Dana Milbank's endorsement: Dems would be Insane to nominate Bernie

[cali]

Milbank's piece "Democrats would be Insane to nominate Bernie Sanders" is unintentionally funny, and decidedly awkward.

It starts off with this line:

"I adore Bernie Sanders"

<snip>

I agree with his message of fairness and I share his outrage over inequality and corporate abuses. I think his righteous populism has captured the moment perfectly. I respect the uplifting campaign he has run. I admire his authenticity.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, is a dreary candidate. She has, again, failed to connect with voters. Her policy positions are cautious and uninspiring. Her reflexive secrecy causes a whiff of scandal to follow her everywhere. She seems calculating and phony.


And yet if Democrats hope to hold the presidency in November, they’ll need to hold their noses and nominate Clinton.

<snip>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html

[DanTex]

1. He's right of course. Bernie is great, but he's not a viable candidate in the GE.

It's not worth throwing the White House to the GOP on a pipe dream.

[tech3149]

6. Y think we've heard your opinion, here's my concern

Bernie can generate the motivation to win the primary despite a lack of support from the party power structure. Is the party willing to suck it up and support the candidate or throw us under the bus like McGovern?

[DanTex]

11. The party will support the eventual nominee. I don't think it will be enough it it's Bernie, though.

Then there's the other problem of Bloomberg running third party, which would be very stupid of him -- he can't win, all he can do is throw the election to the GOP -- but he might do it anyway.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. I'm surprised to see anyone who is not a harsh Obama critic have a kind word for Milbank who

aggressively misquoted Obama in 08 to make him sound like a pompous ass and then Dana accused him of hubris for saying what he did not really say.
Don't you remember that? Why trust or offer legitimacy to any pundit who is known to dishonestly quote and criticize Obama? Do you also think Obama was full of hubris? Do you think Milbank was in the right to edit that quote as he did?

[DanTex]

39. I don't recall that. I was responding to the content of this article, which is accurate.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Is it accurate? You assume so, but you actively edit out Milbank's history of proactive inaccuracy.

My comment stands. Very surprised to see anyone who supports Obama digging on Milbank, who simply lied about what Obama said then attacked him for the made up quote.

You don't recall the man's definitive public moment, when reminded you don't seem to mind it. Odd to me, that's all. Situational ethics are always odd to me, Dan Tex.

[DanTex]

42. I'm not "actively editing" anything out, I just don't know what you're talking about.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. So you really have no clue that Milbank got sacked from MSNBC for lying about Obama?

That's quite an admission for a person who is so strongly asserting his insights as being highly informed and correct. You don't even know who it is you are touting, but you tout with great certainty. That in itself is meaningful.
I have told you who he is. You don't seem to mind his history of bashing Obama with false quotes. You know that now, and yet you do not seem motivated to reexamine your endorsement of Milbank.

I guess ignorance can be bliss but ignorance is never an authority. So you don't know what I'm talking about but you also don't care to know, nor to respond when informed.

You leaped into this thread to join his choir. I found it to be contradictory of your usual stance. I still do.

[DanTex]

46. Nope. That was 8 years ago? Anyway, he's spot on in this article.

[immoderate]

51. If "spot on" means the same as "wrong" then you're accurate.

--imm

[DanTex]

53. That was amazing.

[immoderate]

57. .

--imm

[frylock]

61. "That was 8 years ago" is what conservatives like to say about Bush..

been seeing a lot of that sentiment around here of late. Weird, that.

[DanTex]

62. Aha, so now anyone who doesn't remember something 8 years ago is Bush. Good argument!

[frylock]

76. Poor argument..

keep trying.

[kenfrequed]

64. Down the memory hole then?

I mean, you could just do a simple websearch and say "oh really? Wow, I guess maybe this guy isn't the best person to be listening to about stuff like this."

But, it might put a dent in your narrative to do that.

[DanTex]

65. I simpley don't remember the incident that we're discussing. I'm not a Dana Milbank stalker.

I know who he is, have read some of his articles, but as far as people in the media, he's not as high-profile as say Rachel Maddow or Paul Krugman or Ezra Klein. I guess either I missed it or it just didn't seem like a big deal to me, enough to make it into my long term memory.

So I'm not sure why this is so hard to believe.

[one_voice]

70. More to the point...

If team Hillary attacks a writer for going after Hillary--Team Bernie screams bloody murder about attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message. They don't care if it's Townhall, an disgusting, rabid, nasty anti abortion site http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251992133 (so I'm not called a liar) any and all 'messengers' are acceptable.

Here we have an effort to discredit Dana Millbank a 'messenger.'* And you have to defend the fact you won't attack him.

Interesting.


*I'm not endorsing anything written by Millbank merely pointing our my observations.

[kenfrequed]

82. And...

My question stands:

Why don't you simply google it?

[DanTex]

83. Because I don't care.

Some Bernie fans on the internet said something. Meh.

[kenfrequed]

85. So...

You care enough to defend or utilize a pundit who makes a dismissive and absurd argument that isn't grounded in anything resembling factual information. You care enough to spend over a dozen posts defending him.


But you don't care enough to look him up to make sure he is credible?

[DanTex]

86. I didn't post the article. I read the link cali posted. What was written there made a lot of sense

And that's pretty much the end of the story.

Then some Bernie fans complain about Milbank. Do I care? No. I was only talking about this article, which was posted by cali, and which was very accurate IMO.

Do I trust things that Bernie fans say? Of course not. According to them Paul Krugman is an establishment sellout and Rachel Maddow is shilling for Hillary. The opinion of Bernie fans carries very little information.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. the "very accurate article" calls your Candidate "dreary" and says her politics are "inauthentic"

you must be so proud.

[DanTex]

90. That's putting a little harshly, but she's no Barack Obama, don't you agree?

[Warren DeMontague]

91. You know, it didn't have to be this way.

I was afraid she was going to run a campaign like this- uninspiring, fake, overly poll-tested, cringeworthy; but honestly, she has exceeded my expectations in that regard, which is saying something.

Yes she does not have the innate political chops, but she could have compensated for some of that by taking some actual bold policy positions, by trying to inspire through leadership instead of uplifting stump speeches. She hasn't done that either, in fact her policy prescriptions- what there are- have been even less inspiring than her stage presence.

I came into this campaign cycle with an open mind, but, bleh.


It's upsetting, because I still think she has pretty good odds of being our nominee, and if she goes into the general like this we have some real fucking problems.

[DanTex]

93. I'm not sure if that's true. She's Hillary, she's not Obama, and she's not Bernie.

She's got her limitations, and one of them is coming off the way she does. Not sure what your expectations were, but mine were pretty much here.

Taking bold policy positions is a different story. I'm not sure if that would have been smart. And I also don't think it would have compensated for her charisma limitations. For the primaries, maybe, but she's already tacked left, and most people in the liberal base already don't believe her. She's been angling for the GE the whole time, and there it's not clear, at least to me, that bold positions are helpful.

Poll-testing is actually a good thing, in terms of winning elections. The key is to be poll-tested but not come off as poll-tested. But polls, in the hands of people who know what they are doing (and her people do, a lot of them are former Obama people), are useful. And she's pretty much stuck with coming off poll-tested either way.

[Warren DeMontague]

94. I think part of the problem is there is a disconnect between the beltway conventional wisdom

Bubble, and the on the ground reality.

It seems to me the GE that her people have been angling for is the one that took place in 2004, and thats part of the problem.

There is a completely new reality taking shape, driven particularly by Millennials, and it has caught a lot of the beltway "experts" totally by surprise.

[DanTex]

95. Well, CW definitely got Trump wrong, and Bernie too, though I'd say to a lesser

extent. I actually agree that she would be a better candidate for the 2004 GE, she's not so good with the millenial crowd.

But not everything has changed overnight. Most voters aren't millenials, most Americans still aren't comfortable with the word "socialism", even though it's becoming better. I mean, we still live in a country where more than half the people think creationism should be taught in schools. So I don't buy the whole everything's different now thing.

I gotta say, I'm very happy with the way millenial politics are shaping up. I'm in my late 30s, which makes me Gen X officially, although I kinda feel like Gen X was the people in their 20s when I was a teenager. Anyway, the big thing when I was in college/early 20s was libertarianism. That sucked.

[closeupready]

54. He says in another thread "we are all on the same side", but as I responded in that thread,

I don't believe that. If he refuses to account for Milbank's history, then that merely underscores my conviction that no, we are not on the same side.

[ChiciB1]

79. Milbank Has Always Leaned To The Right... n/t

[ljm2002]

50. And yet poll after poll shows him beating Republicans...

...by larger margins than Clinton does; he even wins some of the match-ups that she loses. IOW your assertion is not supported by the facts we have in hand right now.

"Vote for the dreary candidate!" -- yeah, that's a slogan we should all get behind. It will really draw voters too.

[DanTex]

55. Not really. You realize that not everything Bernie says is true, right?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/26/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-polls-better-against-gop-ca/

[ljm2002]

58. Well here's the thing...

...poll after poll really does show Sanders with the advantage w.r.t. potential Republican opponents. For example:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Trump vs. Clinton
RCP Average 12/22 - 1/13 -- -- 44.0 41.3 Clinton +2.7

Trump vs. Sanders
RCP Average 11/16 - 1/13 -- -- 46.8 41.5 Sanders +5.3

Cruz vs. Clinton
RCP Average 12/16 - 1/13 -- -- 46.8 45.5 Cruz +1.3

Cruz vs. Sanders
RCP Average 10/29 - 12/20 -- -- 45.0 41.7 Sanders +3.3

Rubio vs. Clinton
RCP Average 12/16 - 1/13 -- -- 47.0 44.5 Rubio +2.5

Rubio vs. Sanders
RCP Average 10/29 - 12/20 -- -- 44.0 43.0 Rubio +1.0

Bush vs. Clinton
RCP Average 11/27 - 1/7 -- 45.7 43.3 Clinton +2.4

Bush vs. Sanders
RCP Average 9/17 - 12/17 -- 45.3 42.3 Sanders +3.0

Then there is this article from last week concerning a new CNN/WMUR poll in NH:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/01/21/another-new-hampshire-poll-shows-bernie-sanders-beating-hillary-clinton-this-time-against-republicans/gIoTBKS5n5EObMo39AIm1N/story.html

But with Hillary Clinton basing the bulk of her attacks on Bernie Sanders on the premise of electability, a new poll of voters in New Hampshire, a swing state, gives the Vermont senator’s supporters a comeback.

In hypothetical general election matchups, Sanders outperforms the former secretary of state, according to a CNN/WMUR poll released Wednesday, beating five different Republican candidates by double digits.

Against Donald Trump, likely New Hampshire voter choose Sanders 57 percent to 34 percent. Against Ted Cruz, Sanders leads 56 percent to 33 percent. The Vermont senator also leads Republicans Marco Rubio 55 percent to 37 percent, Chris Christie 57 percent to 34 percent, and John Kasich 54 percent to 33 percent.

Please explain how these numbers are in Hillary's favor w.r.t. the argument about "electability". Note especially the disparity of the results for Trump and Cruz, the Republican front-runners. Thanks.

[DanTex]

59. They're polling about the same versus the GOP, so at best it's even, but as everyone knows,

GE polls this far out have low prediction value. Bernie hasn't been hit with the full GOP assault, Hillary's faced it for decades. Bernie won't have the funds to fire back. And he's got the socialism label, and a Gallup poll found that less than 50% of Americans would consider voting for a socialist.

Add it all up, and it comes out to GOP in the White House.

[ljm2002]

67. Holy shit...

...first you say Bernie isn't polling better, then I show factual information indicating that he really is polling better, then you say polls don't matter.

All over the map. It does not support nor advance your argument about electability, though.

[DanTex]

68. He's not polling better. Check the Politifact article. They are polling about the same. Sure, you

can cherry-pick the polls if you want, but like I said it this far out the polling is unreliable anyway, so I don't see why you're wasting your effort with that.

I noticed that you dodged the arguments I made. LOL.

[ljm2002]

71. Your arguments are all over the map...

...faced with polls that show Bernie doing better than Hillary in every match-up against their likely Republican opponents, you claim it isn't so and that the polls are "cherry picked". You do know that the one I cited is a composite of a few different polls, right? The New Hampshire poll is very recent and that is why I cited it.

You are the one who has tried to advance the "she's more electable" argument. While the polls regarding the GE may be unreliable at this point, they are all we have to go on right now. They do not support your argument -- even if they are polling "about the same". That means that the electability argument goes out the window.

TTFN

[DanTex]

72. Actually, it's very simple. Polls are about even, when Bernie claimed he was doing better, he was

lying. But polls don't mean much now. He's not electable because once he faces the GOP attack machine, he'll get crushed.

[frylock]

60. There's only one group hitting the pipe around here..

and it isn't the group supporting the guy that drew 20,000 people to a rally a week before the first primary.

[workinclasszero]

92. Totally agree

[Broward]

2. We'd be insane not to. Milbank's a hack.

[SamKnause]

3. I will not be holding my nose.

[VulgarPoet]

5. Count me in that number.

eom

[Hortensis]

45. Me too. I'm very excited at the prospect of Hillary

following Obama. The down-to-earth details of HOW we restore prosperity and health to our people may sound "dreary" to someone who has to be entertaining enough to keep his TV gigs and his readers, but they are exciting to me.

If Milbank's description of the town hall is accurate (we were unable to watch), I would understand why Bernie's more excitable supporters were roiling afterward -- when I came here they were very unhappy, claiming the questions were unfair, etc. Bernie needs to learn to sell his ideas to people who need persuading.

[KingCharlemagne]

69. He is up by 5 points in the latest Iowa polling out today. Tell me again, who

needs to learn how to sell ideas????

[EdwardBernays]

4. We all know

How well voting out of fear for decades has worked out.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Vote "dreary", thats always good advice.

C'mon, who's with me? "NO WE CANT! NO WE CANT!"

[INdemo]

8. Another nervous Corporatist

Obviously the whole damn coprorate,Was St. establishment is worried.

Bernie can win...Bernie will win..

Bernie Sanders goes to Iowa to meet with voters,Hillary goes to meet with her Wall st donors and you say Bernie cant win?...

[still_one]

9. It would be more interesting to know his position on the republican nominees

[lostnfound]

10. That's funny

Milbank is old school hack making a living by being a centrist pundit. Whether he's right in his thesis or not, I don't really care. Democracy as a patient is already on its deathbed, urgent measures are required.

If hope is insane, then so be it. The whole idea of fighting to free the colonies from British aristocracy and establishing democracy was insanity too. We are lost in a Dali-like world of melting clocks, looking for something real.

[Trajan]

30. Agreed ... Democracy is too important

To allow media to interfere ...

Report, but do not dictate, asshole ...

[Odin2005]

12. NO WE CAN'T! NO WE CAN'T! NO WE CAN'T!

[cali]

13. Let's hear it for the dreary candidate!

[pangaia]

31. I'm for boooorring, dreary, old, grouchy, tastless dresser,

loser, screechy, angry,

BERNIE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gamecock Lefty]

14. I would not put . . .

Bernie in the great category. He’s a likeable enough old man, but I’m solidly behind Clinton.

And Hillary is not dreary and her policies are not uninspiring. And the comment “reflective secrecy causes a whiff of scandal?” Yawn. Tired old arguments.

[pangaia]

34. I think he IS 'great,' whatever that might mean.

And this if only because he is the ONLY candidate in my lifetime, and I was first eligible to vote in 1962, who tells the complete truth about the ugliness of the American political system.
He is also the only one I can remember whom I feel is doing this not for himself, but for other human beings.

Hillary Clinton is part of that ugly system, whatever her true and/or professed position might be.

[ms liberty]

15. Yea, I remember when KO quit having Dana Milbank

on his show, and I was happy about it. I'm sure someone will come along soon to accuse Bernie supporters of throwing him under the bus.

[beam me up scottie]

18. Hell I'll happily volunteer to drive the bus for this one!

[ms liberty]

47. Lol - me too, but I would have done it back in 08

When he was pulling his original BS. But there are some here who are just so well informed that they don't seem to remember we all threw Mr Milbank under the bus a long time ago, so darn it, when they accuse us of throwing him under the bus today it is obviously just because of Bernie.

[beam me up scottie]

74. Good point!

That talking point got old and crusty months ago but at least they're recycling.

What they lack in imagination and creativity they make up for in thriftyness!

[VulgarPoet]

19. Hearty laughs were had when I saw someone alerted the last masterpost of people

that we allegedly "threw under a bus". To quote the alert, you'd think Sanders supporters were fascists with the language that was used. I guarantee you someone will alert it again.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Nope and No Change.

Hell of a campaign theme.

[Awknid]

17. Milbanks is just wrong

I think many Republicans will vote for Bernie over Trump. What Milbank is really saying is that the Establishment won't be happy, so we can't do it. Too bad for them, cause Bernie will be our nominee and win!

[farleftlib]

20. Eat your peas goddamit!

No thanks, been there done that.

[Puglover]

21. Dana Milbank

Could you possibly be anymore Beltway? Gawd.

I am so over these inside goons and their blather.

[CharlotteVale]

22. This crap just makes me want to vote for Bernie even more.

[restorefreedom]

23. wow. another establishment m$m hack against bernie.

i. am. stunned.

[Jefferson23]

24. OMG, the irony of his statements. He lays out solid reasons to do nothing but vote for Bernie

and closes with an endorsement for a candidate he believes to be below
par, by a mile.

Dana has voted for several Republicans for president and I can only
hope no one takes him seriously on anything.

Another example of the twisted cynical political climate we live in
and fuck him for attempting to appear sensible, reasonable, realistic,
and all the other bullshit he is spewing.

[Le Taz Hot]

26. I think one of the many things this election season

is bringing out is how BAD the punditocracy really is. The whole damned lot of them have been wrong on EVERYTHING. Bernie wasn't going to get out of single digits. Then it was, "he'll top out at 10, no, 15, nor 20%." And remember young people don't watch MSM (for good reason) and those of us who have been around the block have watched the steady decline ever since "news" became "infotainment." No, these guys are on their last legs.

[Jefferson23]

28. The sooner the better, they're a detriment to us on many levels. n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

29. They're a machine

that spits out whatever their corporate masters tell them to spit out. And if you DON'T dance to the corporate masters' tune, you're out (KO, Schultz, Donahue).

[Jefferson23]

33. 1996 Telecommunications Act, another Clinton gift to the machine. n/t

[pangaia]

37. I never know, in my naivete....

How many of 'these people,' the
establishment,' the.. politicians, media, 'business' people, TPTB, TPT want to B,...all of them, you know what I mean..
How many of them actually believe all the shit and how many know what they do or say is bull but are just too greedy, or power hungry or addicted or afraid, to change their behavior or stand up..?

Sure, some/ many are obvious.. but.. there are tens of thousands of them...

[Oilwellian]

96. We need a new "Network" moment

And a scene like this:

[Salviati]

77. I think that's pretty much the definition of pundit right?

Someone paid a lot of money to be professionally wrong in public?

[Nanjeanne]

25. President Obama

Didn't run as a Socialist.

But the Republicans called him one as well as a Kenyan Muslim Colonialist. Does anyone think the Republicans won't demonize Hillary?

I prefer to vote for the person who represents my values and not let Republican fear make my decision for me. I actually have faith in the American people.

[tazkcmo]

27. No We Can't!!!

Don't Even Try!!! No Hope!!! Ponies And Trixx Are For Kids!!! Vote HRC, the C stands for Corporate!!!

[Jarqui]

32. Like Trump, I do not thing the media has Sanders figured out

Like the Iraq war, they have been a part of the problem.

Therefore, it's harder for them collectively, not necessarily individually, in the comfort of their cushy media jobs to see the solution - what is really going on.

They talk to each other, reinforcing each other, making each other feel good about themselves, smugly brushing off the proletarians but few of them really think very deeply.

Milbank is no exception. Never has been.

[One of the 99]

35. Who cares what Milbank thinks.

He can't be trusted. Several years ago he misquoted and lied about President Obama. Keith Obermann asked him to come on to defend what he had done and Milbank refused.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Milbank heavily edited an Obama quote to make it sound arrogant then accused him of 'hubris'

Dana quoted: "This is the moment ... that the world is waiting for. ... I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

What Dana edited out: " it is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol."


Personally I don't listen to people who intentionally misquote others in order to attack something they did not say at all.

Was he right about Obama? No, he was not even right about the so called quote he offered up as indictment. Dana is a dishonest and agenda driven pundit.

[cali]

40. I didn't know that. This isn't about listening to him, it's about

the incongruity in his piece.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. Oh I know you are highlighting his bullshit just thought I'd point out to the Bernie haters exactly

who it is they are taking up with. An Obama hater.

[ms liberty]

49. You're doing a good job, too. Thanks! n/t

[sibelian]

48. We may even find....

... that the pundits will lose much of their influence over this.

"Socialist, socialist, socialist"

"Yeah, so what?"

(millions of Americans Googling furiously)

Republicans may have the dictionary, Dana, everyone else will be using Wikipedia.

[DefenseLawyer]

56. There goes the snarky, Washington cocktail party vote! n/t

[Fawke Em]

63. Oh, the same guy who quit Olbermann because Keith insisted he apologize for misquoting Obama?

I swear, all these establishment types lining up on the Clinton side really have no clue, do they?

The more they pile on, the angrier that makes the average person. The average person is tired of the establishment and will do anything to buck them - like vote for Bernie.

[Alfresco]

66. He was just on MSNBC reiterating the points in his article.

[jen63]

73. Milquetoast Milbank n/t

[Ferd Berfel]

75. WHen was the last time he was correct about anything?

[dsc]

78. I am sure he does find her dreary

since he literally called her a bitch.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. My nose is no longer available for holding on election day or for Not as Bad candidates.

[aikoaiko]

81. Insane in the membrane. Insane in the brain.

[SheilaT]

84. Wow. He says we should hold our noses and nominate Clinton?

I don't every want to have to hold my nose to vote for a candidate. Never. Not gonna happen.

Not to mention Bernie polls better than Hillary against every possible Republican nominee. Perhaps Millbank hasn't looked at that polling in recent months.

[Chathamization]

87. Milbank has written that he doesn't bother to vote in primaries. Not sure why we should pay any

attention to who he thinks we should vote for. (I know this wasn't the point of the OP, just thought I'd mention it)

[DemocraticWing]

88. Here's one we can all agree on: he's bashing all of our candidates!

Keep your hands off our Democrats, you centrist goon!