MSM: Bernie can't win, so please just ignore all the polls that say otherwise

bernie_5.PNG

If only Bernie Sanders was a corporate Democrat, the media narrative would be entirely different.

A nationwide Fox News poll released Sunday shows President Donald Trump trailing Senator Bernie Sanders, 49 percent to 40 percent among all registered voters nationwide.

The Fox poll also showed Biden leading Trump by 49 percent to 39 percent. Also beating Trump in the poll were Senators Elizabeth Warren (43%-41%) and Kamala Harris (42%-41%), and Mayor Pete Buttigieg (41%-40%) of South Bend, Indiana.

This would be GREAT news for any establishment candidate.
Guess how it is actually reported.

bernie1_2.PNGbernie2_3.PNGbernie3_0.PNGbernie4_0.PNGbernie5_0.PNG

Bernie is only leading a sitting president by 9 to 11 points in the polls.
So he may as well throw in the towel now. It's hopeless.
That's what candidates normally do when they are winning by double-digits, right?
Staying in the race will only prove that he's sexist.

Share
up
43 users have voted.

Comments

Hawkfish's picture

The NYT had this big public soul searching about how they preferentially covered only the leaders. So this time around their coverage is Biden and everyone else except Bernie. So it’s not that they only cover the leaders - it’s that they refuse to cover Bernie.

The thing that is so depressing is that it’s not even subtle. The contempt is chilling.

up
16 users have voted.

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

I considered the outcome before I challenged Aspie's opening salvo. I wasn't real sure if I could achieve my purpose. I wanted a conversation to start but I didn't want a food fight. Most of the discussion has come down about like I expected. Many positions are well known in this community. Yet, we can still hold strong positions passionately while being respectful. Good on all of you.

Now for a serious question or twenty two. Right this minute Bernie isn't the only candidate with positions that come close to what most of us say we want. He's gets high points on some issues and not so high on others. He's also the only non-DNC approved candidate with anything approaching viability in terms of name recognition, history/track record, and is polling strongly despite the MSM's and DNC's best efforts. That could change. I'd love to see someone challenge Bernie from the left and on foreign policy and military issues. So far, yes, it's very early, I'm not seeing an effective effort from the one candidate who is left of him. I also appreciate the doubt about Bernie. It cannot be ignored.

So. If not Bernie, who? I'm asking about right now from what we see. I know there's a lot of hope amongst us for Tulsi. I like what I see but I can't ignore uncertain viability questions. Part of that has a MSM/DNC component that may be difficult to break. I also can't get rid of the nagging Obama history of saying what we want to hear in pretty speeches but having no track record to judge authenticity. We know how that turned out. Fool me once, shame on you?...me?...uh...fool me twi....ugh... can't be fooled again! sort of feeling. If not Bernie but Tulsi, how do we judge? What do we need from her? Is there anybody else you guys see?

I have no reason to think that one or the other is not acceptable. Can we come together on whichever one? Can we put aside the hard feelings? What I've heard so far indicates it's possible. What are the alternatives?

Let's say the MSM/DNC get their way and it's one of the same ol', same ol' muppets. Is that better than 4 more orange colored shit stained years? I'm thinking that like a drunk or addict the people of the US won't seek help until we've found a bottom of our own understanding. Maybe it's necessary.

Anyway, I invite your thoughts.

up
12 users have voted.
Pricknick's picture

@vtcc73
First off, let me thank you for the well reasoned responses you made to some very inflammatory posts on this thread. It takes the work of a balanced individual to do so.
I believe the democratic party needs to be disbanded and dissolved. It is the only entity that makes the republican party look good to so many. I whole heartedly agree that the republican party is corrupt. But compared to who?
The duopoly will be the death of a once proud nation. A nation that believed in the good of the government. A nation that held hope.
The word hope was tarnished by a president that even now many call the greatest president ever. A man who laughs about the mistakes he made. A man and a party who supported the call of "We came. We saw. He died."
We have the president we deserve. Make no mistake about that it was planned. As long as we support the duopoly, we are destined to live by their decisions. I will not support it.
I will fight it.
May the democratic and republican party both perish. It can't happen soon enough.

up
13 users have voted.

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

thanatokephaloides's picture

@vtcc73

Let's say the MSM/DNC get their way and it's one of the same ol', same ol' muppets. Is that better than 4 more orange colored shit stained years?

If one of the "same ol'muppets" gets nominated, what we'll get is "4 more orange colored shit stained years". And that's true if Trump wins or loses.

All conservadems are Trump. Especially Her Heinous and Creepy Joe.

Bad

up
9 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

@vtcc73 convince people to stop treating politics like a season of "The Bachelor" and vote like they and their kids lives depend on it.

up
8 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

@Snode

what you mean by,

vote like they and their kids lives depend on it.

Having participated in several iterations (or, predecessors) of this blog, gotta say--there are more than a few folks (here) who take their lefty political ideology/views/issues quite seriously, but, don't get into LOTE politics.

IOW, they vote their sincere convictions, which may mean voting third party. Which, from their frame of reference, is voting like their and their children's lives depend upon it. Pleasantry

Personally, I respect those who wish to continue to work 'inside,' however, disagree that it's productive. Which is to say, whereas many folks share your stated goal (including myself), there are concrete and substantial differences of opinion regarding 'how' to achieve said goal.

Having said that, IMO, it shouldn't be a problem, as long as everyone recognizes this, and respects the right of others to disagree.

Mollie

“Dogs have given us their absolute all. We are the center of their universe. We are the focus of their love and faith and trust. They serve us in return for scraps. It is without a doubt the best deal man has ever made.
~~Roger Caras

up
3 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

@Unabashed Liberal Life spans in the US are declining. We're dying by our own hand, from drugs, from despair, from lack of medical care, from shooting each other. We're contaminating our air, water and food supply. Capitalism is failing most of us. Campaigns have been about sound bites that pander to the various special interest groups and ultimately they bow to wealthy donors behind the scenes. So, anyway, you get the idea. How many "next times we'll see real change"'s do we have left?

up
4 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

@Snode

that things in the US are steadily going downhill.

I guess the difference (between our thinking) is that from what I've gleaned from reading about our social safety net, I've found that Dem Presidents have signed into law many of the punitive repeals of entitlement and welfare programs. (Especially, WJC.)

You mention,

We're dying by our own hand, from drugs, from despair, from lack of medical care, from shooting each other.

I accept that as a true statement.

But, did you know that it was WJC who (in 1996) signed Public Law 104-121, "which terminated SSI and SSDI benefits to individuals disabled primarily by drug addiction and alcoholism."

Obviously, the elimination of SSDI eligibility meant that many, if not most, of these addicts/alcoholics no longer had access to any medical care, since there Medicare eligibility ended, when they no longer qualified for Social Security Disability Insurance, or SSDI.

Yet, Dem lawmakers have the gall to act 'surprised' that a generation later, we've been left with a major drug-related medical and healthcare crisis, which has prematurely claimed the lives of many Americans, especially, in rural areas of the country. Phew!

Hey, wish you the best of luck, if you should decide to continue working within the Party.

Mollie

up
3 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

@Unabashed Liberal
that a significant number of WJC's worst initiatives were supported by nearly all Republicans and a minority of Democrats.

up
1 user has voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

@FuturePassed

of fact, some of the programs that WJC slashed were recommended in Gingrich's toxic, so-called "Contract For America."

Having said that, IMO, that doesn't excuse the (Dem) Party that pretends claims to stand up for the "Little Guy," by protecting our weak and frayed social insurance system.

In my lifetime, only two Presidents--Nixon and LBJ--did much of anything to actually strengthen and/or expand the social safety net. The others--both Ds and Rs--have incrementally been about chiseling away at the very programs that they claim/claimed to hold dear, and, 'protect.'

Have a nice weekend.

PleasantryMollie

“Dogs have given us their absolute all. We are the center of their universe. We are the focus of their love and faith and trust. They serve us in return for scraps. It is without a doubt the best deal man has ever made.
~~Roger Caras

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

@vtcc73 for your several positive, corrective posts above, most needed in this grim time of gloom and doom when it's so easy to throw in the towel.

Re Tulsi, her authenticity derives from her bold outspokenness, alone in the pack of 24, on FP, an area which as we've seen can bring down the wrath of TPTB -- MIIC and MSM -- upon anyone wandering off the reservation. Knowing she would face this establishment backlash, it's difficult to comprehend why she would undertake meeting personally with Assad, questioning the alleged chemical attacks, being a public skeptic about the collusion angle of Russiagate (again alone among candidates), and challenging the wisdom of our many regime change efforts, if she didn't believe sincerely in these issues.

All this takes courage. It would have been far easier for her to concentrate, as the others do, on DP and run on that basis, as a young leader with new ideas for the 21st C, while relegating FP to the back burner and largely going along with our DeepState. If she had taken this easier path, the MSM would be featuring her and promoting her, regularly running positive profiles of her as young lawmaker from Hawaii, surfer, former Iraq vet, Hindu, and all the rest of her interesting background. But she chose the treacherous path less traveled, and that is what makes her authentic.

Finally, I think we need to be cautious about not constantly drawing from the negative Obama example. Neither Tulsi nor Bernie strike me as the types running 95% on personal appeal and bipartisan idealistic rhetoric to achieve some imagined unified United States. They both see the serious problems we face and do not speak in naive language of fictional national happiness. They are about directly challenging the system, Tulsi in FP, Bernie in DP, and doing so with substantive proposals and not appeals to personal charisma and lofty rhetoric.

up
13 users have voted.
Jen's picture

If only Bernie Sanders was a corporate Democrat, the media narrative would be entirely different.

If Bernie Sanders was a corporate democrat, he would be just another generic democrat that no one cares to listen to and he wouldn't have as many supporters. The only reason he has as many supporters as he does is because he's not a corporate democrat - he's not even a democrat last time I checked. And he would have as much of a chance at beating Trump as Biden does. Which is little or none.

up
4 users have voted.

They get people debating whether they should elect a crook in a red hat or a crook in a blue hat, rather than whether or not they should be forced to elect crooks. -Caitlin Johnstone

thanatokephaloides's picture

@Jen

And he would have as much of a chance at beating Trump as Biden does. Which is little or none.

Bernie's chances of beating Trump are actually far better than Biden's. And they always have been. This fact scares the tar out of the conservadems' donor class. (As well it should!)

America will always vote for the genuine article GOPper in preference to a pseudo-GOPper running as a conservadem. (Paraphrase of Harry Truman) If the Dems run a clone of Trump, we will get Trump. Bank on it!

Wink

up
5 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

Jen's picture

@thanatokephaloides I meant if he was another corporate democrat. Smile

up
3 users have voted.

They get people debating whether they should elect a crook in a red hat or a crook in a blue hat, rather than whether or not they should be forced to elect crooks. -Caitlin Johnstone

Pages