2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWould Bernie Be Leading Hillary In A Fair Fight?
I ask the question. I watch the news more than most people, and rarely see the "pundits" talking about Bernie's platform. I see more coverage now, from the almost complete blackout we had, but very little mention of what he wants, or stands for.
I am not saying I have not heard of his free college education, but hardly anything else about the terms he uses. The billionaire class, and him talking about the fact that we are being screwed.
Remember, Bernie has more supporters overall than Trump, and not once have I heard this on my teevee. No mention of the fact that he has had more individual donations than any candidate in history either. How about the fact that Bernie correctly chose to not give Bush authorization to invade Iraq, and blow the hell out of the place. Maybe he was Nostradamus. Hillary sure wasn't smart enough to see the chaos that would ensue. Zero coverage.
Hey CNN, and MSNBC, let's not talk about it ok? (Forget the Fox Propaganda Channel)
Let's just do horserace 100% of the time, and ignore issues, and differences, and records!!!!
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Bernie has had over 2.3 million individuals contribute to his campaign. I can't find Hillary's number of donors. I looked the other day. What, is it a secret?
That and the fact they wouldn't but up the graphic on CNN this morning showing their poll results with Bernie slaughtering Trump.
Sickening.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251944220#post2
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)What is secret however is what corporations are donating to her superPACs, and what political favors they expect in exchange. I.e. Legalized Bribery of Sec. Clinton.
brooklynite
(95,238 posts)ALL donations get reported individually to the FEC
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Colbert PAC and Trevor Potter proved that you could accept unlimited donations by forever anonymous donors. I encourage you to go read (and watch) more on this topic.
If you don't think Clinton's superPACs know about this then I have several bridges in NY to sell you.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Pay particular attention to # 6 and 14!
Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
From Liberty Forum
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_constitution&Number=642
109&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1
sorechasm
(631 posts)Good list. Thanks CorpoatistNation!
Perogie
(687 posts)Bernie only about six months ago. If they both started at the same time and had the same exposure by media, I would say Bernie would be ahead. He's come a long way in six months.
uponit7771
(90,382 posts)... and came out ahead with smart campaigning.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I edited, because, of course, I'm not sorry. It is just a saying.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)uponit7771
(90,382 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,259 posts)If Sanders were ahead, it would be the fairest race in history.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It is all about whether Clinton will face Trump or someone else in the GOP.
Only primary is on the Republican side.
They take polls, for example, of how Clinton will do against trump or someone elde. No mention of how Sanders might do.
uponit7771
(90,382 posts)... like they're doing with other non front runners.
Other than that can you pick out anything else that's not fair?
tia
-none
(1,884 posts)Hillary and O'malley get mentioned more than Bernie.
Although I did hear mention of Bernie because of the DNC/Debbie Wasserman Schultz/Hillary server scandal. Although they did not call it that.
It is almost like he doesn't really exist for the news media.
FarPoint
(12,509 posts)I love his wisdom but he does not have the support network as Hillary has for she took YEARS building this momentum.
MineralMan
(146,371 posts)begin trying to amass enough supporters to win the primaries. The ones who succeed the best prevail.
The media? Well, it is what it is. It has its own biases, of course, but it's a source of information many people turn to. Then there's the Internet. It's also a source of information, both accurate and biased.
The only thing that matters is a candidate's ability to attract and convince supporters. That's each candidate's responsibility. If they are seeking the presidency, it's a long, difficult haul to get nominated by one of the two parties. It involves relationship building over a very long period of time. Those relationships make all the difference, really.
As we've seen, Hillary Clinton is getting the vast majority of endorsements from other elected officials. Why? Relationships. She has built them over decades. Bernie Sanders has been in an adversarial relationship with many of those people. It's not a great way to get them on your side in a run for the Presidency.
So, he's running a populist campaign and testing whether that will gain him enough supporters to win the nomination. His supporters are trying hard to convince others to join them. That's how populist campaigns succeed. Will there be enough? It's not looking promising, at least from poll results across the country.
So, someone will win the Democratic nomination. It will be either Clinton or Sanders, of course. Is the campaign fair? Well, sure. Each candidate is doing his or her best to attract and hold supporters. The one who does that the best, using whatever strategy he or she chooses, will win. There will be elections and caucuses, and then we will know.
Yeah, it's fair. Each candidate has positives and negatives. They're both out on the stump, doing what they think will work. That's as fair as it gets.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)As fair as the news wants to make it.
Judging by sheer number of donors, I would say Sanders has far more supporters.
BlueMTexpat
(15,381 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)But, would Bernie be losing if he had been campaigning for the last 6 years? No f'n way. Would we be a little nervous about Hillary's second place position going to first? Possibly, I can see Bernie surging and falling over several months and every little Hillary surge being a nail biter.
c588415
(285 posts)90% of the post on this website appear negative towards Clinton, but positive for Sanders. He, in my opinion, would make a great president ;nevertheless, Clinton has my vote. And what I don't understand is if Sanders supporters believe that he is winning, and walks on water, then why is Clinton still leading him by double digits in most national polls? Hmmmm
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,473 posts)If Bernie doesn't win, does that mean that wouldn't have lost anyway no matter what? And how would you prove the specific reason(s) for his loss?
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)out coverage of him on all of the major networks, and choked off his message with limited debate. They are the goddamned Wyle E. Coyote of campaign tactics. But they still can't stop him.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Hmmmm.
Is this a trick question?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)enid602
(8,708 posts)Frim the tone of your OP, it sounds like you admit he's behind. That's progress.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Hillary would have mopped the deck with any Democrat running this year. It she was never in the race, I don't think O'Malley would have enough presence to beat Bernie. But, without Clinton maybe some other people would have stepped up. Who knows.