ABC News: "Van Jones Thinks Bernie Sanders is 'Going to Win Iowa'"

[Attorney in Texas]

"Let's talk about the person we never talk about but we just heard from, Bernie sanders has incredible momentum. An almost media blackout. He's almost never the subject of the main conversation, but out in the country, you see a lot of Bernie sanders support, he got more contributions, individual donors, than any other in America history. I think he's going to win Iowa."

Here's a link to the LBN thread for those who try to escape this cesspool of negativism.

[Armstead]

1. Unfiortunately he also added "But of course Clinton will be the nominee"

But at least he pointed out that Sanders campaign is still alive and kicking

[Attorney in Texas]

2. So says the betting markets. Who disputes that Clinton is the favorite and Sanders is the underdog?

[Armstead]

6. Not trying to rain on the parade...just being honest

I was liking everything he was saying....Until he added that inevitable dismissal.

I just wish he hadn't felt the need to add that caveat to reinforce the "inevitability" meme.

[Marty McGraw]

20. It really drives

that sickening feeling home doesn't it...

[dsc]

22. so he should have lied to make you feel good?

I am no fan of pundits but I do think the least they should do is report their beliefs in good faith.

[Armstead]

24. No, but they don't always have to say "but of course Clinton will be the nominee"

It's the obligatory caveat that everyone who is protecting their butt seems compelled to always add.

He talked about how it would be a more hard fought campaign than people expect....So why does he have to assume that she has it locked up?

It's the same shit that has been said from day one, before Sanders or anyone even announced. How about pretending that people's votes might actually make a difference once in a while?

[dsc]

28. so when he said Sanders would win Iowa

was he discounting O'Malley and Clinton voters? Or is it only when he says the candidate you don't want to win will win that discounting voters becomes a problem for you?

[Armstead]

34. I already answered

Clinton and O'Malley supporters can speak for themselves.

[CorporatistNation]

61. Well Said... K and R!

[boobooday]

73. Key words: "protecting their butt"

You could see the excitement on his face, but I think many of these up and coming democrats are walking on eggshells, afraid to incur the disapproval of Hilary and her friends in the DNC, just in case she does win the nomination.

[zeemike]

40. And perhaps their belief is that the game is rigged.

In that case his belief is cynical as many are who draw their check from playing ball with the team.

[cui bono]

48. I believe he lied by saying that.

There's still a vote to be had. How about they let the people decide. And how about they actually stop having a black out on Bernie so the votes can actually learn about him?

.

[dsc]

53. so was it a problem when he said Sanders would win Iowa

after all they are voters too, are they not?

[cui bono]

55. Maybe. So do you agree he could have not said Hillary will be our nominee and not been lying?

[dsc]

56. I didn't see what he was asked so I honestly don't know

If he wasn't directly asked he could have left it out without lying.

[cui bono]

60. Wasn't your initial post saying that if he had refrained from saying Hillary would win he was lying?

so he should have lied to make you feel good?

That's how I took that.

.

[NJCher]

25. It's like the early days of feminism

Where every woman who spoke out against sexism had to preface her comments by saying, "I'm not a feminist, but...."

!?!

It's like a brotherhood of people who feel they have to say "Bernie's great, but he can't win." I have at least two friends like that. They say this with such authority, and I delight in telling them the many signs that prove they don't know what's really going on. I particularly like those articles (and there are two that I know of) that tell about the organization that has always been able to choose the presidential winner and has never been wrong. My friends are always taken aback and find it hard to believe me, but then I show them the news article or poll. That's the fun part.

The truth of the matter is many of these people don't really have the kind of in-depth knowledge that we at DU do, who watch threads on polls and other types of measurement pop up everyday.


Cher

[Fawke Em]

54. Here's what I say to that meme:

[PyaarRevolution]

30. Because...

He'd get massively ripped by the Clinton camp if he said anything else.

[JTFrog]

3. "An almost media blackout".

So his conspiracy theories aren't limited to 9/11 I take it.

[pacalo]

7. 9/11 conspiracy theories??? Please share your link.

[demwing]

18. Oh for gawd's sake, just because you disagree doen't make it a conspiracy theory

Take a second a do a quick Google search for "Sanders Media Blackout" and you'll see that it is a legitimate item of discussion.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=Sanders+Media+Blackout&oq=Sanders+Media+Blackout&gs_l=hp.3..0.3233.3233.0.5420.2.2.0.0.0.0.110.216.0j2.2.0....0...1.2.64.hp..1.1.105.0.kee40TzWCUg

There, I ran the search for you, check it out...

[Dragonfli]

19. Are you saying an Obama appointee is a conspiracy nutter?

Anthony Kapel "Van" Jones (born September 20, 1968) is an American environmental advocate, civil rights activist, and attorney. He is a co-founder of four non-profit organizations including Rebuild the Dream, of which he is president. In 1996, he founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, a California non-governmental organization (NGO) working for alternatives to violence. In 2005, he co-founded Color of Change, an advocacy group for African Americans.[1] In 2007, he founded Green for All, a national NGO dedicated to "building an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty."[2] In 2011, he founded Rebuild the Dream, a national advocacy organization working towards a fairer economy.[3] His first book, The Green Collar Economy, was released on October 7, 2008. It won the Nautilus Book Award and reached number 12 on the New York Times Best Seller list.[4] In 2008, Time magazine named Jones one of its "Heroes of the Environment".[5] Fast Company called him one of the "12 Most Creative Minds of 2008".[6]

In March 2009, Jones was appointed by President Barack Obama to the newly created position of Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he worked with various "agencies and departments to advance the administration's climate and energy initiatives, with a special focus on improving vulnerable communities.

I think he checks out OK, the Republicans hated him fiercely and swiftboated the hell out of him, perhaps you listened to just those folks.
I found him to be be of the few appointees that I supported without reservation, a Conservatives mileage would vary of course

[JTFrog]

29. Yes, I'm saying Van Jones is a 9/11 truther.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/van-jones-and-911-conspiracy-theory-poison

He signed a petition: "9/11 Truth Statement". He also had been part of an organizing committee for a 9/11 "truth" march. Of course later he claimed he had no idea what he was signing. *cough* But I do believe this is what led to his resignation.

[PyaarRevolution]

35. I doubt it.

As far as I remember they were kicking and screaming about him b/c of his stance on environmental issues, that Limbaugh thought was too radical. Of course to some Right Wingers, burning coal and opening up Alaska are the only things which will satisfy them.

[Dragonfli]

38. They hit Van hard from every conceivable angle in order to get him out

You hit the nail on the head, the Conservative news junkie you responded to found a single article from the left to avoid using his right wing arsenal (large and full of lies, untruths, misrepresentations and out right shit-flinging) that was Dredged up (pun intended) to get rid of the green energy guy.

Many of the established Democrats are scared to death of what it might make them "look like" if any investigation into the many ignored warnings and free passage provided by Bush for the Bin Laden family at a time when no other planes were allowed in the air. Because of this fear, we will never know exactly why the warnings were ignored, those of us that wanted it investigated are an embarrassment to the establishment. That article was merely an expression of that fear and "embarrassment".

[Dragonfli]

36. Like I said, this was all part of a right wing witch hunt, by your pall Beck

But his (apparently) unpardonable sin was that he had signed a petition—"a "9/11 Truth Statement"—that suggested the Bush-Cheney administration either orchestrated or allowed the 9/11 attack to happen and that called for an investigation. He also had been part of an organizing committee for a 9/11 "truth" march. There were other actions dredged up by Jones' conservative antagonists, including conspiratorial rightwing Fox host Glenn Beck. (Beck was pursuing a vendetta; after Beck recently called Obama a "racist," a group that Jones had founded launched an advertising boycott of Beck's show.) Jones had once referred to Republicans as "assholes." But it was the 9/11 stuff that did him in.

Van Jones says he was not fully aware of what he was signing when he put his John Hancock on that 9/11 petition. This might be true. But I can see how Jones and others on the left—without thinking too much—might have easily said, sure, sign my name to any call for any investigation of Bush and Cheney. And that sloppiness—if that's what it was—has cost him his job.

Tell me, how long have you been a follower of right wing hatchet men looking to discredit progressives?

I want an investigation as well into Bush Cheney and 911, after all they ignored all reports it was going to happen, then rode the wave like a new pearl harbor into illegal wars. But of course, we must look forward

At least I know a bit more about you and your love of Beckism.

[PyaarRevolution]

42. Does it matter?

Regardless where you stand on 9/11 I think the end result, the passing of the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, is something neither side agrees with.
Additionally, wouldn't holding the entire Bush Admin. responsible for the war in Iraq yield the same charges as if they knowingly looked the other way on 9/11 or were complicit in it? They would probably go to prison for life or risk execution. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[JTFrog]

43. Why make shit so personal?

I didn't say anything about you or any other DUer. You want to disagree with what I posted, fine, you did that. There is no reason to pull this "your pall (sic) Beck", "follower of right wing hatchet men" or "your love of Beckism" bullshit. That kind of crap says far more about you than it does me.

And if you want to bring up some LIHOP or MIHOP 9/11 shit, I'm sure you know there is a forum for that.

[farleftlib]

46. Why?

Maybe because every time a promising poll, new endorsement, record-breaking donation, packed-to-the-rafters rally or prediction of a Bernie victory is posted, the haters show up to try and discredit it, or question the source, or take some kind of dump all over it.

He's picking up traction and there's nothing the naysayers can do about it, and yes, you will be called on it.

[JTFrog]

49. Being "called on it" is one thing...

being called that kind of despicable shit is another.

[cui bono]

50. pfft... that's just a conspiracy theory.

That never happens on DU.

.

[Marty McGraw]

51. Makes shit personal in their first post

and then asks 'Why make shit so personal?'


worthy timeless tactic. What's new...

[Dragonfli]

52. Because the attacks against Van Jones were/are right wing

It is not personal against you as a poster. I just dislike a posting that furthers their cause to unfairly discredit a good man.
If you do not wish to appear as one that propagates right wing attacks, just refrain from doing so.

It was the post, not the poster I dislike.

[Ned_Devine]

58. I think we have every reason to question what happened on 9/11

And the fact that Van Jones did made me like him even more.

[bvar22]

72. Van Jones is one of my favorites.

In March 2009, Jones was appointed by President Barack Obama to the newly created position of Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he worked with various "agencies and departments to advance the administration's climate and energy initiatives, with a special focus on improving vulnerable communities."[7][8] In July 2009 he became embroiled in a controversy over his past political activities, including a public comment disparaging congressional Republicans, his name appearing on a petition for 911Truth.org, and one-time involvement with a socialist collective during the 1990s.

For these issues, Van Jones was heavily criticized by conservatives. Jones resigned from the position in early September 2009. "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in his resignation statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

The Democrats, including Obama, ran from Van Jones as fast as they could instead of fighting for him.
He is a good Democrat, one we should have fought to keep instead of running at the first sign of Republican whining.

[Marty McGraw]

21. so... anybody not

wholly on board with camp weathervane and the 'everything is just wonderful' right now DLC mentality gets the conspiracy moniker attached to them?

RW'rs are very quick to throw the 'conspiracy' label at people even though the crap their heads get brainwashed with would make any nutter's beliefs look rational.

[zeemike]

44. Hey, it is the perfect tool to shut people up with.

And it is used liberally by both left and right to do just that.
The only way to avoid the charge is to be totally submissive to the official story of everything.

[Marty McGraw]

47. Yep!

My take exactly.

[joshcryer]

4. IA is going to be a nail biter.

Clinton has a cash advantage now (was not the case when the ad buys started), but she wants NH badly. And I still think Sanders takes NH.

IA draw.

NH Sanders.

SC Clinton.

NV Clinton but momentum can change it for Sanders. Still a long haul.

[PyaarRevolution]

31. Bernie will likely win Nevada.

I think it has a strong enough Libertarian streak they will end up swinging towards Sanders b/c of his stance on Civil Rights. Also, if the housing market is still in the straights there it might help Bernie.

[JonLeibowitz]

57. Nevada is before South Carolina

[farleftlib]

5. Of course he is!

The word got out: Bernie rawks!

The haters are going be all over this because it kills them whenever anybody predicts a Bernie win.

[LWolf]

8. K & R

[Metric System]

9. This is one person who has never gotten over the 2008 primaries. He takes every chance he gets to

take a swipe or back-handed comment at Hillary.

[artislife]

10. I followed him during the 2008 election

Why should he get over the dog whistles by the Clintons? Why should anyone?

[Ned_Devine]

59. exactamundo

[Attorney in Texas]

11. That's not one person. One in 7 Democrats (plus a huge majority of all independents) feel that way.

I held my nose and voted for Gore-Lieberman, and Gore is well the the left of Clinton.

If Sanders is our nominee, we all have something to vote FOR.

If Clinton is our nominee, much of the party will be resigned to voting against the Republican nominee by casting a ballot for the lesser of two evils. That sucks. The only hope I could derive from a Clinton nomination is Warren 2020.

[Perogie]

15. Clinton's team was horrible to Obama, I'm not over it either

[SusanCalvin]

16. Caused me to make my first-ever before-general contribution. nt

[left-of-center2012]

17. "never gotten over the 2008 primaries"

Yep ~ that describes Hillary

[PyaarRevolution]

32. Wha...?

But isn't he endorsing Clinton?

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Oh, there are a lot of people who have never gotten over the '08 primaries.

I've noticed.

[Ferd Berfel]

12. I"m guessing Iwoa and NH

A little too early for SC

[Attorney in Texas]

14. I think Iowa is a jump ball, but -- whoever wins -- Clinton will fall well short of expectations and

there will be hand wringing within the Clinton campaign and she will leave Iowa without any momentum. I expect her supporters will go from smug to shrill as they did in 2008 and this will fuel the downward spiral.

I think Sanders will then win in New Hampshire and then the race will get very interesting.

It is hard to predict a month away, but we'll see soon enough.

[nolabels]

26. The corporate media is trying to pump up their anointed and it sounds like it isn't working

Expect much to be taken out of the bag of tricks (but would expect most of us already know what they are before the appear).

It's probably going to be a bumpy ride ahead and probably not as boring as some would like also

[Uncle Joe]

13. Kudos to Van Jones for admitting the obvious.

"Let's talk about the person we never talk about but we just heard from, Bernie sanders has incredible momentum. An almost media blackout. He's almost never the subject of the main conversation, but out in the country, you see a lot of Bernie sanders support, he got more contributions, individual donors, than any other in America history. I think he's going to win Iowa."

Thanks for the thread, Attorney in Texas.

[hopemountain]

23. early this am on la's knx radio - a cbs affiliate,

a news reporter said bernie is likely to win new hampshire and is within striking distance of hillary in the polls to win iowa. !!!

[Art_from_Ark]

27. Go Bernie!

[senz]

33. Thanks, AiT. Always good to see a notable person speaking up for Bernie.

That little addendum about Hill sounded like a butt cover.

[WillyT]

37. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[jalan48]

39. The ability of the media to black him out is a scary thought for our democracy.

It's like we now have "embedded" elections where the media gives us the approved news on which candidates are doing what.

[book_worm]

41. If Bernie does win Iowa it will be a serious set back for Hillary, no question.

[Babel_17]

62. The current system pumps an inordinant amount of money to the media

And much of the media is owned by hugely profitable corporations.

I see a correlation. But let's wait till the media explores that issue before we come to any judgement.

P.S. And our current system feeds the media with unending product, and access with strings attached. It's just an unhealthy system that many profit by now. They foresee less personal profit with Sanders as President.

[Douglas Carpenter]

64. knr

[NCTraveler]

66. Even Sanders biggest of supporters are now....

talking as if a couple of states are it. The nomination is not to be. Except Dick Morris of course. The party is amazingly unified around Clinton.

[Attorney in Texas]

70. I'll use smaller words: do well in Iowa first, do well in New Hampshire second, doing well in later

primaries will depend in part on momentum from Iowa and New Hampshire.

Focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire is not setting a cap on Sanders' national prospects; it is a reflection of reality.

Maybe Clinton's history of failure in Iowa (bragging about a first place finish and then coming in third) is am indication that Clinton has bad judgment about prioritizing first states first.

[Gothmog]

67. Even if Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will not be the nominee

I am having difficulty seeing how two 90+% white states are meaningful for the Democratic primary as does Nate Silver http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire/

So why do I still think Sanders is a factional candidate? He hasn’t made any inroads with non-white voters — in particular black voters, a crucial wing of the Democratic coalition and whose support was a big part of President Obama’s toppling of Clinton in the 2008 primary. Not only are African-Americans the majority of Democratic voters in the South Carolina primary (a crucial early contest), they make up somewhere between 19 percent and 24 percent of Democrats nationwide. In the past two YouGov polls, Sanders has averaged just 5 percent with black voters. Ipsos’s weekly tracking poll has him at an average of only 7 percent over the past two weeks. Fox News (the only live-interview pollster to publish results among non-white voters in July and August) had Clinton leading Sanders 62-10 among non-white Democrats in mid-July and 65-14 in mid-August. Clinton’s edge with non-whites held even as Sanders cut her overall lead from 40 percentage points to 19....

But even if you put aside those metrics, Sanders is running into the problem that other insurgent Democrats have in past election cycles. You can win Iowa relying mostly on white liberals. You can win New Hampshire. But as Gary Hart and Bill Bradley learned, you can’t win a Democratic nomination without substantial support from African-Americans.

I think that Clinton should win Iowa due to a superior ground game and the lack of a ground game by the Sanders campaign. However, neither Iowa nor NH represent the demographic base of the Democratic Party

[PyaarRevolution]

68. The resulting publicity from winning those states...

will help him get some visibility within' the Black community, father of Kellith. The only thing the Black community supporting Hillary needs to know is Bernie's history and I believe a great deal of them will change their support.

[Gothmog]

69. No it will not unless Sanders can convince POC that he is viable in general election

I like Sanders and he is closer to my positions according to that online quiz than Hillary Clinton's position but I am supporting Hillary Clinton because I am not convinced that Sanders is viable in the general election. If you want to expand Sanders' appeal to other groups, Sanders needs to demonstrate viability. Viability is very important to African American voters. Sanders is not going to appeal to voters in key demographic blocks without some real evidence of viability. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/bernie_sanders_presidential_campaign_what_would_it_take_for_the_vermont.html

. For as much as black Americans might like his policy positions—which fit their enthusiasm for a stronger safety net—they’re also strategic voters, not ideological stalwarts. Electability is key, and as a consequence, they tend to back the establishment choice: Al Gore over Bill Bradley; John Kerry over John Edwards. On occasion, blacks will back a factional candidate, like Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. But Jackson had the reverse problem—he couldn’t win enough whites.

Again, Sanders would have a stronger campaign if someone could provide a good explanation as to viability and I doubt that Sanders will make significant inroads with the African American community without this proof.

Victories in two 90+% white states will not affect Sanders' chances with POC unless Sanders can demonstrate that he can win in the general election.

[Attorney in Texas]

71. You may as well say Clinton cannot win the nomination unless she convinces young Democrats she's not

a liar.

The bigger issue is Clinton's general election problem that every demographic thinks she is a liar except middle aged and older Democrats.