Bringing in more conservatives

Donate and support us on Patreon!

One of the basic arguments about Bernie is spend, spend, spend. The government is already too big, why do you want to make it bigger.
I don't know if Bernie has looked at this, but there are rumors that there are agencies or jobs that were once of great importance, but that are no longer valid. If one of the planks were to be to get rid of useless agencies, departments or jobs to create a slimmer government, do you think more conservatives would jump on board?

submitted by /u/rosygoat
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

Running for President makes you more unpopular in your home state – unless you’re Bernie Sanders

Donate and support us on Patreon!

Every major candidate for President has seen a decline in their approval rating in their home state/city, except for Bernie. His net approval rating is +35 in Vermont, better than any other candidate running.

The only candidate not discussed in the article is Buttigieg, probably because there isn't very much approval rating polling for a small-town mayor. This was the most recent article I could find:

submitted by /u/poliscijunki
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

VIDEO: Bernie Sanders mounts show of force, becomes more personal in appeal on campaign trail

Donate and support us on Patreon!

NBC News’ Shaquille Brewster reports Sen. Bernie Sanders is becoming both more aggressive and more personal in his campaign trail appeals as new early state polls show him regaining his footing at the top of the pack…

submitted by /u/JBGarrity
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

More Bernies Please & Case for Warren backup option

Donate and support us on Patreon!

Before you jump on me for being anti-Bernie, or Warren infiltrator, or Russian bot, or whatever – just hear me out.

I supported Bernie in 2016, and I am still with him now.

But one thing has been disturbing me as of late. When Berners are asked if they would support Warren, in the event of Bernie dropping out, they are saying no.

Which leads me to believe that it has become more about Bernie the man, than about furthering the anti-est progressive movement. I care about Bernie, and nobody has his decades-long track record. You literally will not find that politician – given how long he's been in politics, and how consistent he has been. But a movement cannot rest on the shoulders of one person.

So here's my message in a nutshell:

  1. Bernie should stay in and fight to the bitter end. And if the voters decide, he should win and lead the party. I would be very excited if that happened. Even if I have my doubts about him being able to win the general.
  2. If Bernie decided he couldn't continue the race, I hope Berners think long and hard about the prog movement, even as they mourn the loss of Bernie as their political leader.
  3. This movement cannot rest on the shoulders of one man. It must be laser focused on finding, vetting, developing, more Bernies! They won't have the decades-long track record. They might not have exactly the same views. And they will have to work much harder to win your trust.
    But if this movement is going to keep the momentum, and translate into more power and influence, we need more genuine, anti-est progressives in DNC, both houses, all levels of Gov, and in case we lose 2020, we need more candidates in 2024.
  4. I'm still not sure about Warren, but as I write this, I am leaning towards her being an acceptable backup to Bernie. I genuinely feel that she would be an effective progressive leader and President. She is wonky. She tries too hard. She can be annoying. She can flip-flop in places. And she is more compromising than Bernie. But there is no doubt she would be far more progressive than Obama was. Just look at her platform. Obama never would have touched many of those positions, even if he wanted to. She would be the first truly progressive President – even though not as hard-core as Bernie. She would be the first female President. And she would pave the way for more Progressivism at all levels of society. She would help to normalize that kind of Admin, that kind of platform, and so on. I don't like how she can flip flop in places. I don't like some of her votes. I don't like some of her instincts/impulses. But I believe she would still be a strong leader and President. I don't agree at all, that she's just a fake and will become an Est centrist if she wins the primary and/or WH. Or that MSM, Wall Street, Elites etc are getting behind her. They aren't. They are actually very concerned about her winning. People have a right to be suspicious, but there's a lot of paranoia going on in the Bernie camp too. And keep in mind, all of this is only if Bernie drops out or loses. I hope Berners will seriously contemplate what staying at home could result in. You love to make a case against Warren. But you rarely make a comparative case including Biden/Buttigieg/Trump. This is revealing for me. You are so invested in Bernie, that you refuse to consider that a backup option could still be much better than the alternatives. There isn't much emotional or mental flexibility there imo. That Berners would stay at home, and likely hand the primary to Biden or Butti. And leave the general a toss up between the nightmare that is Trump, or the slap in the face that is more Dem, establishment, centrist bullshit.

Thanks for listening.

submitted by /u/NowAwakeningNow
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

A Sanders supporter’s letter to Rachel Maddow after she spent more time tonight defending “the damn emails” than covering Bernie’s 25,000 person strong rally with AOC.

Donate and support us on Patreon!

I don't know Rachel. You're smart. You're being intentionally obtuse about the damn emails right?

Hillary's emails were government documents that belonged on government servers and she knew that.

She could have simply decided whether she wanted [email protected] or [email protected] or [email protected]. She could have actually had all 3 of those addresses – voila! – in less than five minutes with all of the security promised to the Secretary of State of the United States by the United States Government.

In five minutes.

Instead she put a server in her basement or whatever.

Not even the geekiest people you know, Rachel, have email servers in their basements.

You are a master of understanding political machinations so I would be insulting you to not assume that you know why she would do such an inconvenient and dangerous thing:

Hillary Clinton was keeping her work emails as Secretary of State off of State Dept. servers, against official government policy – policy that is in place to protect national security and to assure governmental transparency – in order to avoid FOIA requests and congressional oversight.


And it worked. For two years or so, such requests did come up nearly empty just because of this.

This was serious – which is why Comey felt compelled to have his dog and pony show, just as he had his dog and pony show about the infinitely more corrupt Trump when the time came.

You can not reasonably claim that it is serious and dangerous that the Russians hacked the DNC's and other American citizens' emails in order to meddle in the US elections and also claim that it is not serious for the Secretary of State to place her emails outside of secure government servers.

The new report that just came out says nothing about everything I've just typed. It is about the awkward position all of those people in the State Department were in, and who did this and that wrong, BECAUSE THE SECRETARY HAD AN INSECURE OFF-SITE EMAIL SERVER AT HER PRIVATE RESIDENCE. And they had to email her, right?

They were found to have done no systematic wrongdoing.

That is completely different than saying that there was absolutely nothing to it, as you were saying tonight.

You know, it's just like Joe and Hunter Biden. It galls you to no end when this amoral monster makes a show of pointing out Democratic corruption.

Who ever would think that in America a huge voting bloc would jeer at one side's moral failings and completely support their "leader" regardless of his coarseness, depravity, or crimes?

But there you have it. The current state of the Republican party, what can you do?

If only there were a viable candidate who wasn't corrupt and didn't take a bunch of money all of his/her career and instead represented the interests of the working people who had elected him/her, right?

And that is why it is so easy for Russia to f with us. The racism they can gin up is there in us. The ignorance. The corruption of the Clintons, the Bidens, the Bushes, the media. Check, check, check, check.

Bernie Sanders has been fighting the good fight and has been on the right side of nearly every argument for just about your entire life. But you know that.

Even more importantly, he has always meant to be on the right side and is trying, even today, even right now, as we speak, to ascertain what that is and how to bring it into being.

If you in the media had treated him fairly in the primary, if the Democratic Party had treated him fairly, if there had been no sh** emails for the Russians to find in the first place, he would have been the nominee and won the presidency and none of this would have happened.

(I'm sure your pollsters and pundits, knowing that he won Michigan and Wisconsin, was more popular with independents, and so on and so forth, know that he would have won the general had he won the primary, though you never talk about that.)

The Democratic Party would have inherited all of that enthusiasm – an entire generation that was transforming American politics before your eyes.

To this day you do not acknowledge the sweeping historic reality of the Sanders 2016 campaign, how it is he (we) that made Elizabeth possible, he (we) that made higher taxes on the rich possible, he (we) that made Medicare for All possible.


None of it is likely to happen, of course not, which is why Bernie Sanders remains the only candidate, maybe in your entire lifetime, with even a sliver more than a snowball's chance in hell of getting into the Oval Office, who would actually have your and everyone else's back, to the very poorest, who we know would fight for these very unlikely things and be willing to fail if necessary, as hard as he has fought all of these decades, all the time willing to fail if necessary. And try again.

By now, he's proven it.

So maybe report that please.

submitted by /u/oct8ngle
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

Why are polls, which are a projection of the future potential behavior of a population (and only a mere sample at that) asserted as – or really, straight up pushed as -more reliable than data showing literal number of existing supporters (donor and volunteer data)?

Donate and support us on Patreon!

Why are polls, which are a projection of the future potential behavior of a population (and only a mere sample at that) asserted as – or really, straight up pushed as -more reliable than data showing literal number of existing supporters (donor and volunteer data)? Bernie has more than twice as many donors (more than 1 million) than the next candidate (at approximately 500,000). How on earth in all reality can the narrative that Bernie is third or lower be remotely justified when actual literal data definitively exhobits that Bernie IS demonstrably preferred by more primary voters than all of the other candidates. I just keep feeling gaslighted by the narrative that is being pushed by the polls and assumption that a projected sample (polls) are more reliable than data that exhibits literal, actual support that currently exists as opposed to the mere sentiment or idea of projected support of a candidate in the future, i.e. the primary.

submitted by /u/freebernie2020
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes