Bernie's 2020 Campaign: August 2016 - At least through April, apparently

nohero said:

I guess more details to follow.  

The tweet from Judy Woodruff isn't exactly correct, although I saw someone else tweet the same thing. Here's what Axios reported: 

"Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign currently has no active Facebook ads, the morning after another disappointing finish in a series of primary contests.

Why it matters: A pause in digital advertising spend on Facebook has been a good indicator that candidates are dropping out of the 2020 race before. Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg made their Facebook ads inactive hours before they suspended their campaigns."

https://www.axios.com/bernie-sanders-suspends-facebook-ads-2020-election-8d888649-55fb-4358-a6e6-cac09584bac8.html

I see that the thread title has been changed.

From the SC Primary on Feb. 29 to now is only 18 days. Things certainly moved very quickly.

ridski said:

 Suddenly the people of Florida aren’t even worthy of being governed by President Sanders. “Let ‘em drown,” say his supporters, “they’re too stupid.” 

You can't be governed by a President Sanders if you don't vote for him. I don't see how anyone can vote for Biden over Sanders. It's just beyond my ability.  With Sanders you have a chance to save the planet.  Biden will not do that. With Sanders, we can maybe get the healthcare we need that will ensure we can handle future pandemics.   It's a no brainer, and Joe does not have much brain left.  I have some sympathy because there is nonstop propaganda on MSNBC/CNN, but I'm very frustrated.  Joe lied through the debated and no one cared.  MSNBC/CNN tried to make the case that his record does not matter.  That's irresponsible journalism (not really journalism).  Of course someone's record matters and Biden is on the wrong side of most major issues for decades.  He lies and they don't call out his lies.  He is senile and they pretend it is a stutter.  And so on. . .

Morganna said:

 Ever start typing a thought and then realize you shouldn't post it? 

 Yes, but not in this case.  Do you?  

Here is what Biden could do to win over young Sanders supporters.  Doubtful he will do any of them, so hopefully he can get the geezers out to help him win.  

STANV said:

I see that the thread title has been changed.

From the SC Primary on Feb. 29 to now is only 18 days. Things certainly moved very quickly.

 Practically viral.

nan said:

Here is what Biden could do to win over young Sanders supporters.  Doubtful he will do any of them, so hopefully he can get the geezers out to help him win.  

 I don't think there are enough progressive young people who are also sociopaths, to make "Rational National's" analysis correct.

nan said:

ridski said:

 Suddenly the people of Florida aren’t even worthy of being governed by President Sanders. “Let ‘em drown,” say his supporters, “they’re too stupid.” 

You can't be governed by a President Sanders if you don't vote for him. I don't see how anyone can vote for Biden over Sanders. It's just beyond my ability.  With Sanders you have a chance to save the planet.  Biden will not do that. With Sanders, we can maybe get the healthcare we need that will ensure we can handle future pandemics.   It's a no brainer, and Joe does not have much brain left.  I have some sympathy because there is nonstop propaganda on MSNBC/CNN, but I'm very frustrated.  Joe lied through the debated and no one cared.  MSNBC/CNN tried to make the case that his record does not matter.  That's irresponsible journalism (not really journalism).  Of course someone's record matters and Biden is on the wrong side of most major issues for decades.  He lies and they don't call out his lies.  He is senile and they pretend it is a stutter.  And so on. . .

 Yeah, but they didn't vote for Sanders, so as far as you're concerned, they can go f themselves, amirite?

nan said:

Morganna said:

 Ever start typing a thought and then realize you shouldn't post it? 

 Yes, but not in this case.  Do you?  

 In which nan doubles-down on **** Florida and everyone who lives in it.

ridski said:

nan said:

Morganna said:

 Ever start typing a thought and then realize you shouldn't post it? 

 Yes, but not in this case.  Do you?  

 In which nan doubles-down on **** Florida and everyone who lives in it.

I can't imagine why Sanders had a hard time expanding his support.

nohero said:

 I don't think there are enough progressive young people who are also sociopaths, to make "Rational National's" analysis correct.

Ok, then, we will see. 

Morganna said:

 Ever start typing a thought and then realize you shouldn't post it? 

 That has happened to me multiple times when responding to NAN..

You are all jumping on me for being insensitive to Florida (where my mother lives).   But, I am a lone individual with no money or power.  Where is your rage at the DNC, who literally may have caused deaths by demanding that the primaries be held this week?  Is there anything that the DNC would do that would upset any of you? They can run Bloomberg who might be even worse than Trump and change the rules for him alone and you are all fine. It seems the DNC/establishment Dems/Corporate media can lie, cheat, rigg, suck up to corporate interests, sell the nomination in secret and so on and you all remain "vote blue anywho."  

Again they literally may have KILLED PEOPLE this week.   Not a peep. 

Since the DNC had no control over the elections, shouldn't your anger be targeted to those who did - the Governors of the states?

As for changing the rules for Bloomberg - wouldn't you say the DNC changed the rules just the same for allowing Bernie to run as a Dem?  Even though they knew we would be running to undermine the party? Mighty generous of them, don't you think?

Crazy Bernie apparently dropped the F-Bomb on Manu Raju today.  I guess Crazy Bernie is stressed out from saving the world from CV.   

Crazy Bernie is used to naming Post Offices.  

drummerboy said:

Since the DNC had no control over the elections, shouldn't your anger be targeted to those who did - the Governors of the states?

As for changing the rules for Bloomberg - wouldn't you say the DNC changed the rules just the same for allowing Bernie to run as a Dem?  Even though they knew we would be running to undermine the party? Mighty generous of them, don't you think?

 The DNC did have control over the elections.  They were saying that if they moved the elections after a certain date the states would lose half their delegates.  The DNC put tremendous pressure on the state parties.  There were clearly in charge.  

There is NO comparison between the DNC changing debate rules and "allowing" Bernie to run as a Dem. That's ridiculous.  The DNC would not change the rules for anyone else and we heard Tulsi and Cory and others ask for rule clarification/changes. MOL was very critical of Tulsi, but fine with Corey and others and not a peep about Bloomberg who actually got the rules changed. 

Bernie not being a Democrat is 1) a good thing because he helps get independent voters, 2) he has participated in the senate as a Dem for decades, and 3) Policy wise, he's the real Dem and the others are old-school Republicans. 

How exactly do you define a "REAL" Democrat anyway.  What do the Democrats stand for?  

Truth, Justice and the American Way.

Morganna said:

Truth, Justice and the American Way.

 That's just some vague platitude.  The Republicans also claim to follow that.  

What do Democrats really stand for--specifically?   

We stand for being good sports even when our candidates lose.   

So, are you a Democrat?  

nan said:

 The DNC did have control over the elections.  They were saying that if they moved the elections after a certain date the states would lose half their delegates.  The DNC put tremendous pressure on the state parties.  There were clearly in charge.  

You are just wrong. A number of Sates have just postponed their Primaries. It was done by the Governors and Sate Officials. All the DNC said is that the Primaries have to be done by a certain date, which I believe is June 2nd which was already the date for New Jersey and a few others. 

I would think that they need a certain amount of time between the last Primary and the Convention.

Here's the facts:

https://www.nytimes.com/article/2020-campaign-primary-calendar-coronavirus.html

nan,

You know, you and your guy lost. You put it on the line and asked for the support of the people and you didn't get it.

Maybe you should be a bit more humble about that.

You asked what the Democrats stand for. 

nan said:

  The only difference between the Republicans and Democrats is a few social issues like access to abortion and support for gun control.  Democrats pretend to believe in science, but when it collides with profit, profit wins. 

 We do believe in science and we believe in combating Global Warming.

We support Labor Unions

We support equal rights for LGBTQ people

We oppose racism and zenephobia

We support more humane immigration policy

We support expansion of healthcare.

sbenois said:

We stand for being good sports even when our candidates lose.   

So, are you a Democrat?  

Who are you asking? Nan?

drummerboy said:

As for changing the rules for Bloomberg - wouldn't you say the DNC changed the rules just the same for allowing Bernie to run as a Dem?  Even though they knew we would be running to undermine the party? Mighty generous of them, don't you think?

Changing rules after they have been set is generally viewed as the definition of unfairness.  In the law, retroactive laws are described as ex post facto (and are generally prohibited).  The DNC has changed the debate participation rules multiple times.  DNC debate participation rule changes appear to be focused on ever-changing rules regarding: i.) delegate threshold; and ii.) polling threshold.  February 2020 DNC changes effectively allowed MB to participate in the February 25th South Carolina debate (and TG to be barred from participating).

After Super Tuesday (and gaining one delegate in Samoa), TG qualified for the March 15th debate Subsequently, the DNC changed the debate participation requirements thereby requiring ll participants have at least 20% of pledged delegates.  Thereby, eliminating TG from the March 15th debate.

IMHO, using undemocratic means to eliminate voices that the party elite object to is the antithesis of democracy.

See:  https://www.change.org/p/us-rep-tulsi-gabbard-qualified-for-the-march-15th-presidential-primary-debate-in-az-then-the-democratic-natl-comm-dnc-changed-its-rules-to-prevent-her-from-debating-sign-petition-share-allow-her-to-debate-chng-it-nqqkmbcd-lettulsidebate

Also see:  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-raises-debate-requirements-excluding-tulsi-gabbard-2020-03-06/

STANV said:

nan said:

 The DNC did have control over the elections.  They were saying that if they moved the elections after a certain date the states would lose half their delegates.  The DNC put tremendous pressure on the state parties.  There were clearly in charge.  

You are just wrong. A number of Sates have just postponed their Primaries. It was done by the Governors and Sate Officials. All the DNC said is that the Primaries have to be done by a certain date, which I believe is June 2nd which was already the date for New Jersey and a few others. 

I would think that they need a certain amount of time between the last Primary and the Convention.

Here's the facts:

https://www.nytimes.com/article/2020-campaign-primary-calendar-coronavirus.html

 DS where are you when we need you?

Oh, God-of-proofreading please come to us!!!!

RealityForAll said:

 DS[[,]] where are you when we need you?

Oh, God-of-proofreading[[,]] please come to us!!!!

At your service. 

https://www.grammarerrors.com/punctuation/commas-in-direct-address/

RealityForAll said:

Changing rules after they have been set is generally viewed as the definition of unfairness. 

Not changing rules as situations develop is occasionally viewed as the definition of foolishness.

IMHO, using undemocratic means to eliminate voices that the party elite object to is the antithesis of democracy.

A political party is not a democracy.

sbenois said:

We stand for being good sports even when our candidates lose.   

So, are you a Democrat?  

So you are saying that what the Democrats stand for is ---

"WE ARE GOOD AT LOSING"

Ok, I will agree with that.  Anything else that Democrats stand for?

No, what I am saying is that you are not a Democrat.  You are a BOT.   

Go join the BOT party.  

We will do this without you.

sbenois said:

No, what I am saying is that you are not a Democrat.  You are a BOT.   

Go join the BOT party.  

We will do this without you.

 In the past I believe that you(sbenois) also said that TG was intending to run as a third party candidate.  No such thing is apparently happening.  Please let me know your thoughts on why TG is not moving forward consistent with your prediction (namely, running as a third party candidate).

PS Nice work on trying to heal the schism in the Democratic Party.