Are Sanders Supporters Hurting Their Candidate?
My guess is that some of them are doing exactly that. Constant attacks on Hillary Clinton won't build support for Senator Sanders. Most Democrats think that Clinton would be a fine President. Democrats like her and they know that she has been working toward things that are important to them. They may also be looking at Sanders, but will be more than willing to vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.
So, when they see attacks that do not acknowledge Clinton's strong progressive positions, but rather attack individual issues over and over again, they wonder. Supporters of candidates are often taken as representatives of the candidates they support. In many ways, that's exactly what they are, even if that representation is voluntary and not even in keeping with that candidate's own preferences.
Bernie Sanders has clearly been avoiding attacks on Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates. That's intentional. He's trying to focus people's attention on his own positions, not the positions of his opponent. He also knows that he may well be endorsing Clinton in the end. Why would he attack someone he might be endorsing if his candidacy doesn't lead to the nomination? That strategy is undermined when his supporters are constantly in attack mode. Alienating Democrats is not a winning strategy.
Why not focus on Senator Sanders, rather than on Hillary Clinton? Why not build him up and tell people who he is and what he stands for. Every time Clinton is attacked is an occasion when many Democrats might well be annoyed by the attack. You can't get followers by insulting their affection for another candidate. It just doesn't work. Instead, it often builds resentment for the candidate being supported by the attacker. That's just the truth.
People who want Bernie Sanders as the nominee need to focus on him, not Hillary Clinton. Negative campaigning often backfires, especially in primary races. Why engage in it? I'm not getting it. I'm planning to caucus for Sanders in Minnesota on March 1, 2016. People, however, could convince me not to do so. I like Hillary Clinton, too. Don't make me dislike Sanders by attacking her. That trick never works.
= new reply since forum marked as read
It is a steaming pile.
Who all do you mean? 
--imm
Obviously, you did not.
Go back and read it.
I again await your heartfelt and deeply regretful apology.
they make it too easy... 
I just typed the same thing! Just probably you and I seeing things... 
how Sanders supporters in RL think or feel...so yeah I guess anything is possible. 
I can't imagine they have in the past, as that's takes a lot of patience and acceptance.
More likely they'd be the yadda yadda round the water cooler type.
How's this?
"
GW Bush) screws up, sometimes."
Sometimes????
Damn, the whole 8 years of GWB were one big screw-up 
Thanks!
but they don't do it.
How ya doing Rex? Even from beyond my ignore list, he still manages the "look at me" coupled with passive aggressive bullshit attacks.
Positively amateurish and extremely unsuccessful. Walking that fine line of attacking without getting alerted should not be rewarded.
We need a "STFU" list so turds like this don't float up anymore because for me, life would be so much better never hearing from this one again.
Great! How about yourself? Just having a little fun with the obvious holes in the OPs story. Hey, you ever caucus for a candidate but not only had no idea how their supporters feel...but don't like them at all?
Yeah nobody in history has either...but the OP.
Gee...MM doesn't like socialism...er Sanders supports...how unexpected.
If people dislike Bernie because of what I say I guess they have the problem, not me. People pretending to support Bernie but go around trashing people who support Bernie aren't building any support for Hillary or doing her any favors. .
In My Opinion Sanders Supporters Are No More Hurting Their Candidate Than Hillary Supporters Are Hurting Their Candidate. But I will borrow a bit of this from you
Don't make me dislike Hillary by attacking Bernie or his supporters. That old trick never works.
I'd say they do the most damage with the "We are besieged by Hillary haters" posts" (from the same group who calls Bernie supporters "freepers" . Shortly followed by "Hillary is being attacked because she's a woman" posts. Basically anything that posits Hillary as a victim after Hillary has been trundling through here like a 50 pound Gorilla for a year.
Or what about "Your a purity troll if you don't support Hillary" posts? Or, better yet this week's "You're anti-immigrant if you don't support Hillary". By the way, the whole separating the social from the economic thing so Hillary can distinguish herself from Bernie on the basis of race is really lame.
Oh, and the pro-Hillary DUers that attack SSI, some of which confess to be Third Way? Yep, they pretty much hurt their candidate in my eyes, too.
It seems who "hurts the candidate" is in the eye of the beholder, and who is in the Neutral Point of View position to be throwing down judgments entails a lot of wishful thinking.
Strange right? Must be some form of Pretzel logic.
And I see nothing has changed. He's out to damage, that's it nothing more. Always has, always will.
for us to read and learn.
and I've made no secret that I'm no fan of Hillary as a candidate. I've also said I'll vote for her if she's the nominee.
I see smearing coming from both sides. Although I'm more sensitive to the smears against Sanders, I certainly see it coming from my fellow supporters.
However, to paraphrase Chinatown, my attitude when I see this going on is:
Forget it, deutsey. It's DU-town.
you speak of but I do see it the other way around.
Are you asking us to treat Hillary with kids gloves cause thats what this OP sounds like to me. I say fuck that noise and lets let the candidates hash it out on the issues.
Hillary Clinton is a very polarizing person. In my neck of the woods I don't know a soul who says they will vote for her, on the other hand I hear a lot of voices saying they're scared of her. I've yet to hear any of that about our other two candidates. I sure do when it comes to Hillary or the clown car crazies though.
I don't understand why she is so popular other than the fact shes been in the limelight since '92 when the big dog walked into the oval office and has been, for the most part, running for the presidency ever since.
I'd like too see a woman President and will vote for Hillary if she's our nominee but at this juncture I can't support her. Bernie yes I can because Bernie has been on the right side of every issue for years, actually every since he's been a politician. Bernie doesn't say anything just to get a vote nor does he cozy up to the rich and powerful to get their money
The only negative thing I've said about Hillary is she has a polarizing personality
Sometimes good writers don't pick good subjects to write about, I think this OP is one of those times
how many times have i read about he's a Jew or his hair, he has a dual citizenship with Israel so he can't be trusted to name a few. With Hillary all I read is people saying pretty much what I've said here, that she is a polarizing figure.
All of this was tried here in '08 and it didn't work then as it won't work now
before I agree to this
These are actual questions needing actual answers too. Bernies hair or his dual citizenship on the other hand are bullshit used to sow seeds of doubt only
you fail
no dice for you
implication is duly noted though
... and coming to a discussion with examples. Do you not question policies? Do you not provide examples or reasons why said policies concern you? Of course you do.
So you think any discussion of a DU policy isn't "politically liberal" and open-minded or just the ones that don't include you?
And, no, I don't consider myself a "progressive."
and cares not who earns the nomination... some supporters for ALL candidates are doing that.
I s'pose Chafee is the only one not having that problem
This is one reason this place is so damn entertaining to be honest. The barbs some supporters throw at each other are just damn hilarious.
You haz it.
Oy, it's gonna be a long year.
Yeah, I think so…
Every online poll I've seen, whether here at DU or on various other sites, has Bernie getting 70%+ of the votes. Bernie has been called royalty of facebook, is dominating on twitter, is very well received on Reddit, etc.
We've been winning people over all over the internet by posting facts and videos on Bernie, not by attacking other candidates. However we never let lies, half truths, and smears go unanswered. When someone smears Bernie, we're going to correct them in force. When a candidate says they're for or against something, but their record says the exact opposite, we're going to call them on it.
If candidates and their supporters don't like it when we call them on their BS, there's a simpler solution than chastising Bernie supports, they can just quit trying to BS us and be straightforward. Being truthful on an unpopular stance is going to get a candidate more respect than triangulating to get votes.
I'd say us 'hateful Bernie internet trolls' are doing a pretty good job winning people over on the medium we access.
Of course you guess they are.
I happen to guess that the Hillarians are hurting the party and the country by supporting fracking, pipelines, TPP, wall street, school privatization, and Medicare privatization. So let's agree to disagree.
It's pretty straightforward politics: When one candidate has a lead, those trying to catch up frequently attack the leader. It's hardly surprising. They need to shake up the race and such attacks are one obvious way to do it.
You write:
The first counterexample that popped into my head was the 2004 nomination fight. In late 2003, Dean was leading in many polls. Kerry was trailing (and some people were pretty much writing off his campaign). Kerry went on the attack against Dean. A few highlights:
"NY Times:KERRY ATTACKS DEAN FOR BUSH PACT"
"Senator, Have You No Shame? John Kerry attacks Howard Dean from both sides"
"Kerry Attacks Dean on Stances and Character" (article in the Los Angeles Times referring to Dean as "the Democratic front-runner"
You say that attacking the front-runner never works, but it did work for Kerry. He overtook the then front-runner and won the nomination. It's also worked for other candidates before and since.
Obviously, this doesn't mean that all negative campaigning is completely OK. The question is whether it's fair and substantive. In 2008, Clinton was criticized for wearing an outfit that allegedly showed too much cleavage. That's an example of an attack that's utterly indefensible. Fortunately, I don't recall seeing much junk of that sort on DU, about any of the candidates.
"Your act hasn't changed much."
The whole thread is a train wreck of awesome proportions, I'm often perplexed by the grouping of personalities around this perspective.
The Diane Rehm threads over the last couple of days cleared a few things up for me though.
But I'll just say
JM
every time I read down the page and come to this OP I have to laugh. I'm pretty sick right now but do think I'm on the mend after three days of agony. After all laughter is the best medicine and funny that I type that cause since you posted this OP and my subsequent laughing I am feeling better.
What a stupid OP.
Did you pay attention to Hillary and her supporters the last time she ran? Do you know who the PUMA's are? Did you not hear the dog-whistles she and her surrogates blew during that campaign?
But sure, it's Bernie supporters being 'mean' to poor widdle hillawy that are the problem...
and how callous he was to hold a rally near the prayer vigil that was so loud that it drowned them out? How about them apples.
Its not us MM, its them.
Every time I see this OP I want to scream
I hide it it comes back the next time I turn my computer on.
