Bernie Sanders names the one thing Democrats should not do if they want to defeat Trump in 2020

[TexasTowelie]

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday said if he and other 2020 Democrats spend all of their time attacking President Donald Trump, then they will lose the election.

"Whether you're conservative or moderate or progressive, I don't think the American people are proud that we have a president who is a pathological liar. It does not give me pleasure to say that ... Trump cannot even tell the truth as to where his father was born," Sanders said during a Fox News town hall.

But then he issued a warning to his fellow 2020 Democrats.

"If we spend all our time attacking Trump, you know what, Democrats are going to lose," Sanders said. "Our job is to lay out a vision that makes sense to the working families of this country."

Read more: https://www.mysanantonio.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Hillary-Clinton-s-first-Democratic-opponent-just-6237085.php
(San Antonio Express-News)

[shanny]

1. He's exactly right.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Yup, yup... very sage advice. But, coming from Bernie, I'm sure it'll be criticized incessantly.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[shanny]

31. IKR?

Bernie Derangement Syndrome.

[Iliyah]

2. We can do both . . .

Why should Democrats do nothing when shithole calls us treasonous. Huh.

[marylandblue]

9. We are not doing nothing, but Trump wins by playing the victim.

So why add fuel to the fire? It's intended to distract you, so do 't let him do it.


Run on clear and substantial issues that matter to people, he has nothing to say on the subject. If he attacks, you can parry, but change the subject back to substance.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Ummm, the operative phrase was not to "spend all of their time attacking"

Who said Democrats should "do nothing when shithole calls us treasonous." Certainly not Bernie Sanders, he frequently attacks Trump. He calls for exactly what you called for, "we can do both". That is how Democrats retook the House.

[NurseJackie]

3. Did he say anything about how unwise it is to smear the Democratic party?

Were there any comments about how harmful it was when someone lies and says that Democrats are "corrupt"... or that Democrats are "feeble"... or that the Democratic party is "an absolute failure"... or that the Democratic party is "ideologically bankrupt"... or that the Democratic party is the "party of the one percent"... or that the Democratic party is the "party of the elite"?

Did he have anything to say about what may happen if people repeat smears and lies that Democrats "don't care about climate change"... or that the Democrats "focus too much" on diversity? Were there any comments about how harmful it is when someone claims that Democrats who "are very big into diversity" aren't "particularly sympathetic" to the working class? Or... that there's "very little difference" between the Democratic party and the GOP?

All I'm trying to say is, when anyone repeatedly smears the Democratic party with that type of negativity it generates apathy. When you have apathy, that discourages voter turnout. When you have low voter turnout that gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

I just wonder if he had anything to say about those specific lies and that specific behavior. It's a legitimate question and one that deserves an honest response.

[Skidmore]

5. +1 nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. At what point will it be considered divisive

to keep repeatedly attacking Bernie Sanders and the millions of registered Democrats who support him? It's a legitimate question and one that deserves an honest response.

Whatever his registered status may be, a very significant number of Democrats view Sanders positively. He had much higher favorability numbers in 2016 than any other Democratic candidate. His favorability numbers remain much higher than our presidential candidate had in the 2016 General Election. I am not commenting on whether or not Sanders would be our best candidate in 2020, that is what this primary season will attempt to sort out. I'm simply stating something that should be obvious to all by now. Sanders was not simply a one time fluke whose support all just melted away as soon as a few other Democrats expressed interest in becoming President.

A big portion of the Democratic Party likes Bernie Sanders, even if that should turn out to be a clear minority of the Democratic Party. Among younger Democrats (our future) his support is even stronger. One person's critique is another person's smear, and vice versa. It is an endless circular argument. But negativity, as you say, is easier to clearly identify. Ultimately, as you say, negativity breeds apathy.

"When you have apathy, that discourages voter turnout. When you have low voter turnout that gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections". That argument cuts both ways. There has been and continues to be much negativity, if not smears, directed at Bernie Sanders. For the sake of discussion let's just say that some people have strong legitimate reasons to feel negatively about Sanders. There is already talk about an organized "stop Sanders" movement. At what point does that become divisive when virtually a million people have already made donations to his campaign?

The consensus talking point about Bernie Sanders here for those who do not like him is that they will support him in the General Election in the unlikely event that he becomes our nominee. Fine as far at that goes. But at what point does the unrelenting negative focus some here place on Sanders start to "weaken" him in the plausible event that he does become our nominee? At what point does it spread apathy toward supporting Democrats in 2020 should Sanders be our nominee? At what point is the damage done?

It is rare to find OP's in this forum that are highly critical of other possible candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. It is quite common to find those here against Sanders, even though Sanders leads in all polls nationwide of declared Democratic candidates, and leads all our possible candidates in fund raising. A case can now be made, in real time, that it is the anti-Sanders "bloc" that currently most breeds division in the Democratic Party.

[NurseJackie]

17. Oh, Tom... nobody is doing that!

At what point will it be considered divisive to keep repeatedly attacking Bernie Sanders and the millions of registered Democrats who support him?

Oh, Tom... nobody is doing that!

It is rare to find OP's in this forum that are highly critical of other possible candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Oh brother! GMAFB!

It is quite common to find those here against Sanders, even though Sanders leads in all polls nationwide of declared Democratic candidates,

Aw.

So many words words words... yet not a single one to condemn or refute all the lies and smears and attacks and insults that have been hurled at Democrats and the Democratic party. That's what harms us the most. The continued insinuation and outright lies that there's "no difference between the Democratic party and the GOP. The lies that "both parties are the same". THAT is what breeds apathy. What good purpose does it serve to spread those lies? If someone isn't against those smears, there's only one other logical conclusion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. You had your post to make your point. I used mine to make another

And I duly note your opinion that "nobody is doing that" even if we disagree.

[NurseJackie]

19. Good to see what one's priorities are.

You had your post to make your point. I used mine to make another

Good to see what one's priorities are. What I can say with great confidence is that the party is more important than one man... yet one man's efforts to destroy, tarnish, diminish and divide the party are contemptible. The lies and smears about the Democratic party and the direct comparisons claiming that the Democratic party is "an absolute failure" or that there's "no difference" between the Democrats and the Republican... well, that simply serves no good purpose at all. It only divides the party. It creates resentment and distrust and apathy for anyone to vote for ANY Democrat. Things like that only benefit those who want to "destroy" the party, and it benefits the GOP, and Trump, and Russia.

Yet nary a word about that. Interesting.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I'm not going to pretend that you haven't already aired your "concerns" a hundred tmies

It has been brought up by you and those who see things the way you do literally for years now, unabated, since 2016. And there have already been thousands of hours spent typing out opinions pro and con regarding your "concern". I've addressed them on numerous times in the past here and I do not feel knee jerk obligated to do so every time you recycle them. My question to you regarded whether you acknowledged that the concept of "devisiveness" could cut both ways. Bernie Sanders might become our nominee.

You will no doubt disagree, but saying or implying that Bernie Sanders and those who support him want to "destroy the Democratic Party" is, quite literally, a smear.

[BannonsLiver]

22. I think the problem is expectations

Sanders supporters expect no criticism of. Bernie whatsoever because well...he’s Bernie, and reality is all candidates get criticized. Bernie is no different.

He brings additional scrutiny by railing against millionaires and billionaires while being one and his refusal to release his taxes up until yesterday.

Those are two valid critiques even before we get into the nasty things he has accused the party of and said himself about the party. He has a number of operatives including Nena Turner and Sirota who have done the same thing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Speaking for myself only, though I'm sure I'm not alone

I expect criticism of Bernie, and it can often be fair. Same for all our candidates. Though I am not supporting Bernie currently as my choice for President I have in the past. Still I was on record here for a very long time that Sanders should not be allowed on a DNC debate stage if he did not release his taxes, for one example.

But no I do not think there is a real issue regarding his "railing against millionaires and billionaires while being one." When Bernie began his so called "railing" decades ago a million went a hell of a lot further than it does today. You can't even find a total dive of a home in San Francisco today that doesn't cost at least a million. But more to the point, Bernie opposes policies that disproportionately favor the rich, not the fact that some are rich. He wants the rich to pay their fair share, and he has not changed his position on tax policies one bit since he started getting book royalties.

The problem with so much negative campaigning here and elsewhere is, quite frankly, "spin" AND ALL SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGNS employ it. The easiest and most common form is to rip comments out of context to then be re-framed and used against a candidate. A very close variant is "gotcha" journalism. Another is "blinders" reporting which, for example, would seize on anything Sanders says that is less than flattering about the Democratic Party while leaving out anything he says and does that has been helpful to the Democratic Party.

Sanders has pretty much been clear from day one. He has not been, for the vast majority of his life, literally a Democrat. However he has long formally cooperated with Democrats. He has never, at least as long as he has been in Congress,, made the false argument that both parties are the same. He has always joined the Democratic Caucus and has operated in good faith in Congress within that framework. While that is not true for every one of his supporters, Sanders has never supported a third party candidate for President against a Democrat that I know of.

[BannonsLiver]

26. My point is when someone is a passionate advocate for wealth inequality while also being wealthy

People will take note of the irony. For some it’s just a laugh, for others there is a greater degree of criticism. But there’s no way the contrast wasn’t going to be noted.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. OK, I agree with that. n/t

[NurseJackie]

23. No he won't. That's just wishful thinking.

Bernie Sanders might become our nominee.

No he won't. That's just wishful thinking. I happen to live in the real world.

You will no doubt disagree, but saying or implying that Bernie Sanders and those who support him want to "destroy the Democratic Party" is, quite literally, a smear.

Oh, please! That's exactly what the goal is. What other purpose could there be for the lies and smears that the party is "corrupt" and "an absolute failure"; and "ideologically bankrupt"; and the "party of the one percent"; and the "party of the elite"; and "the party of the one-percent"; and the "party of Wall Street"; and "doesn't care about global warming"... omg the list of lies and smears and attacks just goes on and on.

My question to you regarded whether you acknowledged that the concept of "devisiveness" could cut both ways.

I told you that the party is more important than one man. One man is not the party. One man is not more important than the party. Efforts to smear and denigrate the party hurt more than one man. When the party is tarnished and falsely seen as being no different than the GOP, or when people are continually told that the Democrats are "corrupt" and "failures" then voters have no incentive to support and vote for Democrats.

That's certainly very "destructive" in my opinion. That kind of behavior and those kinds of lies (left unchecked and unchallenged) can certainly DESTROY the party. Why would anyone want to do that?

What good purpose does it serve? It only benefits Trump and the GOP and Russia... so why does anyone defend (or ignore) this type of behavior that is hell-bent on "destroying" and dividing and weakening the Democratic party?

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. We are not just talking about "one man". Many Millions of Democrats support Sanders

He already has about a million individual donors for this campaign already. In the real world that I live in no one can categorically assert that Sanders can not win the nomination. People in the real world disagree on the likelihood, but there is a consensus building that such an outcome is at least plausible.

[Bluepinky]

36. I agree with you 100%, Tom.

I was a Bernie supporter last time around but rallied around Hillary when she became our candidate. But I was surprised and quite literally sickened by all the smears against anything Bernie and the anger toward me when I supported him. I still think he may have beaten Trump in the 2016 election; I know of several people personally who were Bernie supporters in the primary but voted for Trump in the election (at least one of which is very sorry). It doesn’t help our side to attack Bernie or any other candidate.

For now, I’m undecided; I still like Bernie and his ideas, but I also really like Pete B., Warren, Harris, Biden, Klobuchar. In the end, I’m going to support whoever can beat Trump.

[NurseJackie]

37. Yes I am. You may not be, but I am.

We are not just talking about "one man".

Yes I am. You may not be, but I am.

He already has about a million individual donors

I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing his hardcore supporters try to deflect his well-earned criticism by claiming that they (the supporter) is "personally offended" and that therefore "they are being attacked too".

Aw.

People in the real world disagree on the likelihood, but there is a consensus building that such an outcome is at least plausible.

In fantasy land, not in the real world. I see no such consensus... I see rhetoric and bullying, I see attacks on Democrats and on the Democratic party. But I see no consensus.

[sacto95834]

40. Thank you Tom

...for your reasoned points. I never understood the bashing Sanders supporters get on this board. Come the General Election, we as a party will need every vote we can get, especially in the current state. Alienating a portion of the party does nobody any good except the Republicans.

[Eliot Rosewater]

34. I could tell you why he doesnt want people to slam rump, but I dont dare.

[Ponietz]

4. As far as I am concerned, this is a Russian talking point

Following this advice will make the next year and a half quite comfortable for the turd and his cabal.
As noted above, it generates apathy.

[BlueFlorida]

7. One puppetmaster

two puppets

[dalton99a]

13. Bingo.

[Ponietz]

16. Failure to impeach the turd will:

—lead to a loss of the enormous momentum given us by the Blue Wave,
—cause The Resistance to deflate,
—viscerally convince voters that both parties truly are the same,
—fail to protect the rule of law,
—set the stage for even greater muckery in 2020

So, who does this BS statement help?

[shanny]

32. codswollop

[BlueFlorida]

6. Yes .. Sanders says

"Man who attack his own party get grandstanding."

(Confucius is weeping)

[Blue_Tires]

8. I'll wait for St. Bern to win a national election first before taking his advice...

If we didn't attack Trump we wouldn't have made such gains in 2017 and 2018...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

28. Trump has won a national election.

In which a lot of the campaigning was "not that guy."

Sooooooo, perhaps "St. Bern" has a point.

[Blue_Tires]

33. The election that the Russians helped ratfuck?

The election where Bernie's own campaign staffers actively sabotaged the Dem nominee? You mean *THAT* national election??

Sorry, I'm not a big believer in ignoring Trump's racism and the racism of his nutbar followers and hoping it magically goes away... This is straight-up war as far as I'm concerned and my life is on the line here.

And for the record, the 2016 election had jack fuckin' shit to do with policy or the economy since Hillary Clinton repeatedly laid out her goals on social media, her website and in interviews and nobody gave a rat's ass thanks to the 24/7 Trump "What Will He Say Next?" Media Ratings Circus... But in his defense, while I truly believe his heart is in the right place, St. Bern DOES have a very selective memory.

[JI7]

45. the 2016 campaigning was "not that woman" by Trump side. Clinton talked about issues

she called him out on his shit also since the media wouldn't.

but it's bs to claim that's all the campaign did.

in fact it was what Trump campaign did .

[TexasBushwhacker]

30. To everyone but RWNJs, Trump sinks his own ship n/t

[ProudMNDemocrat]

11. Stick to the issues....

That is how we win. And, Bernie needs to declare himself a Democrat should he be the Party nominee. An Independent declaration will not be the deal maker.

[Blue_Tires]

35. Hillary kept her head down and stuck to the issues

and we saw all the good it did her.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

39. Trump wants a Democrat to wallow in the gutter with him......

Democrats must avoid that. Be aware of what he is doing, but not stoop to his level.

Challenge him of course. If they can, make him answer the direct questions. Perhaps enough people will see he is not fit to be re-elected. Getting down and dirty can be done in a more eloquent manner using big words Trump does not understand and keeping the moral high ground.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

46. That's why I'm scared of Biden.

I think he will be tempted to roll up his sleeves and mix it up with Trump. And though I also appreciate it at times, Biden has soon a lack of self control in those areas.

[Mike Nelson]

14. True...

… Voters don't need to be told Trump is an habitual liar... and, as far as the ones needing to be told, it doesn't matter; they don't care.

[loyalsister]

42. It's a waste of energy and media time

Let people from outside the campaign do it so that the candidates can run affirmative campaigns about who the are and what they will do rather than repetitious talking points about Trump. There is nothing original in pointing out his lies or that he's a terrible person.

[ucrdem]

15. Right, let's attack NAFTA and the ACA instead.

Spoken like a true 1%er.

[elleng]

21. He's right.

[garybeck]

41. i'm fine with just attacking trump

getting him out of office is more important than anything else

but hey, if they want to talk about their vision, that's fine with me.

just get that asswipe out of office

[betsuni]

43. Nobody is spending all their time attacking Trump.

Who is he talking about? Oh never mind.

[JI7]

44. yup, which candidate is spending all their time attacking Trump ?

things are being posted about all the candidates and i don't see anyone who is doing that.