Dem Super PAC Bernie Attack Ad Backfires

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

DES MOINES — A Democratic super PAC wanted to undermine Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential candidacy just days before the Iowa caucuses. It may have handed him a gift instead.

Mr. Sanders’s campaign said on Wednesday that it had raised more than $1.3 million since it began fund-raising the day before off a negative ad produced by the super PAC that targets Mr. Sanders by name.

The ad, backed by the political action arm of the group Democratic Majority for Israel, argues that Mr. Sanders, of Vermont, would be unable to beat President Trump in the November general election, citing his heart attack nearly five months ago and his left-wing ideology as evidence that he would be too risky a choice for Iowa caucusgoers focused on winning back the White House.

The ad was scheduled to begin airing in Iowa on Wednesday, but the Sanders campaign sent an email to supporters on Tuesday warning that Mr. Sanders was being targeted by negative ads and alluding to an “outside spending group” without citing Democratic Majority for Israel.

By Tuesday evening, Mr. Sanders had posted a video on Twitter addressing the ads. “It is no secret that our campaign is taking on the political establishment and the big-money interests, who are now running negative ads against us in Iowa,” he said in the video. “The billionaire class is getting nervous, and they should.”

The Sanders campaign, like many of its rivals, often points to signs of adversity to juice donations, and Mr. Sanders’s supporters responded on Tuesday with a flood of contributions. The financial windfall underscored a central challenge facing his opponents: Attacking him can help fuel his campaign.

The attack ad, which will run through the caucuses on Monday, comes amid rising concern among some Democratic Party elected officials and strategists, who have grown increasingly anxious about the prospect that Mr. Sanders could capture the nomination. Several recent polls have shown him leading in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two nominating contests.

In a statement, Faiz Shakir, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager, condemned the ad and called on the rest of the Democratic presidential field to do the same.

“Every single Democratic candidate running for president needs to condemn these kinds of negative attack ads run by dark money groups,” he said. “It does not reflect the values of our party and it is not in the spirit of our issues-driven primary contest.”

He added, “But what our fund-raising numbers show is our supporters know the establishment will do anything to try to stop Bernie, and they’re ready to rally to his side at a moment’s notice.”

The campaign said its fund-raising haul came from more than 70,000 donations.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-attack-ads.html

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Tbh, while fundraising off of this is very nice, I do wonder what they are doing with that to fight back against this.

People who know **** about politics can see through this kind of thing, but I worry about people who are very susceptible to this kind of propaganda. They tend to be older, the demographic we are slowly making inroads with, but need to have a breakout moment with (hopefully that comes in exposing that Joe is unelectable)

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

Extra funds are good but how will the campaign utilize them to mitigate the damage done by these ads?

[HorusRa2 5,005]

37 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Tbh, while fundraising off of this is very nice, I do wonder what they are doing with that to fight back against this.

People who know **** about politics can see through this kind of thing, but I worry about people who are very susceptible to this kind of propaganda. They tend to be older, the demographic we are slowly making inroads with, but need to have a breakout moment with (hopefully that comes in exposing that Joe is unelectable)

 

30 minutes ago, Gov Hooka said:

Extra funds are good but how will the campaign utilize them to mitigate the damage done by these ads?

 

Looks like the attack has mobilized many progressive groups to fight back. 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

1 minute ago, HorusRa2 said:

 

 

Looks like the attack has mobilized many progressive groups to fight back. 

This should have been happening already tbh. 

Like why does it take something like this to get them all to coordinate coordinate and now be on the defense when they could have been on the offense? 

They could have been doing it all along together and instilling damage on the corporatists. 

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

28 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Tbh, while fundraising off of this is very nice, I do wonder what they are doing with that to fight back against this.

People who know **** about politics can see through this kind of thing, but I worry about people who are very susceptible to this kind of propaganda. They tend to be older, the demographic we are slowly making inroads with, but need to have a breakout moment with (hopefully that comes in exposing that Joe is unelectable)

 

21 minutes ago, Gov Hooka said:

Extra funds are good but how will the campaign utilize them to mitigate the damage done by these ads?

Idk if y’all have seen this ad in particular but all that they were talking about was how a socialist can’t win Iowa, his heart attack and how they just don’t “feel” like he can win against Trump. These are all things that the MSM has talked about ad nauseam and yet he has been rising in the polls in both the early primary states (including Iowa) and nationally as well.

One of Bernie’s strengths is that Democrats view him as the most honest and authentic candidate. Assaults on his character will not work (see the backfire from Warren’s sexist smear, not only did Bernie gain support, Warren lost a lot of footing both nationally and in the early primary states.)

The only way you could cut into his support is by attacking his policies. But therein lies another problem. Democrats also trust him the most on almost all of the major issues (Environment, Healthcare, Economy)... you would have to either attack him from the left  (good luck with that) or attack him from the right. Again seeing as how he is the most trusted on these issues, centrists are having a real hard time with being “realistic” and “pragmatic”.

Since Bernie is busy with impeachment the only thing that can be really done is having his campaign use these funds to promote more Bernie ads in Iowa. Not to mention his excited and enthusiastic supporters (Bernie has the most dedicated following) will also continue to volunteer, phone bank, etc.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

10 minutes ago, Gagaloo92 said:

This should have been happening already tbh. 

Like why does it take something like this to get them all to coordinate coordinate and now be on the defense when they could have been on the offense? 

They could have been doing it all along together and instilling damage on the corporatists. 

These organizations can’t coordinate with the campaign because of FEC laws but I think the attacks more or less gave the groups enough of a reason to make that decision to rally around Bernie. The primary is just getting started and people are just paying attention. Plus Bernie is surging so they are acting at the right time. 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

5 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

These organizations can’t coordinate with the campaign because of FEC laws but I think the attacks more or less gave the groups enough of a reason to make that decision to rally around Bernie. The primary is just getting started and people are just paying attention. Plus Bernie is surging so they are acting at the right time. 

I don't mean coordinate with the campaign, but the groups with each other to support and push for progressive causes while also criticizing the corporate Dems for their questionable ties and funding. 

But I suppose you're right that now's the right time.

I just think they could have started on the offense at least in Iowa before now since it's now mere days away there. 

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

15 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

These organizations can’t coordinate with the campaign because of FEC laws but I think the attacks more or less gave the groups enough of a reason to make that decision to rally around Bernie. The primary is just getting started and people are just paying attention. Plus Bernie is surging so they are acting at the right time. 

That means that they can’t use the $1.3 million funds raised from the Bernie campaign so I wonder where they will get the extra funding for their coordinated strategy

[Bt1 5,213]

8 hours ago, HorusRa2 said:

 

 

Looks like the attack has mobilized many progressive groups to fight back. 

 I see at least one political group who made dirty political attacks against Pete. Are u happy with such tactics when they are used in favor of Bernie, but play the victim card when Bernie is the target? Cool. Keep up with the double standard. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Florin said:

 I see at least one political group who made dirty political attacks against Pete. Are u happy with such tactics when they are used in favor of Bernie, but play the victim card when Bernie is the target? Cool. Keep up with the double standard. 

Let me establish some axioms:

I think making political ads that lie or smear or misrepresent your opponents is reprehensible, especially Democrat to Democrat in these divisive times.

I think making political ads that fairly point out differences in the policy/beliefs of one candidate over another is fair.

The point of primaries is to make big distinctions so that people know who they most closely align with.

~~~~

Attacks that suggest Bernie is a racist are not as valid as attacks that point out for example that Pete Buttigieg used to work at McKinsey, likely resulting in jobs being lost, or that he has had tense relations with black people in his own community.

If I'm a black person, I have every reason to be skeptical of Pete Buttigieg for that (and I am btw lol), and that is not an invention of the Bernie Sanders campaign, progressives, the left, etc. its a report on a real situation.

"Someone said something racist once and Bernie was also in the same building as them, so hes racist right?" kind of attacks are NOT the same  

Similarly - "Joe Biden has tried to work with Republicans to cut social security for decades" is a valid thing to point out. It signals to voters who are on the fence or who need social security that he may not be reliable on this issue. That he claims to want to expand it now, afterwards is the point. Presidents break campaign promises every single time, and its up for individuals to decide if they want to take that chance with their vote, but they should be informed before hand so that they can make these decisions as carefully as possible.

[Bt1 5,213]

2 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Let me establish some axioms:

I think making political ads that lie or smear or misrepresent your opponents is reprehensible, especially Democrat to Democrat in these divisive times.

I think making political ads that fairly point out differences in the policy/beliefs of one candidate over another is fair.

The point of primaries is to make big distinctions so that people know who they most closely align with.

~~~~

Attacks that suggest Bernie is a racist are not as valid as attacks that point out for example that Pete Buttigieg used to work at McKinsey, likely resulting in jobs being lost, or that he has had tense relations with black people in his own community.

If I'm a black person, I have every reason to be skeptical of Pete Buttigieg for that (and I am btw lol), and that is not an invention of the Bernie Sanders campaign, progressives, the left, etc. its a report on a real situation.

"Someone said something racist once and Bernie was also in the same building as them, so hes racist right?" kind of attacks are NOT the same  

Similarly - "Joe Biden has tried to work with Republicans to cut social security for decades" is a valid thing to point out. It signals to voters who are on the fence or who need social security that he may not be reliable on this issue. That he claims to want to expand it now, afterwards is the point. Presidents break campaign promises every single time, and its up for individuals to decide if they want to take that chance with their vote, but they should be informed before hand so that they can make these decisions as carefully as possible.

I understand your position and I can understand someone who makes those points. I dont agree with them, that's another discussion. 

The thing is the attacks people made against Biden or Pete aren't made in your own words. 

"A worked with republicans" has transformed in "A is a republican".

"B had some policies that affected black people" has transformed in "B is a racist"

"C is in some polls under some candidates in direct battle with Trump" has transformed in "C cant beat Trump".

When u oversimplify a problem like that, these are the results. You cant agree with A and B and then be upset when the same happens with C. Its hypocrisy at the highest level. 

[Ziggy 14,018]

12 hours ago, Gagaloo92 said:

This should have been happening already tbh. 

Like why does it take something like this to get them all to coordinate coordinate and now be on the defense when they could have been on the offense? 

They could have been doing it all along together and instilling damage on the corporatists. 

Do you have a lot of grassroots experience? (I mean that as an honest question, not throwing shade lol) Funding is typically not incredibly high and organizing is very difficult with one organization let alone among other ones. It's very possible that they had tried before but it takes a bit of time to coordinate like this. You can do it for a quick one-off event like a protest, but a sustained coordinated effort is very difficult to organize without the bevy of resources that these corporate PACs have.

 

Basically, the only grassroots work that comes together quickly are from huge, well-funded and established groups like Planned Parenthood or NARAL.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

8 minutes ago, Florin said:

I understand your position and I can understand someone who makes those points. I dont agree with them, that's another discussion. 

The thing is the attacks people made against Biden or Pete aren't made in your own words. 

"A worked with republicans" has transformed in "A is a republican".

"B had some policies that affected black people" has transformed in "B is a racist"

"C is in some polls under some candidates in direct battle with Trump" has transformed in "C cant beat Trump".

When u oversimplify a problem like that, these are the results. You cant agree with A and B and then be upset when the same happens with C. Its hypocrisy at the highest level. 

The problem with Dems attacking Bernie  is not selective abstraction, or essentialism (taking one racially influenced thing to imply racism itself for example), it is the methodology itself that reeks of desperation and self-interest, not out of concern for people, but out of concerns for maintaining power. Democrats apparently don't know how to counter Donald Trumps demagoguery at all, but when it comes to Bernie Sanders, they are fully capable of playing out of the same rhetorical playbook? Cut me a break  

According to your example, the left is calling other candidates 1) Republicans and 2) Racists, but establishment is *only* pointing out data based statistical facts in response, and that's we get upset about, so we are hypocrites? 

That's not applicable to this situation at all. Where are you seeing people on CNN, MSNBC, etc. coming out and saying "Look, Bernie beats Trump in a general matchup as well, but Joe wins as well, by higher margins in some places, so lets go with Joe" - They aren't saying that. That isn't the basis of their argument at all. If that were true, they wouldnt be saying "he can't beat Trump at all" because the polling suggests he COULD beat Trump. Bernie Sanders is still Joe Biden voters second choice in general  The difference has been clear as day since the beginning of this primary - electability. If people are more excited about Bernie, trust him more on the issues, and more willing to commit to him than any other candidate, and his general favorability is the highest in the field, then them saying "bernie can win" at ALL - Even if its "not as much as Joe" is a concession that people who are only with Joe because of electability might go with someone they prefer on the issues if both of them can win  

Instead, the argument is "socialism will damn Bernie Sanders to an overwhelming loss in the general" - a much more spurious claim that is NOT backed up by polling data. Hence our frustration.

Like, no offense but I legit just don't think you understand the left's opposition to things at all, and you would probably do better in discussing it with us if you began by asking questions.

 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

30 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

Do you have a lot of grassroots experience? (I mean that as an honest question, not throwing shade lol) Funding is typically not incredibly high and organizing is very difficult with one organization let alone among other ones. It's very possible that they had tried before but it takes a bit of time to coordinate like this. You can do it for a quick one-off event like a protest, but a sustained coordinated effort is very difficult to organize without the bevy of resources that these corporate PACs have.

 

Basically, the only grassroots work that comes together quickly are from huge, well-funded and established groups like Planned Parenthood or NARAL.

No, I don't have really have much grassroots experience other than some door knocking volunteer work I did for a nonprofit for a short time. 

That would make sense though. I guess it's easier said than done and takes quite the effort and leg work.