Thursday Reads: Hillary Clinton’s “Silent Majority”
Posted: April 21, 2016 Filed under: just because, morning reads, U.S. Politics | Tags: Bernie Sanders, Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, New York primary 116 Comments
Good Morning!!
Following Hillary’s thrashing of Bernie in New York, the media is finally waking up to the fact that she is just about guaranteed to be the Democratic presidential nominee and most likely will become President of the U.S. next January.
What shock for the poor pundits! How did this happen while they were so busy ooohing and ahhing over Bernie’s giant rallies and the “enthusiasm” of all those white millennials for his shouting and finger-wagging? Why didn’t all the crowds, the $27 “grass roots” donations, the yard signs, and on-line bullying turn into votes for “the Bern?”
The cultists say it’s “voter suppression,” but other commentators are taking a page from Richard Nixon–it must be a “silent majority.” Here’s Michelle Goldberg at Slate yesterday:
Until Tuesday night, I had assumed that my neighborhood, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, was overwhelmingly supporting Bernie Sanders. Sanders bumper stickers and T-shirts outnumbered those for Hillary Clinton by what seemed like 20 to 1. A couple of times, I thought about putting my baby daughter in a Clinton onesie—whatever my hesitations about Clinton’s candidacy, I love the idea of my girl’s first image of an American president being female. But I always hesitated, not wanting to invite playground harangues from local dads about Goldman Sachs and the Fed.
When I looked up Cobble Hill on the nifty New York Times tool providing neighborhood-by-neighborhood results, however, it turned out that Clinton won the immediate area around my apartment by 59.4 percent. A block over, she won by 72.5 percent. She won all around me. A lot of Clinton supporters, evidently, have been keeping quiet about their allegiances.
There are a couple of explanations for this. Sanders fans seem to be more enthusiastic, though it takes a certain amount of enthusiasm to vote in a primary at all. Registered independents couldn’t vote in New York’s closed primary, particularly given the absurd, undemocratic October deadline for switching parties. But I think there might be something else at work as well: an optical illusion that the candidate with the most white male support had the most support, period. I had let myself mistake the loudest people for The People.
I’m not trying to deny that the Sanders coalition is diverse or to erase the many passionate women and men of color who supported him. But the fact remains that according to exit polls, Clinton won every racial and gender demographic except white men. And somehow, I’d become convinced that, in my own backyard, their preferences were far more widespread than they really are.
Brooklyn is full of a certain kind of archetypal Sanders voter—young, hip, highly educated, and ideological. But in Brooklyn as a whole, Hillary Clinton beat native son Bernie Sanders by 20 percent. The borough was with her, even if it didn’t always feel like it.
It’s not that Clinton voters aren’t enthusiastic, it’s just that they aren’t as loud and obnoxious at Bernie supporters. And of course, they voted. How many people at Bernie’s huge rallies were from out of state or not registered as Democrats? Probably plenty.
Froma Harrop at The National Memo on “The Liberal Silent Majority.”
A few days before Bernie Sanders lost badly in the New York primary, 27,000 souls filled Washington Square Park, many wildly cheering him on. The political media consensus interpreted the scene as evidence of surging support for the senator from Vermont….
The numbers at Washington Square were dwarfed by the battalions of working-class New Yorkers juggling two children and three jobs. These mostly Clinton voters were unable to attend any rally.
This last group is the subject here. It is the silent liberal majority.
Richard Nixon popularized the term “silent majority” in 1969. He was referring to the Middle Americans appalled by the Vietnam-era protests and associated social chaos. They didn’t demonstrate, and the so-called media elite ignored them.
Today’s liberal version of the silent majority is heavy with minorities and older people. Its members tend to be more socially conservative than those on the hard left and believe President Obama is a good leader.
Harrop points out that many reporters fall into the Sanders demographics.
Many political reporters belong to the white gentry that has fueled the Sanders phenomenon. Nothing wrong with that, as long as they know where they’re coming from. But some don’t seem to know about the vast galaxies of Democratic voters beyond the university and hipster ZIP codes.
In so many races — including those of the other party — reporters confine themselves to carefully staged political events and a few interviews with conveniently placed participants. From the atmospherics, they deduce the level of support for a particular candidate.
Trevor LaFauci noticed all this back on March 31: “The Silent Majority: How Hillary Clinton’s “Enthusiasm Gap” is a Complete Media Fabrication.
As our country heads toward the second half of the primary season as well as the general election, the national media is doing its best to gauge the level of excitement for each of the remaining five campaigns. From rallies to political donations to online polling, our friends in the media are attempting to quantify the unquantifiable level of excitement that each campaign is generating. By using this immeasurable measure, the media feels it can then interpret its result to create an overall narrative for how each campaign is doing. Clearly the campaign with most excitement is the one where the people are excited for their candidate and are going to go all out for him and her. This campaign will be the one with all the momentum moving forward while those campaigns with less excitement are likely to fall flat as we approach the conventions.
But let us take a moment to examine this theory, particular with the Democratic primary. Based on all the metrics listed above, it should be clear that Bernie Sanders is the candidate whose campaign is engulfed in enthusiasm. His rabid army of supporters have flocked to his rallies, producing crowds of upwards of 30,000 people, causing many venues to overflow. He raised nearly $44 million last month and now has amassed over 6 million contributions and growing. His loyal followers frequent online polls and exuberantly declare Sanders the winner of each and every Democratic debate or town hall performance….All this combined with victories in five out of the last six states and it would appear that the enthusiasm and momentum are clearly on the side of Bernie Sanders.
Especially when you compare his campaign to that of Hillary Clinton. Clinton’s rallies are never raucous, overflowing events. In fact, her most recent rally was held at the Apollo Theater, a venue that seats a mere 1,500 people. Clinton raised $13 million less than Bernie Sanders last month and she only recently amassed her one-millionth campaign contribution in mid-March. She often loses online polls by 60+ points after debates regardless of how well either her supporters or the media say she fared. Her national lead in the polls has all but vanished and after having won five consecutive primaries on March 15th, she has only won a single one since. Based on all this, there would appear to be a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton’s campaign at this point in time.
But appearances can be deceiving, especially appearances falsely created by our mainstream media.
Read the rest at the link.
On Tuesday night, Sanders abandoned his campaign press corps in Pennsylvania and flew back to Burlington, Vermont to rest and reassess his situation. MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald asks “Where does Sanders go from here?”
With the Democratic presidential nomination now further out of reach after his drubbing in New York on Tuesday, the Vermont senator faces the difficult question about what comes next. Does he set a do-whatever-it-takes course to wrest the nomination from rival Hillary Clinton? Or does he return to the message campaign, as his long-shot White House bid started out to be?
The Sanders campaign poured itself into New York, throwing a hail mary pass to try to change the delegate math while they could. They spent $5.6 million (twice what Hillary Clinton did), made 3 million phone calls in the final weekend alone, and organized the biggest rallies of a campaign defined by big rallies.
But in the end Sanders came up short – not just of winning, but of the delegate target allies had aimed to hit, which might set them up for a path through California, the campaign’s final hope.
Now, with the nomination even further out of reach, Sanders faces the difficult question about what comes next. Does he set a do-whatever-it-takes course to actually win the Democratic nomination? Or does he return to the message campaign his long-shot White House bid was originally seen as?
Seitz-Wald talked to people at Democracy For America and Move On, which support Bernie; and although they don’t explicitly say so, their representatives apparently were not happy with Sanders’ focus on attacking Clinton and complaining about the election process. Read all about it at the link. It’s an interesting article.
Even The Nation now admits that “Bernie Sanders is Not Going to Be President of the United States,” but they say he should still keep running.
At The New York Times, Lara M. Brown, a political science professor at George Washington University, says that Bernie Sanders should drop out because he has already achieved his purpose of pushing the Democratic Party to the left and helped Clinton become a better candidate because of the competition.
At The New Yorker, John Cassidy, another reporter who has been very sympathetic to Sanders asks “What Will Bernie Sanders and His Supporters Learn from New York?”
We’ll probably see more of these kinds of reevaluations by journalists over the next couple of days. It should be interesting to see whether the messages coming out of the Sanders campaign will be modified.
It’s already clear that there’s a difference of opinion between campaign manager Jeff Weaver and senior adviser Tad Devine about going to the convention and trying to flip superdelegates. Sanders himself has suddenly announced that he will remain a Democrat for life. What brought that on? It should be an interesting day in politics.
What stories are you following?
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
grayslady
mablue2
NW Luna
peggysue22
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Hill Yaaas! The glass ceiling has been breached 😉
Hi Mona! It’s great to see you here!
(waving!)
After going through this craziness the first time, and experiencing what we did at the convention, I still hold my breath with each step closer that Hill takes. I guess I’m still, to some degree, expecting the rug to be pulled out from under us again.
I don’t know how she is able to soldier on
I feel the same way, Joanelle.
I’m with you. I won’t believe either party would make a woman the nominee. They’d have to prove me wrong 😉 But she surpassed 10 million votes and left every other dude on both the Dem and Rep ballots in the dust. That was, in itself, a huge breach. That was never supposed to happen. All the men rushing to stop Woman are apt to try to run Caitlyn Jenner against Hillary… and that’s not about Cait being trans, that’s about her being highly identified with male privilege and Republicanism.
Saw Susan Sarandon (my gawd, is there ever a worse surrogate? Bernie, if you wanted to win, you should have picked woman who don’t talk about vagina voting and look at Dolores Huerta like a maid and keep yammering on with her hollywood/progressive mythology about a connection between Hillary and Monsanto–not knowing Bernie’s campaign brain Tad Devine has been deep deep deep in the pockets of Monsanto for some time.) oh wow, rant within a rant there! So I Sarandon saying Hillary is just the most Republican to Republican ever. She makes no sense, at all. Her whole idea that just let Trump win is that he’d be so horrible a Republican that it would be healthy for the left.
Anyway, I just cannot with these delusional assholes anymore. Not ready to make nice or coalition with them. Hillary can and will win without them if she’s given a chance to beat the worst structural barrier within the parties against women, itself.
(waves back at all! <3)
True, all those things and more Mona.
Never!
I honestly think that Bernie wanted to leave the campaign a while ago but that his two staffers didn’t want to give up the cash flow that they are enjoying and kept encouraging him not to ‘give up’
I don’t see a link for the Seitz-Wald article. Am I missing it?
I’ll try to fix it. WordPress did some weird new thing with links today. Here’s the link just in case.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/where-does-sanders-go-here
I’ve been reading Weaver, et al arguing that Sanders should be the nominee despite getting less actual votes/pledged delegates. Then, this whole thing about discounting Southern primary voters. What? One man one vote? Excuse me? It sounds like they’re arguing we are 3/5ths or less of a person. I’m just thinking how much this is connected to historical racism. Am I wrong to make that connection?
Politico: Bernie Faces Southern Revolt. Democratic leaders want Sanders to stop dismissing the South, where Hillary Clinton’s wins have been powered by black votes.
Everyone reading that article should click through to the letter itself. Part of it is excerpted above.
Weaver is using racist thinking to argue for his candidate.
It’s possible that the Southern House representatives are more liberal not because Southern Democrats are more liberal in general, but because Southern Democrats have been successfully gerrymandered into reliably blue congressional districts by the Republican state authorities by the same process that produced reliably red districts where the absence of competition from the left sends some of the most conservative Republican to the house.
Whether Democrats are more liberal in the South than in the rest of the country, I have no idea.
My Congressman is a Hillary/Nancy/Maxine protoge and extremely liberal.
Our DNC leader State Senator Karen Peterson was part of the letter writers.
Could it possibly be White Male Supremecy?
Honestly. Talk about an 800-lb gorilla nobody wants to notice. And I get so sick of the garbage about, “You’re just voting for her because she’s a woman.” Even if she wasn’t the most qualified and impressive candidate since FDR, all I have to say is SO WHAT?
For millenia people have been supporting male rulers because they’re men. But now that we have an outrageously qualified woman we’re supposed to vote against her to prove that of course nobody would vote for her because she’s a woman. (And, yes, I do mean that either way you want to read it.)
Jerks.
quixote, I want to shout out loud what you just said!
Good post bb. I know that so many women choose not to engage with loud rowdy men. It doesn’t mean we aren’t passionate (or enthusiastic) about our beliefs, only that we have learned to ignore all the noise and just keep working to accomplish our objecctives. How to report on quiet determination? The big puzzler most of the media never tries to figure out. You would think that with all the noise, money,huge rallies failing to propel the Bern into the lead, they might start getting a clue. But nooooooo.. They seem to choose to credit the BIG MACHINE behind Hillary. They can’t conceive of the fact that it is individual votes that have pushed Hillary into the lead.
Agree! And the poll results showing Hillary supporters are more enthused about her than Bernie’s are about him. We aren’t obnoxious and threatening to the other side’s supporters.
Developing a machine is how you win. Mrs. Clinton has worked her tail off for many, many years helping people raise money, campaign, get elected into office, etc. If she does make it into the White House she’ll have a base of support to actually govern with, get her ideas and policies implemented, and really just get things done. In order to govern effectively one really has to be able to work with others while understanding their needs and issues.
So people can call it a machine or a political infrastructure if they want to but what it really seems to me is that she has made a lot of friends along the way due to her constant efforts to help others. This is the kind of person that you want leading your party and your nation.
I agree with you wholeheartedly GP. When the media say big machine, most people don’t realize that the machine is individuals. They make it seem like some powerful outside source.
Yes, she has been working extremely hard over the years.
Melissa McEwan has one of the best analyses I’ve seen about the demographics of Bernie supporters vs.Clinton supporters. I hope she doesn’t mind I’m linking this:
http://www.shakesville.com/2016/04/just-thought.html
Good article and discussion. Thanks.
BB, the link to that? I admit I’ve just skimmed the other links, having to dash off to work…
I believe that is from the press interview he did in Vermont late Tuesday night.
Here’s a link.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/20/bernie-sanders-stay-democrat-life-support-clinton-nominee.html
Maybe Bernie is taking a cue from Clinton about how to win friends and influence people. She’s been a party loyalist her entire career and it’s paying off for her now. Bernie’s lack of awareness about how politics work (at his age and as long as he’s been in politics) is the primary reason he’s a poor choice to be President.
“Halperin followed up, “But he’s a member of the Democratic Party now for life?”
Weaver said, “Yes, he is. Yes, he is.”
I watched that interview and didn’t believe it when I heard it. I think Weaver said that because he can’t say otherwise and hope to woo Super Delegates. Sander’s hasn’t been shy about saying that he became a Dem to run in the Democratic Party because that’s the only way he could run without being a “Billionaire”. I would have to hear Bernie say that before I gave it any merit. Even then I’m not sure I would believe it.
thanks, BB.
Uh, huh, sure
I keep reading about how the closed primary system in NY is undemocratic especially with the 6 months grace period but honestly that is how it should be in every state. EVERY state. What happens in my state, TX and also in Okla is just a disgrace. People cross party lines and vote for the least desirable candidate. Sometimes these candidates are indicted or even convicted of crimes and are ineligible to even serve. Just more short sighted crap from the American populace of idiots. Personally, I don’t want the Trumps, Kasich’s or Cruz’s of the world to represent Republicans in the general election. These folks are terrible candidates and if one of them actually won. Oh, my that would be just horrible for our country. Both parties need to start putting forth their best candidates as decided by their party members. Not independents. Not people who identify with the other party and not the media.
OMG! This is hysterical!http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/ted-cruz-ad-fake-hillary-clinton-staffers-222275
lol
How many really buy in to the meme that Bernie is moving Hillary to the left.
Didn’t they check her freakin’ platform. It is plenty progressive
I don’t think he pushed her left, but the competition has made her into a much better candidate. She is so much better than when she started out–so much more relaxed and confidence and has become a much better speaker.
So there has been some benefits in attacks from Sanders – she’ll be even more prepared to kick ass in November.
Yes. That is why I was always happy that he ran–until he started trying to damage her. He has done serious damage, and given plenty of advertising copy to to GOP. But it will hurt him more in the long run. It’s a shame he destroyed his own brand, but it was his choice.
I don’t think she’s been seriously damaged by Sanders – he has been attacking her on the issues that will be non-issues in the general election, like fracking, Iraq war vote, and not being liberal enough in general – the very opposite of what the Republicans will be attacking her on.
There may have been a few attack lines that Sanders had been using that the Republicans might utilize as well (maybe Wall Street speeches?), but I think GOP’s oppo research is much better funded and more dedicated than Sanders’s, so it’s probably safe to assume that whatever Sanders might dig up, GOP would’ve found, too (and if they don’t, they can always make stuff up), so it might actually be better if such stuff is addressed early on and she has her answers ready for the general.
But I suspect that the main focus of the Republican campaign against Hillary will be Benghazi, e-mails, and Monica Lewinsky.
Um . . . he said she is “unqualified.” That will be in GOP ads, trust me. Trump has already used it. His implications that Hillary is dishonest will also be used, no doubt. We’ll see, but I think it would probably be better if he doesn’t speak at the Convention or campaign for Hillary.
That he did, but then the Republicans have already been saying the same exact thing – “unqualified” and “corrupt” – about her for decades in much harsher terms. I’m not giving Bernie credit for being way too gentle and positive on Clinton, but he doesn’t deserve the credit for inventing this attack either.
Spin it however you want. It’s different coming from someone who is supposed to be on the same side.
well crushing him in NY had to have been a lift to her spirits, I know it made me feel better.
Agreed. She always runs better against an opponent. She’s so smart and her plans are so detailed, and what she wants to accomplish is so broad in scope that I think an opponent helps her focus down on the particular topics that speak most to people at different stages of the campaign.
I think the whole media/BS narrative is their way of twisting a true thing (she does better with competition) to a similar but not true thing (he in particular made her better) because it’s the only way they can reconcile her success with voters and all their other false narratives about her. After all, in 2008, she really began to out-campaign Obama only after he started to do so well against her
Yes, she was on fire in 2008!
As Senator she was rated at 4th most liberal Senator, IIRC. No, they didn’t check her history or her platform.
Prince found dead at his estate. A couple of days ago he was hospitalized for the flu. Could he have gotten pneumonia?
http://www.eonline.com/news/758746/prince-found-dead-singer-and-pop-icon-was-57
ABC News:
We were just talking about Prince and his passport photo. Holy crap. Shocker.
I know. I was stunned when I saw the headline.
Yes – just a couple days ago – I LOVED his passport picture! I just heard this on the radio coming back from the store. I’m too emotional about it to look at the news articles yet. I would have loved to see him in a live performance.
We have lost so many performers this year – Bowie, Glen Frey, Paul Kantner, Prince and others I’m not as familiar with.
R.I.P. Prince, Purple Dreams of You.
This makes me very sad. I love his music.
Bernie looks old and tired. Why he chooses,to continue this charade is,a,puzzle. He cannot achieve the nomination and he will never be president yet he refuses,to concede.
He is doing real harm by staying in. A gracious departure would assure his role in history but Bernie will not admit defeat.
I dislike him and his surrogates who continue to work against Hillary with some “pie in the sky” fantasy of winning something that is already lost.
You may get your wish after next week Pat. From the polls out yesterday and this morning next week looks to be a disaster for Bernie.
Maryland Democratic Primary Monmouth Clinton 57, Sanders 32 Clinton +25
Penn Democratic Primary Franklin & Marshall Clinton 58, Sanders 31 Clinton +27
Connecticut Democratic Primary Quinnipiac Clinton 51, Sanders 42 Clinton +9
Delaware Democratic Primary Gravis Clinton 45, Sanders 38 Clinton +7
There’s no way that PA poll is accurate.
The Monmouth looks more likely to be close.
Monmouth Clinton 52 / Sanders 39 (April 17-19)
Franklin-Marshall Clinton 58/ Sanders 31 (April 11-18)
Fox News Clinton 49/ Sanders 38 (April 4-7)
Let’s be honest at this point it is spite.
I don’t know – there are plenty more donor-funded trips he could take his extended family on.
“Clinton won every racial and gender demographic except white men.”
I’ve bringing this up since the first primary where we had an exit poll breakdown of voters.
Bernie’s demo is basically white male below 40. There is only one conclusion. Hillary wins white women, women of color by huge numbers and men of color. She wins big in the 40-60 and she wins by huge margins in the 65+.
Hillary’s demos do not go to rallies, especially rallies on weeknights. We are too busy doing things that grownups do or we’re too old to stand outside for hours waiting for Bernie to Bloviate about things he can’t make happen.
Really GREAT post today BB!!!
Thanks. I appreciate that.
Ditto, thank you BB
Agree!
Well, that answers it. Here’s CNN report on the Bern’s return. And, yes, he will continue to hit Hillary in same way that lost him big-time in NY. And, yes, the process inNYvoting caused his double digit loss.http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/politics/bernie-sanders-jeff-weaver-superdelegates/index.html
Article focuses on Weaver’s comments.
CNN gives me a headache. Devine and Weaver are always – wait to the next round of primary – wait to the next one. Even one of the pundits mentioned their salaries and “that’s OK”. It’s NOT OK. They are bilking young donors.
Then in the article CNN actually writes: “One [tactic] in particular has Clinton worried. Sanders’ campaign is raising the issue of whether the Clinton campaign is violating campaign finance rules…” Worried??? yeah. Guess what – it’s Sanders’ campaign that’s under investigation. Not a peep about that.
And then finally they compare the 2008 race against Obama and Clinton not giving up at this point – as if Bernie were anywhere within miles as close to her as she was to Obama in 2008.
I just can’t read their garbage anymore (but I do appreciate the link).
I usually don’t go to CNN, but I was anxious to see what the Bern was saying today at his town hall/rally. When I was searching, this article came up. I still have’t seen anything about what the B had to say..
Talk about a fawning article! Weaver, Devine, and/or Sanders are all delusional. Agree, Hillary is not worried about campaign finance rule-breaking — Bernie should be. And all his other points have no basis in facts.
It’s all about the $$$$
The media is sure taking a long time to wake up..for example,I go to real clear politics to look at polls and they almost never have a favorable article about Hillary. Other news sites are the same. Is it possible she will be elected President and there still won’t be any friendly coverage of her historic win?
Brace yourself, MsMass: not only possible, but inevitable.
But we’ll be her army and we’ll have her back.
I think you’re right. I was thinking that after working to support her through to her election this fall, I could rest a bit for four years. But she will need us throughout! And she will need down-ticket Dems to implement her agenda.
The blowback to the election of a woman president will be worse than what happened after the election of a black president.
You’re no doubt right. I can hardly imagine worse than what Obama got. Perhaps her support will be gargantuan also.
I agree, it will be much worse. They could tolerate a black president because he was a male, but they just can’t think of a woman in the Oval Office. Oh, well, tough nuggies..
We could all get what we want if Bernie were to start a #PeoplesPAC. – http://bit.ly/244UJHx
Very interesting. Would his ego allow it?
That is the question.
Never mind his ego, how could he undo the lies he told about Hillary and how now all I hear from both Rs and Ds is that she can’t be trusted.
BB you’re so right about the level of damage he did to her public image.
So far he’s doing just short of nada to support Dems. I doubt he’s interested in doing anything but shouting.
Used to think he had more to him.
NW Luna said,”anything but shouting.” And waving his finger in the air.
Another view of the Sanders campaign,,,
Feral Press: Campaign Finance Math is More Likely to Finish Bernie than Election Math
Thanks for that Ralph…….I’ve been wondering how Bernie was going to be able to finance his campaign lifestyle once the bernistas began to realize that he isn’t going to win. I’ve been telling the Bernie supporters that those concert crowds mean nothing if you can’t turn them into votes. And even if you can turn them into votes it takes more than 15-20k to win in a State with a huge population. When they say “you don’t see Hillary with big crowds” I tell them “because she knows it’s a waste of campaign dollars”. I think she’ll have a few big events after the nomination, but until then, she will do what she does best, go out into the community and meet people. I feel certain that most of the rhetoric we’re hearing from Weaver and Devine is an effort to increase campaign contributions, but if I was a supporter I would have thrown in the towel after NY.
So would I. Frankly raising money now, based on a his realistic chance of winning the nomination, is just dishonest.
I think he’s known his days are numbered and has been burning through the money as fast as he can so that there is no expectation that it might be used to help downticket Dems.
BS’s fundraising makes no sense to me. The math has been against him to a 3-sigma level of certainty for a month or more. No real supporter is going to be sending wads of cash at that point. Condolences, maybe, but large chunks of cash? Not likely. Plus, most of his support is young people, notoriously the least reliable donors of all.
Yet last month he raised millions. (Some of which I gather the FEC is questioning for shadiness.) So who’s providing all that money? There’s one group for whom it makes sense to front a disingenue (not a word, afaik, but one that we need now!). So long as he keeps trying to tear Clinton down with lies, he’s worth every million the Repubs could throw at him. Forty million is just chump change to them.
Finding the sources of all his contributions would make an interesting detective project.
Disingenue was a word waiting to happen – it’s the perfect noun for the disingenuous Mr. Purity.
Sorry, meant to add I heartily agree with the rest of your comment. It makes a lot of sense for the Republicans to use him as their proxy within the Democratic party, when he’s so willing. But I had to applaud your skill as a logodaedalus first.
☺made my morning!
I keep hearing from the bros that Hillary has taken Citizens United funds…..where is there proof?
WTF? Where do they get these ideas? (Rhetorical question.)
One reason for him ostensibly remaining Democratic (though I have my doubts) is so the Dems can help him settle his campaign debts.
I hope they let him plead with his ‘bros to keep donating after the convention.
https://twitter.com/HillarysMen/status/723046104892211200
That’s precious!!
Little buttercup
https://twitter.com/AdamBlickstein/status/722613680945254400
Imagine what it will look like after November!!
(Sniff)
Finally broke down and listened to the Bern’s Scranton town hall. He was calmer and did not use any extreme attacks on Hillary. No yelling and less finger waving. Phew! Hope it holds!
Maybe he’s figured out it backfires.
It didn’t hold!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bernie Sanders Eases off, Then tees off on Clinton at the next Rally.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-eases-then-tees-clinton-n560276
I suppose his Scranton Rally didn’t get the response he wanted. Fucking Old Demagogue.
SOB! And to think I wasted an hour watching the Scranton rally hoping to get a read on where he was going to head. Petulant, cranky old finger waving SOB!
And, Biden? Well he did say that he wouldn’t be quiet…. Biden will come forward to try & repair it….typical Joe!
Cokie Roberts schools Mika on Bernie’s attacks on Hillary……. http://bluenationreview.com/cokie-roberts-confronts-mika-brzezinski-on-bernies-attacks/
I never watch Mika/Joe – she really is a doofis….
Mika suffers from a major case of HDS. She envies her because Hillary is everything she will never be. Mika can’t even muster the courage to take up for herself on Morning Joe and she isn’t professional enough to hide her loathing of Hillary. I wonder how she’ll deal with a President Hillary Clinton? Who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stubidoo comes to mind when I hear Mika, and Snot in the Morning. Bernie can’t handle a gun without inflicting self injury, no matter what he says.
Annie Karni at Politico reports on disappointed Bernie supporters.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-supporters-demoralized-222297
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
http://freebeacon.com/politics/pro-clinton-super-pac-funnels-1m-toward-combatting-social-media-attackers/
Correct the Record in action.
GWB was the one you couldn’t trust, but misogynists’ USA can’t run around enough times with their tails on fire to lie about her character. The fearless manner and self-control she exhibited in front of Trey Gowdy’s hearing ought to be remembered as testimony to how she will preside come January, 2017. There are Hillary supporters like me who, after being attacked in blog comments in the 2008 primary, are silent this go-round, but are voting and bristle at Bernie’s speeches and any utterance from Weaver and Devine. They, indeed, need to land the plane April 26 night.