Let Me Address the Media Conspiracy Many Bernie Sanders Supporters Believe is Real

hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-debateThere are plenty of factual reasons to like or support Bernie Sanders, but one of the issues I encounter when I deal with many Sanders supporters is how misinformed they are concerning a lot of factual information. It’s understandable because many of them have wrapped themselves up in what I call a “pro-Sanders bubble” where they’ve inundated themselves with blogs, writers, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts that feed them almost nothing but pro-Sanders headlines, tweets and articles. It is confirmation bias at its worst. They like Sanders, so they seek out information that confirms their feelings for the senator from Vermont while rejecting anything that might even remotely burst their bubble.

If Sanders says something, to many of his most devout followers, it’s true – even if it’s not.

Don’t get me wrong, I love passion. It’s great. But all I ask is let’s make sure passion doesn’t override reality.

Take for instance one issue I’ve had lately concerning Sanders’ claim that the media isn’t giving him enough attention. Since he publicly brought this up a few weeks ago, I’ve seen article after article of pro-Sanders rhetoric about this. His supporters have flooded the Internet with conspiracy theories and attacks on the mainstream media for “being afraid of Bernie Sanders.”

Look, if you like Sanders (as I do, too), that’s great. But let’s try to stay level here and deal with some realities.

Has Sanders received a lot of mainstream media attention? No, he hasn’t. Definitely not as much as Trump. But let’s also be honest about something: Sanders rarely says anything different. He gives basically the same speech and interview each time he gives one.

Do I like a lot of what he has to say? Absolutely. But the media is not going to give him hour after hour of coverage to report that he said the same thing today that he said last Wednesday. That’s just not realistic.

This is not a “conspiracy against Sanders” – it’s just the nature of today’s news.

And it’s not as if Clinton is getting nearly as much coverage as Trump either. While she is talked about a lot more often than Sanders according to the study he cited, she still wasn’t discussed even half as much as Trump – despite the fact that she’s, by far, the more dominant frontrunner of the two. When she is mentioned, it’s usually because the media is addressing some sort of negative comment a Republican candidate said about her. Let’s not kid ourselves, just because one candidate is getting more airtime than another, that doesn’t necessarily mean that coverage is positive.

That’s another fallacy many Sanders supporters assume about the media. The truth is, more media coverage typically means more scrutinynot more praise. Since many Sanders supporters have wrapped themselves up in this bubble of pro-Sanders information, they seem to think that he would get the same treatment in the mainstream media that he does from many liberal blogs and writers. These folks really don’t want non-biased, honest coverage of Sanders. What they want is for the mainstream media to push the same pro-Sanders rhetoric they’ve surrounded themselves in for the last few months.

Here are a few bits and pieces about Sanders that might get brought up if he were truly vetted and scrutinized nationally:

  • Despite the fact he’s been a vocal critic of lobbyists and bloated defense spending, he voted for and staunchly defends the most expensive defense project in United States history: The F-35 Lightening. A project that’s been an absolute disaster, and with a price tag around $1.2 trillion, this one plane is going to cost taxpayers just slightly less than the entire Iraq War. Why did he support this project? Well, because it created jobs in his home state.
  • He once said, “It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party.” Yet here he is, running as a Democrat.
  • While he didn’t flat-out praise Fidel Castro, he did talk rather kindly about him in 1985 for providing health care and education to the people and “transforming Cuba.” Well, while it’s nice to give people eduction and health care – Castro was still a fairly brutal dictator. Let’s not forget, mass murdering Columbian drug lord, Pablo Escobar, also provided health care, built schools and provided other various forms of humanitarian acts for the people of Columbia. It’s not completely uncommon for brutal dictators or psychotic leaders to try to win over the people by simply giving them stuff to distract them from other horrific realities of their “leadership.” (Note: I am not comparing Bernie Sanders or his leadership skills to Castro or Escobar, I’m simply stating that his past words about Castro will, and should, be scrutinized.)
  • Then there’s always the fact that, while very liberal, he’s seemingly pandered to the gun lobby in Vermont (a pro-gun state) by opposing the Brady Bill and legislation that would have allowed the families of victims of gun violence to potentially sue gun sellers.
  • While he likes to bring up that he’s supported same-sex marriage long before it was popular, back in the early 2000’s he was actually awarded the “Wishy-Washy Award” by some in the local Vermont press because of how he seemingly tip-toed around the gay marriage issue in the state. Then, in 2006, during a Senate debate, he said, “I believe the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue.” Yes, that’s Bernie Sanders saying marriage should be left up to the states, a commonly used line by Republicans like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. So, it’s not as if he’s been fully onboard with the full-on national legalization of gay marriage his entire career.
  • Sanders also voted for Bill Clinton’s now infamous “tough on crime” bill despite the fact that he often tries to champion himself as someone who’s been a lifelong critic of harsh incarceration policies.
  • While many Sanders supporters think Clinton is nothing but a moderate Republican, the fact is when the two served together in the Senate they voted the same way 93 percent of the time.
  • He’s currently ranked as the fourth most liberal member of the Senate – when Clinton served she was ranked 11th. So, the reality is, there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two when it comes to voting records.

Now I’m certain many Sanders supporters will bash me for pointing all of that out, but everything I just listed is absolutely true. I can guarantee you that if the mainstream media does decide to “give Sanders some more attention,” they’ll bring up far more than I did. So, let’s not pretend that more mainstream media attention is going to instantly be a positive boost for Sanders.

Then there are just a few flat-out myths many Sanders supporters believe about his standing as a candidate:

  1. No, he’s not gaining on Clinton – and he hasn’t in over three months. In fact, she’s experiencing her largest national lead since the summer.
  2. He’s only really competitive in one state, New Hampshire, and is trailing by double-digits to Clinton in Iowa.
  3. Online polls are worthless. They’re not scientific or even remotely credible, as was proven in this Fox News poll that was hijacked by an online pro-Sanders social media surge. So, please, stop citing them to “prove” something.
  4. Stop comparing 2008 to 2016 – he’s not Barack Obama. You can’t compare two different elections as no two are the same. Just ask Rick Santorum; he won 11 states and came in second to Mitt Romney in 2012. This year he’s polling significantly lower than a stubbed toe before your morning coffee.
  5. While I know Clinton is not everyone’s cup of tea, like I pointed out earlier based on the non-partisan account of their voting records, there’s not nearly as much of a difference between the two as many Sanders supporters seem to think there is.
  6. While Sanders has received a lot of union endorsements, Clinton still has more.
  7. Repealing Glass-Steagall was not nearly as big of a deal as Sanders has made it out to be. But don’t believe me – just ask Paul Krugman.
  8. While Clinton gets hit for her ties to Wall Street (and rightfully so some of the time), she actually did push for tough reforms on Wall Street back in 2007 while she was a senator.
  9. No, Clinton does not work for Monsanto.
  10. The polls are not rigged to favor Clinton. These are the same polling companies and methods that were used in 2008 that rightfully reflected Obama’s surge in December of 2007 and January of 2008 that eventually correctly predicted his victory. These are also the same polls many pro-Sanders websites were using this past summer to brag about his surge from single-digits to bona fide contender.
  11. Despite the belief by many Sanders backers that he’s “Mr. Honest” and Clinton is an untrustworthy liar – they tell the truth at about the same rate.

Look, I’ll stop there. I know this sounds like an “anti-Sanders” article, but it’s really not meant to be. My issue here is making sure, no matter who we support, we’re supporting that candidate based on facts – not propaganda, myths, or our own agenda for or against someone else.  There’s plenty of good and bad talking points about each candidate to base our support or objections on reality rather than fiction.

And as always, no matter who ultimately wins the nomination, we must all come together when it’s all said and done to support the nominee and elect a Congress that’s actually willing to work with them. I really don’t believe that this country can survive a Republican in the White House. If the GOP wins the White House it would mean millions of Americans would lose health care; women’s rights would come under even greater attack; we’d most definitely end up in another war; same-sex marriage could face setbacks; the Supreme Court could be placed into firm conservative control for the next 20-30 years; and practically all the progress we’ve made over the last few years will probably be undone almost instantly.

While neither Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders are perfect (sorry Martin O’Malley, poll over 10 percent and we’ll talk), on their absolute worst day they’re far… far better than any of the Republicans vying for the GOP nomination.

Hit me up on Twitter or Facebook and let me know what you think.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Matt

    This article is pro HRC garbage. Proof? The author completely ignores dnc/DWS cronyism and superpacs.

    Vote Bernie if you want real change.

    • AfterMe_TheDeluge

      YOU are the reason this article had to be written in the first place. So, you think Senator Sanders can do no wrong? He’s never been wrong about anything? Not one single thing?
      Grow up.

      • Matt

        I don’t agree with everything Bernie does, but we all have to compromise a bit. HRC and Bernie are worlds apart. Their voting records might be similar, but that’s it. Look into it AfterMe, unless you’re a shill.

      • Chirpy

        The 7% difference in record were mostly important issues and not mundane unanimous votes.

      • Matt

        Right Chirpy, like war.

      • Mike Shortland

        is more then that , unless ofc you got your numbers from paid dnc or hillary campaign media

      • Mike Shortland

        thats the thing even peopel who dont agree with bernie knwo hes honest an genuine noone even her supporters will say hillary is they just change the subject

      • It is the Clinton supporters who suffer from RCDS – you ignore all of the problems with her. You dismiss all the scandals and all the subterfuge as purely politically motivated attacks, and you believe that Sanders is just as vulnerable. The fact is that Hilary is the one who a solid majority of Americans consider trustworthy. It is Hillary who is associated with the word “liar” more than anything else by the American public.
        RCDS (Reverse Clinton Derangement Syndrome) means that you completely ignore the fact that Hilary’s popularity in the Democratic Party is inversely proportional to her popularity among the general electorate.

      • Mike Shortland

        they dont wanna talk about sex , dead bodies , rapes , arms dealing , fraud , or lies , they wanna talk about bernie voting for the gun bill 20 yrs ago lol

      • MrsRealism

        That may be because honest people don’t judge others based on SCANDALS concocted by their enemies. Only WEAK MINDS would fall for such. There ha never been ANY evidence of guilt in any of those GOP/ignorant lefty accusations against her. You bernbros need to GROW UP and face REALITY.
        Oh, by the way, a recent study points to HILLARY still retaining her MOST TRUSTED candidate status. Not all dems are ignorant like bernbros are. They prefer truth over ideology. Bernie is already a has been.

  • AfterMe_TheDeluge

    Mr. Clifton. Thank you so much for your article. It was exceedingly well-written, as are all of your articles. And thank you so very, very much for putting into words the things that so many of us (Democratic Liberals) have come to dread seeing on just about every Democratic-leaning post online. Whenever someone praises Hillary for anything, the Bernie-Bots show up and repeat the same tired old Republican lies about her.
    There are, indeed, some good ideas that Senator Sanders has, but like you stated, he repeats the same ones over and over and nothing ever changes. At the same time, Hillary has evolved on several issues, but she almost never gets credit for it. And when she does, the ‘Bots always say Bernie made her do it.
    I know there are many, many Sanders supporters out there. Many of them are sane, intelligent, thinking individuals. Unfortunately, there are also many, many Bernie-Bots who will countenance nothing that doesn’t treat the man as The Second Coming.
    We’re supposed to be the smart ones, here. Why won’t these people check sources? In politics, you should NEVER blindly believe what you read, especially when it dovetails so completely with what you’ve been thinking all along.

    • Chirpy

      We know he isn’t perfect, just better than corporate Hillary. Corporate Hillary status quo has got to go.

      • Right you are, Chirpy. Despite the name of this site, Mr. Clifton seems not to know what a progressive is. Progressives don’t side with the banks over mothers and children. Progressives don’t support corporate Trade Deals, progressives don’t support the death penalty under ANY circumstances. And above all, progressives are NOT neocon war hawks.

      • John Cross

        Why, thank you very much for telling me what I am. I guess you own the word “progressive.” I would venture to say that a “progressive” does NOT help a man like Donald Trump or Cruz or Rubio get elected, and a “progressive” does NOT help put 3 more Scalias on the SCOTUS. In MY opinion all you latte leftists with your “holier than thou” attitudes are NOT progressive at all but little babies, just like all the morons in 2000 who got Bush elected over Gore b/c Gore wasn’t “progressive” enough for them. Fuck that shit.

      • Right out of the DLC playbook. Congrats.

        “We may not give you everything you want, but at least we can get elected.”

        That was Bill Clinton’s sales pitch – the Reagan Revolution had moved the country Right, the old progressives dogs wouldn’t hunt, we had to be centrist in order to win votes. BULLSHIT.

        Progressivism is not about what you keep from happening, it’s about what you make happen.

      • John Cross

        And you are right out of the RNC playbook, the same ones who funneled millions to Nader’s campaign in 2000. The cheapest election they ever bought. Progressivism is about doing what is best for the country, not sitting in your coffee shop congratulating yourself on how “pure” you are while the brownshirts take over the country.

      • Mike Shortland

        wrong an trying to play that hasnt worked in 6 mos so take that your helping the gop shit back to hillay cause she will have to bow out an il laguh at all the 3rd way dems out the door lol

      • Mike Shortland

        only hillary supporters beleive trump or cruz could get elected 25% of center leaning reps are behind bernie . 99% of all reps hate hillary an not because shes harder to beat but simply because shes such a divisive , vindictive luying manipulative cunt lol

      • Joshua Brennig

        Hillary is NOT a corporatist. Bernie IS- the manufacturers of guns are corporations, idiot. He’s a sleazebag and his followers are even moreso, for depending on GOP-manufactured lies to bash Hillary, instead of promoting your own candidate positively.

      • Mike Shortland

        HAHAHAHA it must hurt when you try to think for yourself lol fact are gop based HAHAHAAH joshua pls keep doing what your doing you help bernie more then i ever could lol

  • cruisersailor

    I’m a Bernie Sanders’ supporter and I really liked this article.

    • Mike Shortland

      liar lol

  • Silver Shoelaces

    Thanks so much for writing this article. I still support Bernie, but your article has highlighted exactly the reason I want to hear more about him in the news–on pro-Bernie sites, which are just about the only sources talking about him, I’m only going to hear positive things about him. People who support anyone else don’t really take him seriously enough to criticize him, and a lot of his supporters don’t want to offer criticism in case it causes others not to vote for him.

    By the way, I think that Clinton is stronger as a Democratic candidate, but Sanders can do better in the general election than she would, especially against the current group of Republicans. Trump’s smear campaign tactics are especially effective when someone who happens to be a member of one of his favorite groups to condescend (women) is his opponent. Sanders, on the other hand, will shout back, and shout back louder.

    I don’t want the 2016 campaign to turn into a shouting match, but it would at least get good ratings!

    • Joshua Brennig

      You’re wrong, Sanders will not perform well against the GOP. They have not attacked him because they want him to be the nominee. They will drive his campaign into the ground with his socialist past, draft dodging, and refusing to support his child out of wedlock. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Bernie has a shady past that would be exposed and exploited the second he won the nomination. He can’t win the main election.

      • Silver Shoelaces

        Well, I didn’t say it was an objective fact; I even prefaced it with “I think”. And I’m entitled to my own opinion, thanks. But feel free to tell me how I’m wrong in an attempt to change my opinion~

      • Mike Shortland

        this is incorect all the socilism talk came from them . thats why when people like you paid by her started using karl rove tactics it was so easy to find the source …..

      • Mike Shortland

        first he conciencously objected that isnt draft dodging sir , second he doesnt have a socialist past hes a democratic socialist now an has been since he left a small party of independent in early career , refusing to support his son who is on campaign trail with him out of wedlock is what a jab at morals from a clinton support . bet you dont wanna talk bout old billy b oy an how many places hes stuck his wang . shady past hahaha surrrrrre keep tryin ur not paid enough for the toll this bullshit will have on your soul man

      • MrsRealism

        His CO status was A LIE to avoid the draft. Yes, that IS draft dodging when you then support wars. A CO would NEVER support the military and it’s wars the way he has done.

    • Mike Shortland

      this is so full of skylarkery . it is logically impossible to be a progressive an back hillary , since the movement has used her an the bushes as an example of what is wrong since day one . 2 i welcome an y honest criticism of bernie because everytime it happens he gets a chance to talk about the issues . an everytime one of these articles pops up full of shit he gets more donations an more backers . hillary has mor emoney donated an hundred of thousands of less donors lol

  • Sterling Ericsson

    As a molecular biologist, one of the primary ways I always judge candidates is their stance on scientific topics. It’s for that reason that all the candidates for the Republican party are pretty much perpetually not even a consideration for me (though there’s plenty of other policy issues that make them appalling as well.)

    In the beginning, several months back, I only knew about Bernie’s stance on GMO labeling. I thought he was misinformed on the subject, but forgave him for it, since a lot of politicians seemed to be misinformed on how genetics work. I considered it something that could be worked on to inform him more about it as time goes on and to bring him around to a more science based stance (like Bill Nye’s changed views on the topic).

    However, as time went on, I kept finding more and more evidence that Sanders was steeped in pseudoscience and has been for years. The first piece of evidence was directly from him and a speech he gave. See the following:

    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/sanders-remarks-on-complementary-and-alternative-health-care

    In said speech, he expresses his support for “alternative medicine” and his desire to expand NCCAM, the organization responsible for most of the pseudoscience pushing in the US, especially homeopathy, and which has direct ties to multiple parts of the anti-vaccine movement. Not to mention that his speech also involved a number of very disingenuous, vague questions that were clearly stated to lead to a pseudoscience answer, like anti-fluoridation. One of the worst ones being “What role do chemicals play in cancer causation?”.

    So, that was a shock. Then I found more.

    Sanders has apparently been pushing for expanded use of “alternative medicine” for Veteran’s care for years.

    http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/18/bernie-sanders-veterans-health-care-uvm/27534441/

    If he had only been pushing for usage in mental and psychiatric care, that would be one thing. At least a placebo is worthwhile there. But, no, he has also been pushing for the usage of such things in actual care of physical ailments.

    Then, I ran across several articles in the science websites I frequent, all from several years ago, mentioning Bernie Sanders in a manner that shows his pseudoscience beliefs have been like this for a long time. Long enough that in science circles he is known, sarcastically, as the “champion of alternative medicine”.and how he has “helped naturopaths become players in the medical marketplace”.

    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/integrative-medicine-invades-the-u-s-military-part-one/

    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/legislative-alchemy-revisited-naturopathy-in-vermont-and-colloidal-silver/

    And, circling back to the GMO subject, I ran across this:

    http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/label-frankenfoods

    In among the many stupid statements in it, including the title, there is one line, “In the United States, Sanders said, food labels already must list more than 3,000 ingredients ranging from gluten, aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, trans-fats or MSG, but not genetically-altered ingredients.” This line is a list of basically all of the fear-mongered pseudoscience topics, all of which are made up of fear campaigns with a complete lack of science. The only thing that is argued against and backed up as being bad by science on there is trans-fats, and even those seem to be completely misunderstood by the public, who couldn’t even begin to tell you the difference between a saturated and unsaturated fat.

    With all of this, it is really beginning to look like Bernie Sanders is a anti-science candidate of my nightmares, up there with Ted Cruz currently being the head of the Senate Science Committee (shudder).

    If Sanders wins the primary, I will definitely be voting for him. The alternative is Trump and that WILL NOT HAPPEN. But as for the primaries itself…Sanders seems like he is basically the last person I would want to win, based on what i’ve discussed above.

    TL;DR Look at the links I gave above. They all seem to show an extensive back-history of Sanders being one of the pseudoscience kings in politics.

    • TheTrue Pooka

      Did you actually read the article about VA healthcare and what you’re referring to as pseudo-science?

      I see a reference to yoga and meditation. yoga is an excellent form of physical exercise and meditation can be useful for stress relief.

      Both of them and the concept of; “help patients connect with a personal sense of purpose and joy.” are recognized as valid tools in the psychologist’s arsenal for treating patients.

      The first link doesn’t say anything specific about will be considered alternative treatments. It does however, mention “dental” which if you didn’t realize it, is definitely considered “alternative treatment” in America (no average insurance really effectively covers it, it’s considered an optional; I should know, I handle company HI as part of my job).

      Bernie’s positions on GMOs have irritated me in the past. I’m a bit less interested in what he said in 2012 about AMA investigations because technically, he was right. They were doing an investigation. They finished and found fears were unwarranted. What was his response to that? What’s he saying now?

      Please don’t be guilty of the same crime by bashing the tools of another recognized, legitimate field of science based on your ignorance.

      • John Cross

        Sorry, I cannot let you get away with saying that “dental” is considered “alternative treatment.” No, it is not. The reason it is not covered is because insurance companies don’t want to cover it as “health care”, period. They make it an option b/c that way they can bill you extra if you actually want full coverage. Same with eye care, or did you not notice???

    • Dustin Caulfield

      Pffft, you’re defending water fluoridation? WTF.

      • Sterling Ericsson

        I’m defending the science. And for water fluoridation, the science is very, very extensive.

        A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18584000

      • Mike Shortland

        funny cause its been classifed as carcinogen an mind altering at scertain levels by many nations outside this lovely gridlocked cluster fuck

    • Joshua Brennig

      Yes, Bernie is anti-science when it works against him politically. He may support climate change research, but he actually voted AGAINST the CDC’s research on gun violence. He is willing to throw 33,000 people per year who die from gun violence under the bus in order to keep his NRA contributions flowing in. He also ignored the protests of Vermont residents who fought against the F-35 jet. Now Vermont is stuck with Sandia and Lockheed Martin and a jet that was a failed project. That is the definition of blood money.

      • Mike Shortland

        omg here is a paid media presence

  • TheTrue Pooka

    Interesting. You do bring up some points that deserve inspection.

  • Sasha Glass

    First and last time on this site. Every article is pro-Hillary and anti-Bernie.

    I will put it simply: I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. Ever. There is no question that she is emblematic of what is wrong with the political system today.

    Furthermore, in any other political climate, she wouldn’t even be considered a Progressive.

    • John Cross

      LOL. Good for you. Enjoy “The Donald” as your president. You are about as stupid as most of his followers. You should do well.

      • Sasha Glass

        I am doing well, thanks for asking.

        “The Donald” will be “our” president, because people such as yourself are too myopic too see that Hillary loses to him in the general.

        Vote for change. Vote for progress. Vote for Bernie.

      • John Cross

        Even if he won, “The Bern” wouldn’t be able to authorize a bake sale once the Latte Leftists go back to their coffee shops and marijuana “spas” and “occupy spic and span” movements or whatever the latest hippie craze is. He’ll sit there in the White House blowing in the wind with nobody to talk to. Personally, I want a President with some BALLS who can get shit done. Give me Hillary every time. And, BTW she is every bit as “progressive” as Grandpa Bernie.

      • Hillary a “progressive”? LMFAO. She is a DLC apparatchik just like her BFF Rahm Emanuel, who famously called liberals “f-cking retarded.” Yes, that is the kind of Democrat we need. NOT!!!

      • John Cross

        I understand Rahm apologized to the retarded community for comparing them to liberals. But, again, you have a habit of posting crap. Rahm was such a “BFF” of Hillary that he somehow “forgot” to endorse her in 2008.

      • Hey you are really funny. Rah said he would endorse Hillary starting in 2006, but then he became neutral when Obama announced. Rahm is nothing if not a party apparatchik, so he was conflicted between Hillary and the Senator from his home state. So he actually remained neutral. He endorsed Obama on June 4, 2008.

      • John Cross

        LOL. I didn’t need the history lesson from you. That was exactly the point I made. Such a BFF he didn’t even endorse her. Besides, WTF are you even talking about Rahm for. The Candidate is HILLARY CLINTON, and you just confirmed Rahm is NOT her BFF, so why does he even factor i the conversation?

      • Rose Lynd

        Hillary sticks up for Rahm though.

      • Rose Lynd

        Now you are sticking up for that slime Rahm??? I bet you would stick up for Snyder in Michigan for poisoning children’s water in Michigan because he “apologized”!

      • Mike Shortland

        this kind of tactic is right out of karl roves play book are you paid media presence or affiliated with the campaign of #shillary ??

    • I agree with you, Sasha. I would not vote for Rahm Emmanuel either. I will vote 100% Democrat down ticket, but never for Hillary.

      • John Cross

        Then enjoy 8 years of Trump and 3 more Scalias on the Supreme Court. When you have finished selling America to the right wing, please to not whine about how terrible things are but just put up w/ being buttplugged by your repug owners.

      • Rose Lynd

        If you were really concerned about a Republican gaining the White House, you would be voting for Bernie. DNC shouldn’t have tried to rig the primary for Hillary. They have thrown the election to the GOP if Hillary becomes the nominee.

      • Mike Shortland

        why because bernie would nominate those?? bernie beats all reps by 20 points an he beats hills by 11 thats double digits to all candidates you cant continue to say this like its true or has merit an a civil discord about our party . hillary will nominate the same exact people bush would because thats what goldman sachs would tell her to do

  • Steve

    This is an article trying to get the Hard Core Bernie Supporters to support Hillary or feel it doesn’t matter who but it matters who is the Nominee, I will only vote for Bernie, I don’t care who the DNC gives the Nomination to.

    We are talking about changing the way people get elected, someone who takes millions from millionaires and billionaires to get elected isn’t going to help the working person or get money out of politics. It will be the same old same old and our middle class will get smaller and smaller until our economy crashes again and then we will have a real revolution a bloody one.

    • John Cross

      And you are going to change this how? By putting “The Donald” or Cruz or someone of that ilk in the White House? WOW! What a brillinat strategy.

      • Chirpy

        Bernie polls better against Trump, so, wrong again. You keep saying this and other easily debunked lines.

      • John Cross

        Oh “Bernie polls better against Trump”, he says about a year before the general election. LOL. What a laugh. You have never seen polls change? You didn’t notice that for a moment even Carson was ahead of “The Donald”? You don’t know how politics works in America, or you would never say anything that stupid. Let me explain. When someone is given a choice between two candidates there are two factors that are relevant: name recognition is the most important, and then Negative perception. If they have heard a name before, but have heard nothing negative about it, they will assume the person is good. Follow me so far? This is how 90% of elections are decided: if I have more signs up than you, people see my name more and when people go to the pollls they say, “Oh, I know that guy and he must be good b/c nobody has said anything bad about him.” Thats why all the signs have to say is a name and some positive word. BUT, if they hear something bad about your name, they will think, “Oh, I heard he is bad, so I’ll vote for the other guy.” This is why in races for congress, senate and a few statehouse races, candidates will spend about 5 times more on negative ads than positive ads. Now, for President, people pay a bit more attention, and they may actually ask themselves whether a candidate is any good. Silly right? OK, follow me so far? Now, we are about a year ahead of the elections. I know you are all excited about it, but believe me, 99% of the people who get called by the pollsters are not. Right now they are worried about their hair, their toe nails, their pet gold fish, just about anything other than the Presidential Election, so when that pollster calls they really have no idea what he is talking about. You’ve seen those polls where the vast majority of Republicans want to ban immigration from a fictitious country? Thats how it is. If you asked them if they would support Ronald Reagan, he would probably get a huge yes among Republicans. So how does this benefit “The Bern”? Simple, the fact is that there has been just enough coverage of his campaign so that most people know his name, and almost ALL of that coverage has been positive nice fuzzy things. Now, Hillary has much better name recognition, of course, but as you know, lots of people hate her guts. So when they hear a vaguely familiar name and then Hillaries name–you guessed it, the vaguely familiar name will get the nod. So what does this mean? It means the poll means nothing. If Bernie made it to the General Election the Republicans would make mince pie out of him: SOCIALIST, LIAR, HYPOCRIT, WEAK OLD MAN, WEAK ON FP, GIVE AWAY YOUR MONEY TO BLACK PEOPLE, GIVE AWAY OUR COUNTRY TO IMMIGRANTS and on and on, and his negatives will go from 0 to 60 in about 3 days. Oh, those are’t true, you say? WHO THE FUCK CARES, THEY WILL SAY IT ANYWAY AND THEY WILL SAY IT SO OFTEN EVEN YOU WILL START TO BELIEVE IT. What about Hillary you ask? Won’t thay say that about her too? YES, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR 24 YEARS AND THE STUPID SCHMUCKS LIKE YOU WHO BELIEVE IT ALREADY BELIEVE IT. Her negatives will go from about 43 to about 44 and she will win. Now I am pretty sure you will NOT understand this, but I have done my part for humanity today.

      • Forget Bernie’s pros or cons. The fact is that when 60% of the American people think Hillary is “untrustworthy” she is simply not electable.

      • John Cross

        Now you are just flat out lying. Please check your facts b4 making an ass of urself.

      • Chirpy

        Widely reported fact, actually. People dislike her.

      • Mike Shortland

        she is the most hated woman in the world 6 yrs running … Fact

      • From Quinnipiac (Nov. 4, 2015):

        “Clinton has the lowest rating for honesty as American voters say 60 – 36 percent she is not honest and trustworthy. Trump is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 58 – 38 percent.”

        See the poll here:

        http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2299

        How do you not know this?

      • John Cross

        LOL. Out of a houndred polls you pick ONE (two months ago) as fact. What about the other 99 polls? That SAME poll said Carson was the most TRUSTED candidate: 62% said he was honest, and he beat out both Sanders and Clinton by 10 points in a head to head!!! WHERE THE FUCK IS CARSON NOW??? LOL. Berie’s unfavorables are going up also. Fact of life, when people know you and you have been the subject of a witchhunt for 24 years some morons will believe it. It doesn’t mean they won’t vote for you. In that same poll, Hillary beat Trump by 46-40. So apparently, even though 60% thought she was untrustworthy, 46% were still willing to vote for her. Moral of the story? Grow up and quit cherry picking your data. One poll a year before the election means nothing.

      • Rose Lynd

        Why do you believe all of the polls that are good for Hillary? Bernie supporters can say the same thing about all the polls for Hillary. Even the pollsters that you like, you disagree with when they report something unfavorable for Hillary. I think you are living in a bubble.

  • BobJThompson

    Once Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire these things will be brought up. And as a Bernie supporter, I’m fine with that. He does a great job explaining his train of thought when it comes to votes and why he supports the things that he does.

    If you want to bash him for not pushing for gay marriage (which he still did before most dems) then realize that his focus has been and will be cronyism and the economy.

    So what if Bernie and Hillary had similar voting records? It’s the votes they differed on. The causes they differ in their support for *cough* TPP *cough* Keystone XL *cough* make all the difference.

    If you want incremental change with an insane level of Republican Hysteria, then by all means cast your primary ballot for Hillary. I’ll vote the anti-corruption candidate with the best chance of winning possible every time. Hopefully 2 times this year. 🙂

    • John Cross

      LOL. “He does a great job explaining his train of thought…” like he will have a chance to explain anything in the General Election. You guys really think anyone is going to care about the “explanations” of a so-called socialist and anti-war advocate who votes for the biggest military boondoggle in history just because it is in his district and will generate a few hundred jobs? How much did each of those jobs cost the American Taxpayer Bub? Like $10 Billion dollars EACH??? He is gonna go down like Dukakis after he rode in that tank.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPZQ3UEN_Q

      • BobJThompson

        You’re right. How dare he not vote down something that was going to pass over his objections anyhow. Guess I’d better fall in line and support the TPP and Keystone XL advocate Shillary Clinton.

      • John Cross

        Here’s a clue pihead: he could have voted against it like he voted against the Iraq thing. Remember that? It still passed right, so his vote didn’t matter one way of the other, right? But somehow he doesn’t stand on principle when it brings a few crumbs to his lousy district. THAT is called PORK BARREL POLITICS. Seems like he plays politics like everyone else in the world.

      • BobJThompson

        Or you could look at it this way, that he supports using government intervention to create jobs and the only jobs the government creates directly these days are in the defense industry.

        I always find it funny that the only way that people can actually factually criticize Bernie is from his left. He may be as right wing as a leftist socialist can be, but that’s still a damned sight better than ANY of the other choices that have a chance in this election.

      • Mike Shortland

        it matters an fact you dont know that means YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM

    • Mike Shortland

      hes up 20 in iowa lol an 27 in nh an 18 in nevada an 25 in cali shes done for they are so scared an so desperate all the promisses she made to them wont come true cause she wont be their

  • Steven Henderson

    It’s not about Bernie never being wrong. It’s about the American people having their voice heard again. Of course no one is perfect. And this idea of anyone changing mind or opinion is automatically flip flopping is ridiculous. But this article is indeed more propognada trying to thwart a passionate movement that has been a long time coming. The idea that Paul Krugman is an argument for anything in it of itself nullifies the sincerity of this article. But the mention of the idea that Glass-Stegall was not a big deal, compeletly exposes and discredits this article. I could go over and rebut every point but it would be redundant. While a bit more subtle and with guile this article is more fear mongering and propognada from an establishment base.

  • Peter Tobias

    “That’s another fallacy many Sanders supporters assume about the media. The truth is, more media coverage typically means more scrutiny – not more praise.”
    . . . More coverage brings more familiarity, which is essential for a candidate who is not as widely known as his opponent. For Sanders, it’s nearly valid that “Any news is good news”, within limits, of course.
    . . . Reading the article now, on Feb 19, reveals some false predictions about Sanders’ chances. We’ll see how the rest of predictions upholds.

  • Mrs. Sanity

    So, I see a lot of people still didn’t get what the article was about. It is really quite scary. What happened to people’s sanity? If you all hate Hillary so much, just wait until you get a republican elected.