FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
74,153
Reputation
8,641
Daps
223,079
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC


Only one with a HBCU organizing team :whew:

Genuinely interested to see if the distributed organizing plan can make it respectable in the south. Bernie already does well with college aged black voters so hopefully this increases turnout.


His fundraiser in DC was right next to Howard University, saw a lot of those kids in the venue with volunteer tags
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
31,004
Reputation
3,101
Daps
70,654
Reppin
New York
Bernie mocking billionaires. :russ:. I love it!


Jimmy Dore said something early I think holds weight. If Bernie wins the nomination that's when you will see neo-libs start a 3rd party. lol Krystal kinda hinting @ that in her response to Saagar.
 

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,694
Reputation
5,252
Daps
63,747
Reppin
NYC


Telling you fam...outreach to Latino voters could be big. But wait, there's more

Sanders meets with Hispanic lawmakers

Bernie Sanders met privately with Hispanic lawmakers on Tuesday.

Sanders, who has aggressively courted Latino voters in his 2020 bid for the White House, is the third presidential candidate to sit down with Latino members under the auspices of BOLD PAC, the fundraising arm of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren have also talked with BOLD PAC.

Sanders spoke about immigration, Medicare for All, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and other issues, including his family’s immigrant roots. A Latino caucus member in the room said several undecided lawmakers were present, and that Sanders did not exclusively talk about economic issues.

“It was not what I expected. It was pretty impressive,” said the member. “He was very comfortable with us. He impressed the caucus, to be honest.”


The person added: “He really has learned from his past experiences with Latinos and Latino issues and the Latino caucus. It literally looked like a new Bernie.”


About a dozen members attended the meeting, which lasted roughly an hour long.

“The senator was grateful for the warm reception he received and he enjoyed the dialogue,” said Faiz Shakir, Sanders’ campaign manager. “We thank all the members for taking the time to meet following last votes.”

Sanders talked about investing more in Title 1 schools when asked about education. He discussed his efforts to reach Latino voters, arguing that he can beat President Donald Trump by bringing together a coalition of working-class white voters and younger people of color, according to a person in the room.

Sanders has polled first or second among Latino voters in recent polls, and an independent analysis found he received more financial contributions from Latinos than any other candidate in the Democratic presidential field.

Members in attendance brought up the rising cost of prescription medication, the climate change crisis and infrastructure, BOLD PAC said in a statement.


“At the forefront of the conversation was the need for comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes immigrants are the bedrock of this country, safeguards America’s 700,000 Dreamers — whose lives are currently in the balance — and brings an end to Trump’s cruel immigration practices,” the political action committee said.


BOLD PAC’s political director, Gisel Aceves, said the group is interested in meeting with every candidate to discuss their plans to engage and mobilize Latinos.

Latinos “will most certainly be the path to win swing states like Arizona, Florida, and even Texas,” Aceves said. “It will not be enough for the nominee to run a few targeted ads during GOTV, these potential voters need to be persuaded, and that effort needs to start now.”
 

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,694
Reputation
5,252
Daps
63,747
Reppin
NYC
Yikes fam...

MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It’s Ignoring Bernie Sanders

Not really shocking but gives some numbers to the argument and explains a bit of why some heads have completely warped notions of what Bernie is and is not proposing. Some highlights

In its August and September coverage, by total mentions, MSNBC talked about Biden twice as often as Warren and three times as often as Sanders. By number of episodes, 64% of the 240 episodes discussed Biden, 43% discussed Warren and 36% discussed Sanders. A quarter of the episodes only discussed Biden, compared to 5% and 1% that mentioned only Warren or Sanders, respectively.

Only a few of the 240 episodes discussed Biden’s reliance on big-dollar donations, and none singled out his fundraising from industries such as healthcare and banking that have a strong interest in current policy debates. Melber noted that Biden was struggling among grassroots small donors compared to Sanders and Warren. The other times Biden’s big-dollar fundraising came up, it was in the context of airing criticisms of Warren for having engaged in it herself before swearing it off for this year’s primary.

In terms of policy coverage of the candidates—arguably the most important role played by the fourth estate when reporting on candidates—Biden barely registered.


On healthcare, the biggest campaign issue for a majority of voters, Biden’s “plan to protect and build on the Affordable Care Act”—which his website admits would leave 3% of Americans uninsured—was only occasionally discussed, while being praised for giving Americans “choice” by guests such as ousted centrist Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).


Meanwhile, Sanders’ “Medicare for life thing”—as Matthews calls it—was criticized as “throwing 149 million people off their healthcare” (Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-Minn.]) and taking away “choice.” Biden’s deputy campaign manager told Matthews that Sanders’ plan would “mean a tax increase on middle tax [sic] families,” ignoring the fact that independent studies have determined Medicare for All would lower overall healthcare costs. Warren’s refusal to say taxes would go up to fund Medicare for All was characterized alternately as evasive, or a shrewd tactic to “help her sustain” her rise in polling.


This is a far cry from the polls that show the majority of Democratic voters are favorable toward the policy.


While the broader progressive media landscape was chock-full of stories about Biden’s fundraising from powerful interests, his lack of grassroots enthusiasm, his incoherent public statements and his unfair attacks on Medicare for All, MSNBC viewers mostly saw the Biden that his campaign presented: a decent, beloved, steady hand who is the country’s safest bet.

Sanders, meanwhile, received less coverage on MSNBC than Biden or Warren. Of the three candidates, Sanders was least likely to be mentioned positively (12.9% of his mentions) and most likely to be mentioned negatively (20.7%). The remaining two-thirds of his mentions were neutral.

Sanders received no negative mentions on Maddow’s show (which had the least primary coverage of the six programs analyzed), and only a handful on O’Donnell’s, Melber’s and Hayes’ shows. Rather, 87% of negative mentions came from just two programs: Matthews’ Hardball and Williams’ 11th Hour.

Sanders was especially criticized on 11th Hour after he suggested the negative campaign coverage coming from the Washington Post—owned by billionaire Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos—was related to Sanders’ criticism of Amazon’s labor practices. Williams and a guest both took the opportunity to liken Sanders to Trump, who frequently complains about his media coverage. Williams then quoted a tweet from an anonymous online anti-Sanders troll—sent before the Bezos controversy had even begun—accusing Sanders of not working to defeat Trump in 2016. (In fact, Sanders stumped at 17 pro-Hillary Clinton events in 11 states in November 2016.)

Although Warren was almost as under-covered as Sanders relative to her polling numbers, her treatment was very different. Warren had the lowest proportion of negative coverage of all three candidates (just 7.9% of all her mentions) and the highest proportion of position mentions (30.6%).

Criticisms of Sanders and Warren were often paired. Nevada Independent editor Jon Ralston suggested to Williams on August 20 that Warren and Sanders had endangered their chances of winning a general election by backing “things that [the] majority of Americans may not like,” such as Medicare for All.


By that same day, however, Matthews had pioneered a new tone toward Warren. Mere moments after saying voter support for the two was “unchanged since June” and “too close to call,” Matthews declared Warren was “making big strides in her efforts to take over the party’s left lane from Sanders” and “eating his lunch every day.”
In a later episode, Matthews and The Root’s Johnson claimed African American women were “leaving Bernie” and “breaking for Warren,” even though a Pew Research Center poll that week showed Sanders’ base to be the least white (49%) of the leading four candidates (including Sen. Kamala Harris), Warren’s was whitest (71%), and all four had about 50% women supporters. (Matthews specified that he meant “African American women who tend to be influencers.”)

Overall, MSNBC's primary coverage was devoid of policy discussion. Viewers were told often that Warren “has a plan for everything”—but not what those plans might contain.

Sanders and Warren released, respectively, eight and 10 detailed policy plans over this two-month period, covering topics from investing in rural America, empowering indigenous people, getting to 100% renewable energy and muzzling corporate lobbyists (Warren) to workplace democracy, a Green New Deal, housing for all and a wealth tax (Sanders). Most of these 18 plans were ignored by MSNBC, and only two were discussed in any depth: Hayes interviewed Sanders about his August 22 Green New Deal plan and Maddow interviewed Warren about her September 16 anti-corruption plan. (Biden, for his part, introduced zero plans.)

Instead, MSNBC’s coverage builds around incoming poll results, which may be cause for concern. Social scientists have long been critical of the way polls can shape news coverage, as poll coverage risks calcifying what might otherwise be fleeting shifts in popular opinion. The hosts In These Times analyzed occasionally acknowledged that polls are not always reliable, but relied on them anyway. Only Melber explicitly dismissed polls, saying “they don’t matter right now,” reporting instead on online donation numbers. He was alone in mentioning Sanders’ historic surge in small-dollar donations.
 

afterlife2009

Superstar
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
4,802
Reputation
1,100
Daps
17,620
The median age for cable news watchers is around 60 years old ^

It’s a large reason why he does so poorly with older voters and funnily enough, the people who post all day in the Impeachment thread talk like cable news hosts when Bernie is brought up

MSNBC is disgusting.
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
31,004
Reputation
3,101
Daps
70,654
Reppin
New York
The median age for cable news watchers is around 60 years old ^

It’s a large reason why he does so poorly with older voters and funnily enough, the people who post all day in the Impeachment thread talk like cable news hosts when Bernie is brought up

MSNBC is disgusting.

Cable news is misinformation in my book. Opinions from beltway types who don't know or understand the psychology of regular people. It is harmful not helpful.
This is coming from someone who used to watch it religiously. It was on all day in the break room @ my place of work and then I would come home and watch either entire or parts of episodes of Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and O'Donnell. I dropped them cold turkey after Trump won.
 

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,694
Reputation
5,252
Daps
63,747
Reppin
NYC
Cable news is misinformation in my book. Opinions from beltway types who don't know or understand the psychology of regular people. It is harmful not helpful.
This is coming from someone who used to watch it religiously. It was on all day in the break room @ my place of work and then I would come home and watch either entire or parts of episodes of Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and O'Donnell. I dropped them cold turkey after Trump won.

I now watch cable news periodically just so I can keep up with the bad takes that they're feeding to my loved ones. I need to be prepared to explain why it's bad faith critiques.
 

wtfyomom

All Star
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
7,704
Reputation
-757
Daps
11,438
Reppin
NULL
Cable news is misinformation in my book. Opinions from beltway types who don't know or understand the psychology of regular people. It is harmful not helpful.
This is coming from someone who used to watch it religiously. It was on all day in the break room @ my place of work and then I would come home and watch either entire or parts of episodes of Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and O'Donnell. I dropped them cold turkey after Trump won.
yeah man, i honestly dont get people who still think it has value at all. like occaisonally like in a blue moon for some reason they might cover a decent story and report well on it but its so far and few between and the independent stuff covers it anyway. like i just dont get what people get out of their analysis? its all drivel. and we also know who is behind it, the big money interests, or even if youve read manufacturing consent. but the only maybe value they had is if you thought that thy knew something because they were insiders. like it might be totally fake but whatever theyre reporting somewhere had some legs. but seeing them be so wrong on trump and even bernies run and on hilary being 99 percent likely to win. it just showed they all are so out of touch. i feel like theres a lot of people that even though they know the msm is bullshyt, it still has like this "official" feel to it and they cant get that out of their mind and they still give it some credence but nah its total trash. i mean we all knew it about foxnews for a while but some people were still brainwashed that cnn or msnbc where THAT much better. i would say they dont tell as many like super verifiable lies but in the trump era theyve even had some shyt they had to correct
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
31,004
Reputation
3,101
Daps
70,654
Reppin
New York
yeah man, i honestly dont get people who still think it has value at all. like occaisonally like in a blue moon for some reason they might cover a decent story and report well on it but its so far and few between and the independent stuff covers it anyway. like i just dont get what people get out of their analysis? its all drivel. and we also know who is behind it, the big money interests, or even if youve read manufacturing consent. but the only maybe value they had is if you thought that thy knew something because they were insiders. like it might be totally fake but whatever theyre reporting somewhere had some legs. but seeing them be so wrong on trump and even bernies run and on hilary being 99 percent likely to win. it just showed they all are so out of touch. i feel like theres a lot of people that even though they know the msm is bullshyt, it still has like this "official" feel to it and they cant get that out of their mind and they still give it some credence but nah its total trash. i mean we all knew it about foxnews for a while but some people were still brainwashed that cnn or msnbc where THAT much better. i would say they dont tell as many like super verifiable lies but in the trump era theyve even had some shyt they had to correct
Yeah, I said to a group of friends once MSNBC is the FOX News for liberals and one guy caught major feelings. I guess it is hard coming to grips that you are misinformed and don't know what you are talking about. lol
 

TheDarceKnight

Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
29,317
Reputation
13,005
Daps
91,431
Reppin
Jiu Jitsu
Bruh... I did it

My first ever political donation.

Bought 2 magnets and donated 10 bucks to Bernie:wow:


I fw him the long way
Congrats! It Feels good to actually support something you believe in and not just pay lip service.

I’m in a career transition and can’t donate much but I’m gonna do what I can.
 

rapbeats

Superstar
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
9,363
Reputation
1,890
Daps
12,850
Reppin
NULL
All bernie stans,warren stans, and basically anyone that isnt ultra rich needs to take time out of their day to watch this below video from 2015. This is our america. the real thing. all the bs aside. this isnt based on opinion, its based on historical and current day evidence. this is why Bernie out of all choices is by far the only choice.

and its not even close.

I dare anyone who actually cares about their country and not just themselves to actually take the time to watch the ENTIRE video and dont make a single comment before you're done. There is no way you can choose any other candidate after watching that unless.....you're cool with most people starving while you eat aka You're a selfish. end of story.



and I can't give you the cliff notes to this because this in a nutshell is the cliffnotes to basic american capitalist/democracy/the people/voting/power/economic history. he shortened it and gave us this as the cliff notes. i cant cliff note the cliff notes otherwise you will miss something of importance. shoot the man even dives into the education system in america towards the end. he covered it all.
 
Last edited:
Top