of the least friendly towards Biden.
The Sanders campaign actively attacks neolib/centrist dems and their ideology, then wonders why centrist/neo lib focused media like Matthews and Williams doesn't respond kindly. Most people generally don't say kind things to those talking shit about them.
This is made worse by the simple fact that the Sanders campaign isn't looking to work with the mainstream media covering them but instead to use them as red meat for their base. They keep biting the hand that they claim should be feeding them.
Sanders has a generally good message but he's got some real issues with how his campaign has been staffed.
Weaver is out, which should be a net positive (in my opinion at least), but his replacement, Faiz Shakir, has zero experience as a campaign manager, let alone as the campaign manager for a POTUS run. He has a strong resume in politics but also very little experience even being a senior level staffer in a political campaign.
Meanwhile Warren's campaign manager, Roger Lau, is about the same age as Shakir but has ran successful senate and congressional runs for Warren, Kerry, Richard Neal and Niki Tsongas as well as being a staffer for Kerry's POTUS run.
Biden meanwhile has Greg Schultz, who was a director for Clinton in the 2008 primary, an Obama state director in the general, and then served as an advisor to Biden during his time as VP.
Of the three Warren is clearly the one best managing her media coverage. She also happens to have the most experienced campaign manager by a country mile. These things aren't coincidences. The media isn't an ally to any politician, it needs to be managed, hence why media managers and campaign managers are a core part of any campaign.
I see this a lot but I'm not sure why it only comes up in the context of bernie when it is applicable to just about every other candidate.
When all is said and done Im sure we'll find that a small portion of harris, biden, etc. supporters end up voting for Trump if their candidate doesn't get the nom. It's just how these things go, as baffling as it is. A small portion of Hillary supporters voted for McCain in 2008 despite the idealogical divide.
As we're saying though, these are small groups.
Bernie's supporters overwhelmingly voted for Hillary In 2016, and I think the fear of Bernie or Bust folks is vastly overhyped due, i think, to the fact that the catchy phrase even exists. It sticks in the brain easily and begins to reinforce itself and feel like a bigger threat than it actually is. But if Bernie supporters overwhelmingly still voted for Hillary last time, voting for Warren would be an even easier sell by comparison. Heck, most of the field is, barring Biden.
it's actually specifically overhyped because the loudest voices on social media happen to be shrieking constantly-online hordes
Drek I am not assuming malice. To the MSNBC crowd and the Washington analysts/democrat advisors, their water is their political climate: high-earners wondering what the hell this old man is babbling about. I get it. Letting random people go on shows and say "something about him makes my skin crawl, I could not even explain it, he is not a pro-woman candidate" and this *is not challenged at all* is horrible. Just plain horrible. Attributing quotes from him to Warren when it better suits the narrative, ignoring his placements consistently when it paints him at a positive light is all explained by their habit and their political territory.
It is the mainstream media and it is hosts who are not lower-class blue collar workers. Their class solidarity makes them more familiar with the one percent, not the 99. Simple as that. No malice, just their own goals. Which does not coincide with the american working class's goals.
Edit: also, as someone who quite closely follows the whole process, admittedly, mostly on progressives shows and usually some MSNBC stuff (I loved the Rachel Maddow-show for quite some time, for example) + Axios, NYT, Politico, WaPo, etc, the notion that none of this is real, its all made-up, its a smear tactic, its shameful, etc, all that talk is just infuriating. At least admit the behavior for what it is, then we can discuss whether it is justified or not, or what should be done. But to pretend that these shows just happend to have these biases or that those are just a product of Bernie-fan's imaginations is downright nasty and hostile, and the exact type of gaslighting that this race does not need.
It is the mainstream media and it is hosts who are not lower-class blue collar workers. Their class solidarity makes them more familiar with the one percent, not the 99. Simple as that. No malice, just their own goals. Which does not coincide with the american working class's goals.
Edit: also, as someone who quite closely follows the whole process, admittedly, mostly on progressives shows and usually some MSNBC stuff (I loved the Rachel Maddow-show for quite some time, for example) + Axios, NYT, Politico, WaPo, etc, the notion that none of this is real, its all made-up, its a smear tactic, its shameful, etc, all that talk is just infuriating. At least admit the behavior for what it is, then we can discuss whether it is justified or not, or what should be done. But to pretend that these shows just happend to have these biases or that those are just a product of Bernie-fan's imaginations is downright nasty and hostile, and the exact type of gaslighting that this race does not need.
Last edited:
Not really. I fully support Warren who is with Bernie on 99% of the issues. Sanders is not electable.
I still harbour a lot of resentment for him and his ilk for his Iraq War bullshit while helping to leave the conservative movement where it is today. He just wants a return to the Bush era republicanism. But he's not a nutter, he can see the writing on the wall with this Trump cult shit overtaking the GOP. Of the stable of never trumpers like Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, George Will, Steve Schmdit etc I find Rick Wilson to be the best of the lot. Has most of the same views as those mentioned, he just hits harder and has an amusing way with words.
Whatever you say. I disagree. He is certainly electable. He has been the answer all along for what the country needs. He is a leader that represents the poor. And no one will convince me otherwise.
Not really getting this whole "Bernie isn't electable" nonsense is coming from.
Is it based on the negative/non-media coverage he gets, which the majority on this thread claims is not happening, or is it his proposals that are 99% similar to Warren's?
I'm lost here.
Openly identifying as a socialist is a big risk with likely voters.
So break down which part of the methodology that you disagree with or are you just projecting?
He's not electable because he's a thousand years old and had a heart attack. It's said that political races can come down to non-policy things like this but that's the reality.
His campaign was finished then and the best thing to have done would have been to drop out. But we know from 2016 that he's not ever going to drop out, for better or worse.
The problem I have with the "oh they just don't take him seriously and that's why they black him out" thing is that we have a former MSNBC journalist that publicly say that he was barred from even mentioning him (Ed Schultz). Do not put it past these networks to actively push a narrative. It's literally pretty much all they exist to do.
Reporting facts is considered "negative coverage" rather than just news if it isn't fawning.
His campaign stalled out. He has not made any gains in the polls. His base isn't growing. And this methodology says that reporting that counts as a negative.
Also assumes "negative" coverage (however it's defined) necessarily indicates bias.
The ageist argument is stupid and silly because Biden is just as old and he's been in the lead the whole time. Many people (even young people) don't mind Bernie's age. Am I confident that he will win? No. I have my concerns. I would say, as of right now, Warren has a stronger likelihood of being nominated, but voter sentiment can shift like the wind as the primary continues, and Bernie could manage to win.
I don't like how any of the front runners are super old, but of the three only one have had a heart attack while campaigning. Hilary's dizzy spell or whatever likely cost her as many votes as Comey.
It's less about his age and his health, and more about the urgent need for him to be president, at a time when something needs to be done about the absolute consolidation of power and wealth by the ultra rich and corporations. It's in a laughably pathetic state how corrupt the government and Congress is. People are willing to chance Bernie's health because he's one of the few who are presenting a platform that is the most progressive platform for every day people and against those with all the wealth they could ever need. I would welcome a young candidate, providing they had a platform on par with Bernie and Warren, but they don't. Those like Buttigieg, Beto, and Kamala choose to follow middle of the road and moderate policies.
Why do you think any policy Bernie has but Biden or Warren don't will ever even get to the floor of the senate for a vote? What do you think he will accomplish that those two wouldn't be able to?
My one hope is that with Bernie as president, it gives millions of people hope to fight alongside Bernie for the policies that he wants passed. You can choose to be a skeptic, but I don't like being defeatist.
You need senators to vote for the policies. Who is going to be more inspired in deep red states?
what are you doing in 2020 if Bernie isn't the nominee? Let's say it's Warren or Biden.
I worry about the magical thinking seemingly going on in the Sanders campaign. He and Biden (and Pete, really) are two sides of the same coin. Sanders thinks that people marching is going to move Mitch McConnell and recalcitrant Repubs (it won't). And Biden & Pete think they can work with Repubs to pass legislation (they can't). Any of the three would be disastrous.
But we also know that New Deal style reforms inevitably get rolled back because we leave the moneyed class entirely with the means to roll it back. We're doomed, magical thinking all around! :(
Honestly I think the more realistic expectation of those in the Sanders camp is that literally no one in deep red states will ever be turned if Democrats can never meaningfully differentiate themselves (beyond maybe being the party of coastal elites or whatever) if they never offer a legitimate positive alternative of how their lives might change that is distinct from the GOP's libertarian nonsense at best and literal fascism at worst. What I think is interesting is that a lot of people are seeming to have their 'socialist conversion' simply out of a dull but acute recognition that we need to shift to some other kind of system to address these problems just because we seem to be running up against some fundamental contradictions that the system can't accommodate for. But the inertia on this will obviously be massive which is why the expectation is that people on the left should just continue to be given opportunities to succeed so the ideas can actually get out there, because it is honestly disincentivized beyond the point of mere inertia by what are clearly class interests imo, but more to your point...
Imo the project by Sanders backers is, at least in its most realistic form, that the better he does the more these ideas can take center stage (and he has massively influenced the field since last election). Sanders actually winning is the moonshot we dare not fully hope for lol, or at least this is all if we believe in electoralism.
Last edited:
I see a lot of caricaturing of Bernie sanders on TV. Not sure why people think he's unelectable.
Personally, I'd like him to win. I don't trust Warren the way I trust Bernie but I'll take her in a pinch.
Everybody else in the Dem lineup is hot garbage and I will be extremely disappointed if Bernie or Warren don't clinch the nom.
Personally, I'd like him to win. I don't trust Warren the way I trust Bernie but I'll take her in a pinch.
Everybody else in the Dem lineup is hot garbage and I will be extremely disappointed if Bernie or Warren don't clinch the nom.
Lol did they really just take the better of the two split sample polling results without mentioning the other?
