“Doomsday Scenario”: Washington Moves To Crush The Sanders Revolution

We have previously discussed the efforts of the Democratic establishment and some in the media to (again) derail the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, including the raw bias against Sanders shown by CNN reporter Abby Phillip in a prior presidential debate. Now, with Sanders’ victory in New Hampshire and rising polls, figures from both politics and media are putting on a full-court press to stop Sanders. Everyone from James Carville to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews are sounding alarms over Sanders. His victory last night was called the “doomsday scenario” by a Democratic Super PAC. The most shocking was MSNBC anchor Chuck Todd who used a quote form a columnist to compare Sanders supporters to Nazi brown-shirted thugs. It is a technique used before by Todd who reads letters or quotes from others to preserve the patina of neutrality like his recent attack on Trump supporters.

Sanders is not just surging with young people but now surging in national polls ahead of the preferred candidate of the establishment, Joe Biden. On his show, Todd decided to curiously connect the Democratic Socialist with National Socialists in terms of his followers. Todd stated

“Hey I want to bring up something that Jonathan Last put in The Bulwark today. It was about how—and Ruth, we’ve all been on the receiving end of the Bernie online brigade—here’s what he says: He says ‘no other candidate has anything like this sort of digital brownshirt brigade. I mean, except for Donald Trump.’ . . . I know everybody’s freaking out about his, but you saw the MAGA rally that’s prepared around here,” Todd continued. “There are people coming from three or four states on that, that’s real… This is like Bernie.”

He is not alone. The coverage of Sanders remains slanted and negative. His victory is only begrudging acknowledged by some while immediately suggesting that he does not have broad base support.

What is interesting is how such biased reporting can cause a backlash. Many people resented how the media seemed in a uniform drumbeat for Hillary Clinton in 2016. For voters who want to see a challenge to the Washington establishment, the media bias only worked to the advantage of Donald Trump.

It may have the same impact in favor of Bernie Sanders. The fact is that voters like Sanders because he is viewed as authentic — something that they do not associate with either the establishment in politics or the media. The one thing you cannot say about Sanders is that he is scripted conventional politicians who like Biden and Clinton has changed many positions with the poll. It has never been popular to hold socialist views, but Sanders has remained. You have to respect him for that. Voters sense that he is exactly as he appears and not constantly reinvented by political handlers. That is why Chuck Todd and others are fueling, not deterring, support for Sanders.

200 thoughts on ““Doomsday Scenario”: Washington Moves To Crush The Sanders Revolution”

  1. If we get to a brokered convention and the super delegates screw Bernie again, the Milwaukee convention will make the McGovern/Chicago convention look like a cub scout jamboree.

  2. Bernie knew that HRC rigged the game in 2016, and he participated as the designated loser. His pay for playing that role was enough side-money to ensure that he and his wife culd live real comfortably in retirement, and to keep the prosecutorial heat off his wife. Then, wonder of wonders, HRC was found unfit to play the role of President, and Bernie was painted as a wronged man. BS t that “Wronged” part. He knew what the deal was the entire time.

    So now he is the only candidate with any real angle on credibility. Buttigeig is a homosexual CIA plant, Klobuchar is a popcorn fart, and all the rest are in the rear view mirror. Unless Bernie has a health issue, he will (very, very likely) hold the most delegates when the Dems meet in Milwaukee. And then the fun will really begin. Bloomberg will be running things like a fat spider in the middle of a web. Can he sink Bernie’s boat AND get the crew (Bernies bro’s) to happily move to and contribute on the boat that Bernie want to win? Unknown. Maybe. It all depends.

    One thing for sure is that Trump will not be confronted with all this intra-party skullduggery. Oh, there are stil some Never Trumpers in the (hapless) GOP, but damn few, and those that remain are known and discounted. His campaign will be able to focus on the undemocratic disrepute of a Bloomie directed candidate or the Socialist unelectability of Bernie, should he prevail. Either way, all things being equal and the creek don’t rise, Trump has the inside line by far.

    1. And there are still superdelegates to consider, though the rules have changed a bit.

  3. JT, no matter how much you and Trump want Bernie as the easiest opponent, it’s not going to happen for the same reason it didn’t in 2016. Democratic voters will reject him, not some pretend conspiracy. He lost the vote 56-43%. That’s a slaughter the super delegates neither caused nor would have saved him from. The same will happen this year because Democratic voters are not Democratic Socialists. Consider: In New Hampshire, despite both being from neighboring states, leftists Bernie and Warren combined for about 35% of the vote. The 3 main moderates garnered 55%.

    As to networks, sorry, but except for Fox, they are not part of party hierarchy and can say what they want. Sanders has regular representation on these shows and no less than other candidates.

    If anyone wants to do an expose of pretend neutrality with a poorly hidden agenda, your the best example I’ve seen.

  4. I’m no supporter of Bernie. I’m just being objective. Sanders is going to get screwed again.

  5. Whoever the nominee from the Democrats, that person will have to have long enough coattails to have control of both houses. Otherwise, all interesting legislation will be blocked.

    Now all those legislators will pay attention to their electorate. So no legislation that fails to command wide support will reach the president’s desk.

    Medicare-for-All is extremely unlikely in the USA, therefore. Doesn’t matter who the Prez is.

    1. I would have said the same four months ago. I’m not so confident now.
      Sanders has appealed to the voters that hate Trump and the current status quo – just like Trump did for voters in 2016.

      It wouldn’t surprise me to see Trump win again but if Sanders is the nominee, I suspect it will be a closer call between them than I would have believed possible.

  6. Polls Say Most Americans Would Not Vote For A Socialist

    Yet there is one kind of candidate that Americans remain hostile to. Only 45 percent say that they would be willing to vote for a socialist. And Sanders faces another hurdle: Only 69 percent say they would consider a candidate over 70.

    These are generic questions, and it’s possible that voters would warm to a particular septuagenarian socialist, especially when the alternative is a certain septuagenarian Republican. In head-to-head polls against Trump, Sanders does well; all Democrats do similarly. Yet I keep thinking of how British voters recently overwhelmingly re-elected a deeply flawed conservative leader over a socialist challenger.

    Supporters of Sanders believe that he would greatly increase turnout, but there was no sign of that in Iowa or New Hampshire. Sanders won in New Hampshire only because the liberal wing of the party is uniting around him, while the moderate wing is deeply divided (in some ways, this is an echo of 2016, when Republicans could not coalesce around a rival to Trump).

    Edited From: “I Worry About Sanders And His Coattails” by Nicholas Kristof

    Today’s New York Times

    1. Please refrain from further disseminating, synthesizing, paraphrasing, or quoting the farcical NY Times. It is less reputable than the National Enquirer to anybody with even a basic capacity for critical thought, fact retention and analysis.

      1. You, like the other prejudiced ones, don’t have to read those.

        Maintain your ignorance!

  7. The real problem is that Bernie is toooooo stupid to know that the democratic party he embraces and votes with, will cut his throat. When Hillary took him to the cleaners, he was so stupid he came back to the democratic party and said, “Hey that was fun, do it to me again.”

  8. If ever there was a reason that a great many normal and virtuous individuals have no inclination whatever to attempt becoming an elected official, this would be one of them.

    I don’t agree with Mr. Sander’s political philosophy and he is a light version of a hypocrite to me but he was and continues to be railroaded by his own party elites and the media and for that I believe he was done a great disservice. Yet, I have to be pragmatic about it. Presently the controlling interests of the DNC leadership and several news outlets have no honour and are perfectly contemptible in their actions so it should have come to no surprise by Mr. Sanders that he would be shafted in the end. After all, he chose to run in a party that is capable of being dastardly. He calculated I’m sure to some degree that he would have better odds in siding with one of the major political parties rather than going fully independent. In both elections this gamble did not pay off in thinking they would eagerly help him.

    But in the end of the last primary cycle, after being humiliated at the hands of the DNC leadership, he stood firm with the establishment and endorsed Hillary Clinton. He totally lost my respect for him in doing that, I’m sorry to say. Had he instead in his last act at the convention stood up, told the truth about how the DNC rigged the primary for Mrs. Clinton, and said that he could never support a political party that acted with such underhandedness I would have admired him as he walked out of that circus with his head held high. THAT would have been the sign of a man with true courage and resolve. He could have been a legend. But he cowered and showed no self respect by playing a run-of-the-mill obedient and servile politician who joined the ranks to preserve the party. Sad.

    1. Darren, Nicely put. One thing left out about the utter dishonesty of the Bernie 2016 campaign is that he sought campaign donations under the pretense that he was running to win the nomination, when plainly (in retrospect) he was not. That is fraud. He sought contributions under purposefully declared false pretenses. He never had any intention of challenging HRC for the nomination.

      All you Bernie Bros: He is nothing more than another machine directed empty suit. He may not be a lot worse than the other empty suits, but he is surely no better either.



    Sanders is also going to face more pushback from other constituencies within the party. In Nevada, the hotel and casino industry’s powerful Culinary Union has begun sending out fliers, in both English and Spanish, warning its members that his Medicare-for-all proposal would mean the end of their generous union-negotiated private health benefits.

    Edited from: “Bernie Sanders Is The Candidate To Beat”

    This Evening’s Washington Post

    1. I happen to wonder if some of the union pushback might be due the fact that the union might not be as relevant if workers didn’t need them to obtain health insurance. That seems to be a dominant approach of any large organization–self-preservation.

      1. Good point, Darren. But the truth is that a surprisingly large ratio of Americans still have private health plans. And most of them want to keep their plans. Therefore Obamacare is actually more flexible. If only Republicans would stop trying to sabotage it!

  10. Bernie openly says what all the other democrat candidates silently dream for. Bernie is just open about it. The DNC, media, and establishment democrats may torpedo the Sanders campaign, but they shouldn’t look for Bernie’s supporters come election day. Hillary could tell you that.

  11. It is worth repeating loud and clear and often: The most shocking thing is that Chuck Todd was ever hired for MTP in the first place. (And that he hasn’t been fired yet!)

  12. In an off topic fun stuff, the Michael Avenatti Manhattan federal jury has retired for the night having gotten the case. The charges are transmission of interstate communications with intent to extort, attempted extortion and wire fraud. The feds say “Moneybags Mike” was in debt to the tune of $15 Mil and needed Nike’s $25 Mil to cover debts including some to co-counsel Mark Geragos. Avennati has three trials in the next five months for extortion and defrauding clients. He is currently residing in the Manhattan Metropolitan lockup. Not exactly a Shakespearean fall from grace but it’ll do for the Trump-hating pettifogger.

    1. IMO, there was something off about that guy, couldn’t quite put my finger on it….nevermind, politics, just the energy….wasn’t right.

      It might have been the smirk…idk

      1. WW33:

        My Italian grandmother used to say the Devil can hide anywhere but the eyes always give him away. His eyes looked evil to me. Crazy, I know, but I never liked the guy.

  13. It’s either Sanders or Trump. If Trump had done his job and skipped the drama he’d be first on my list.

  14. We already have socialism in America…for decades


    “Sorry, Seniors, You Didn’t Pay for (All of) That”

    “The reality is that a male earning an average wage over his lifetime will receive from Medicare lifetime benefits in retirement that amount to $180,000.[1] Lifetime Medicare taxes for this average male would have amounted to only $61,000. Thus, over a lifetime, such an individual would have “earned” through payroll taxes only about one-third of their Medicare benefits. For a female earning the average wage, the situation faces even great discrepancy. Because she will live longer, her lifetime benefits will amount to $207,000 even though she will have paid in the identical amount of payroll taxes over a lifetime. In short, she will collect $146,000 more in benefits than the taxes she paid into the Medicare trust fund.

    The accompanying chart summarizes the net amount of Medicare benefits received by average earning seniors above and beyond their lifetime payroll tax contributions. As the data show, the problem is growing larger with each new cohort of seniors. The net benefit to seniors who retire in 2020 is roughly double the amount received by seniors who retired three decades before.

    Knowing that the average senior gets $3 in Medicare benefits for every dollar in payroll taxes does not point the way to any specific solution. But it should make crystal clear that the status quo is unsustainable. Seniors of today, tomorrow, and unborn generations all would be better served by our boldly tackling this problem sooner rather than later.”

    1. i noticed in your rant no population comparisons. you ever think when this ponzi scam started more paid in than took out? nope, never that. in the end the old folks will have to be… lets say disappeared to say it nicely. nice try swing and a miss young one. you might be 60 some day. whine then.

      1. Anonymous @10:09 PM.
        You say that the article is misleading, but you do not say why you think it is misleading.
        In order to prop up the current Medicare system, the payroll tax RATE has more than quadrupled over the c.55 years that MC was enacted.
        A worker and employer who was taxed at a rate of .35% is now tax at a rate of 1.45 % each. The ceiling of $6,000 that could be taxed has been “traded in” for no ceiling; an unlimited amount can now be taxed at that 1.45 % rate.
        So a worker and employer paying in a MAXIMUM OF about $21 each in 1966 is now taxed on any earnings ( not a $6,000 or any “ceiling”) are now each paying the quadrupled rate on all earnings.
        So an employee making $60,000 a year is now paying in about $900 a year in MediCare taxes, and his employer has to match that c.$900.
        Additionally, Medicare is heavily subsidized by general tax revenues. Even those huge tax increases can not fund MediCare.
        I’d have to check to be sure, but I think about 1/3 rd of the MediCare spending is subsidized by general revenue taxes.
        Additionally, the $3 premium paid in 1966 for the Part “B” coverage is now at least $140, and can go much higher depending on income.
        All of this is to support a program that is for the 18-19% of the U S. population on MediCare.
        And the deductibles have also increased a great deal. If you have bare- bones MediCare coverage, you’ll be responsible for at least a deductible of about $1400 if you are hospitalized.
        So BernieCare is proposing to expand that system to the entire population, adding the 78-79% not currently covered by MediCare.
        With NO deductibles, dental coverage, etc. This is economic fanantasy; but politically, to sell it, massively understating the actual costs of a proposed program and overstaying the benefits can be effective.
        Maybe Bernie can recruit Jonathan Gruber to help him.

    2. Well genius, you forgot to apply 5 to 6 percent compounded interest on that 61,000 over 35 to 40 years. Because that is what it really cost those of us who stayed fully employed and were never on the government dole. Do the math by investing an initial portion of that 61,000 dollars for 40 years. Then a slightly larger amount for 39 years and so on for 40 years. Add them up, that is what it cost us.

      1. Your interest rate was cancelled by all the border jumpers your lazy, greedy, disloyal generation hired to roof your houses and mow your lawns and pick your fruit to undermine American wages. We should use SS and Medicare to finish the wall and deport you along with your little foreign buddies.

      2. Mike M.,
        OK, do so . Let me know your numbers.
        Also, let me know how much of that sum went to pay for the generation or two ahead of that one’s payroll taxes.
        I’d be glad to look at what you come up with.

        1. I will add, Mike M., that you probably need to weigh your calculations against the costs of medical services a generation or two from now.
          That is, if someone is now joining the workforce at a salary of $25,000 per year, and their salary will gradyally double to $50,000 a year at age 50, how much (compounded) will that worker and his employer have contributed over that period.
          Keep in mind that the cost of health care services has gone up astronomically over the past generation or two, so you can not assume that the accumulated, compounded amount of the payroll taxes will cover the actual costs in, say, 2045 or 2070
          I provided some numbers, and outside of the “compounding” effects, you did not question those numbers.
          So let me know how this all works out when you factor in compounded interest, and pretend that the bulk of those taxes are going to pay for those currently on MediCare.

      3. Mike Molhusky,
        Do you think that a worker’s and husband employer’s contributions are $61,000 as soon as he enters the workforce?
        If you are serious about estimating the numbers with compounded interest, you can not possibly start with a lump sum contributed over a lifetime and pretend that it would produce anywhere near the compounded rate as the taxes dribble in over the course of the worker’s life.
        I.E., you can’t compound, say $61,000 from Year One if the employee and employer taxes combined were only $1,000 in that first year in the workforce.

    3. Fact is many, many people die years (sometimes many years) before collecting a dime even though they spent much of their lives paying into the system. And there are no “refunds” for all the money paid into Medicare for the family left behind. All that unused money goes into the fund that subsidizes other individuals who manage to live long enough to collect the benefits they have partially paid for.

      1. Also, Medicare isn’t free, which some people don’t realize. Most people automatically get Part A, but Part B is now around ~$145/month and more if one’s income is higher, with yearly increases. Also, there are “lifetime reserve days” to limit what the government pays for hospitalization. Deductibles and coinsurance payments still exist.

        1. Anonymous @ 12:17 PM,
          One of the things that I pointed out earlier was that the c.$145 ,+ current Part B. premium was $3 when MediCare was enacted.
          The trend has been ever-high premiums, higher deductibles, higher payroll taxes, spiraling costs, higher reliance on general tax revenues to keep this program afloat for about 19% of the population.
          And BerieCare is going to solve this by adding on the other 81% of the population?!?!


    Idelogically motivated, Sanders sells fiction, and not in the way all candidates sometimes overpromise. He pledges to drastically reshape the federal government, doubling its size, and uses cocktail-napkin math to claim to pay for it. Sanders’s program would cost some $60 trillion to $97 trillion over 10 years — expert estimates vary but none of them bring this plan into the realm of the practical. His wealth tax, one of his major tools to finance this expansion, would raise far less than he estimates — between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion less over 10 years, according to a University of Pennsylvania analysis.

    Edited From: “Iowa And New Hampshire Voters Have Bad Taste In Candidates”

    The Washington Post, 2/11/20

    1. You are living in your right-wing bubble by undermining the voters right to choose their nominee

      You are a fascist

    2. As much as I really, really hate to admit it, Seth Warner is probably correct.
      Sanders might as well promise to sell us a bridge in Brooklyn for a song.

Comments are closed.