Home | About | Donate

Why 'Going Negative' on Bernie Sanders is a Very Dangerous Move


Why 'Going Negative' on Bernie Sanders is a Very Dangerous Move

Harry Jaffe

Going negative against Bernard Sanders is a bad career move. Every time a political opponent has attacked Sanders, it has served only to strengthen him. We have come to accept attack ads as standard fare in presidential politics. When threatened, Hillary Clinton sharpens her knives and airs ads to eviscerate opponents, while Donald Trump hurls noisy epithets daily. They might want to choose another way to weaken Sanders, because direct, personal attacks tend to backfire.


Bernie just may be the Java Jump that this country so desperately needs.


May the spirit of the mouse that roared for Justice... and obtained it, continue on.

Sanders is what our country needs at this time.

Let's get this human being into office, and then count on his humanity to begin the work of dismantling the M.I.C AND the Big banks. The pair are reflective of the symbiotic relationship between Mafia dons and the hitmen who collect on all those business "protection funds."


For any candidate there is always a risk in going negative but it is often effective so they continue to do it. The most negative thing that has been hurled at Sanders by his two Democratic opponents is his votes on gun control. I think initially he handled it poorly but has since edged toward supporting stricter laws and has argued that his his position is really similar to that of Clinton and O'Malley. The Republicans have been attacking Clinton almost non-stop and have rarely mentioned Sanders. Obviously if Sanders is the nominee that will change. I would not be surprised if he were swift-boated with false accusations. Lessons from the past are that you have to hit back quickly and I think he would. He seems to be a much much adept politician than Kerry or Dukakis who were attacked with false accusations and waited much too long to respond.


There may be reason to think that the Internet challenges the former reality that the media controls public opinion. We may be experiencing a waking up of the common consciousness--or not. In either case the wise thing remains what it has always been---to do the right thing because it is the right thing---at the right time, for the right reason, towards the right person or group---without the need for religion. Without this kind of courage the world is really nothing more than an existential hell.


We can all expect and will see, major negative and hateful words from the Clinton Campaign. Her PEOPLE are ready, willing, and fully geared to go mean. They work for Hillary. Just like Chris Christie with plenty of people under his leadership who went mean on the BRIDGE, Hillary is set to approve and lead on hateful campaign ads. Don't be surprised by anything. She flips her positions from day to day, and she is perfectly happy to have Her People behave just as badly. In My Opinion!


Well said!


The natural denouement to your argument is that of a Bush or Trump win.

In addition, while you're herewith arguing that Mr. Sanders could do nothing to change the Wall St. apparatus... were he to get into office, you'd reverse positions to blame him FOR what already exists as a well-established culture of Capital Corruption.

How the HELL can congress be flushed if the media propagates nothing but lies and NO ONE holds the liars to account?

And how can the two-party system be challenged if posters like you discredit Nader for trying to wage a challenge to it? Mr. Sanders is largely an independent... he made a tactical decision to run AS a Dem. in order to avoid all the traps in place to stop 3rd party outliers from having a voice, no less a chance at dethroning the Cobra-grip of the duopoly.


BS Sanders is not going to end the duopoly if elected. He will continue it like Killary Rotten Clinton & the Republicons. He wants all of the ME to join the United States of Asses in the fight against ISIS. He wants to give Israel & AIPAC unconditional support. He says he'll stand up to the bigwigs. If he's another Obama, he won't do that. He will only say what it takes to get elected. :imp::smiling_imp:


They dont have no dirt on Bernie..and they have been looking for 0ver 20 yrs...Bernie runs on his record his ability to be truthful..and appears honest and a man of integrity..He has what the others dont and that includes Hillary...Those who like Hillary will vote for her but the numbers are increasing for Bernie because the intelligent ones in the democrat party dont believe her BS on all issues and she will go into office having to pay back lots of favors and start worrying about the next election....I dont want that shit I am tired of it...No more BS VOTE BERNIE dont be fooled by BS..


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


And to help accomplish that...
Go to http://voteforbernie.org/

at “How and when to vote for Bernie Sanders (by state)” scroll down to your state and learn, how you can get into the act of making a difference

The Dem. primaries start on Feb 1 in Iowa, followed by New Hampshire on Feb 9 and still
in February by Nevada and South Carolina. A big slew of 11 states hold the Dem. primaries on March 1st.

Do not delay, secure your input as soon as possible and then pass this information on through the social media to all your friends who support Bernie. Leave out people who still believe, that Hillary is progressive. WE HAVE TO WIN THIS ONE FOR AMERICA!

I have posted the forgoing already several times here, but I still keep on seeing new 'faces' and I want to make sure, that we all know the procedure. Every vote counts!

Getting past corporate Hillary is the first order of business. The GOP comes later


True, but in the mean time Bernie can veto anything the Repigs come up with and unlike Obomber my guess is he'll do just that.


You misunderstood. The point is that Sanders in NOT being a conventional Dem or Republican represents a variation on the established--Bush or Clinton--theme of American Dynasty.


Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were both bombarded by negative attacks from the Republicans and whomever the Democratic nominee is must expect more of the same. Of course Hillary Clinton has been the target of these attacks for many years but surely such attacks would be used against either Sanders or O'Malley if either wins the nomination. I don't expect any past successes by Sanders against negative attacks in the past to deter the Republicans. In the event he is the nominee he should expect negative attacks to be used against him.


Jaffe sez: "Vermont reporters proceeded to pick apart the (1990 Republican) ad and show it distorted Sanders’s positions."

Good for them. But to expect the same tender treatment by the Assimilated Press in 2016 might be misguided.


Bluedolphin_9 sez: "If he's another Obama ..."

That little "If" is a substantial qualifier.

IF he's not another Obama, your characterization becomes a straw man.

Guess we'll all find out. IF he gains the nomination.


You & I are on the same page. Most of the American people want more of the same. Voting for the duopoly parties.


What most people believe doesn't make what they believe is right. What the article says doesn't make it right either. You should go negative on Bernie so you don't get berned after feeling the bern. The same goes for Killary & the Greedy Old Party. I wish the Democrat & Republican Parties would go the way of the Whig Party.