The Ed Show, MSNBC, from tonight's 5PM segment, "Can Bernie Sanders Win?"

[appalachiablue]

Beltway insiders insist Sanders doesn't have a shot, but he's climbing in the polls. Host Ed Schultz brings in Jonathan Alter, John Nichols and Genevieve Wood to discuss Sanders chances. 7/27/15



*WATCH at the Link Below, 14:33 mins.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/can-bernie-sanders-win--492016707732

[Cleita]

1. K&R for Ed.

[appalachiablue]

2. Great job Ed, hope he stays on somehow. Jonathan Alter's analysis was very good.

Deep populism roots and history in the south. Go Bernie!

[delrem]

3. Excellent!

No wonder they're eliminating his voice.

That Jonathan Alter.... OK, for the first 3/4 of his spiel I couldn't help thinking over and over "what a dick!" (I know, that reduces him to a body part, but I've got nothing against that body part so I mean something rather lower by my expletive), "what a bought and paid for tool" (again, being a craftsman I have a high regard for having the right tool for the right job, but that doesn't mean that I have a high regard for political tools). The guy was reading off of last month's "inevitability" script, totally unable to take in what's happening. Ed sure let him off easy, but then, that's all it's worth. At the end Jonathan Alter appeared to be a little more awake.

I like that everyone else on the panel rose above Alter's level of banality and could see what was happening. Ed Schultz could see it.

[restorefreedom]

4. yeah he started off with the inevitability theme

and even in the end when he softened, he said there was a pathway but it was still not very likely. He's clearly not paying attention or is too connected to the establishment. And speaking of establishment, I just have to say how terribly disappointed I am in Barney Frank. I didn't realize he was good friends with Hillary or whatever. But his comment about Bernie being completely unelectable or not remotely electable or whatever it was completely dismissive and insulting.

[delrem]

5. Money, my friend. These "pundits" get paid money, not all by the programs they appear on.

If you're a "pundit" and on the "left", you'll be tempted by "left wing" PACs and etc, and if you're on the right you'll be tempted by the "right wing" PACs and etc, and the majority of those PACs and etc are themselves funded by the same people, the same corporate interests - they are just different branches of the same company. That's why they're all adamantly "centrist" and "moderate", whether "centrist right" or "centrist left".

I'm going to go right there on the fringe of being banned from DU, but I'll say: there's no reason for any "pundit" or "editorialist" or "guest" on any of these venues to shill for Jeb or Hillary in particular, but Walker and 9/10 of the rest as well, except that they're being paid to do it. Because neither Jeb nor Hillary, nor Christie nor Walker, are giving any message that corresponds with what issues polling shows that the people actually want. And yes, these paid shills use "twitter" and "facebook", and know how to set up accounts and how to work the system - it's THEIR JOB, or their employer's job.

So take everything with a grain of salt.

[restorefreedom]

6. good points all.

thanks i gotta remember that. even the so called journalists are owned by someone, either their employer or someone else.

[delrem]

7. There's a LOT of money available in this '16 election and pre-election.

A lot.

It's being spread in places that've never seen it before, including social media. Alternative blogs. Forums. Facebook. Twitter.
And yes, lobbyists are known to shell out, just like Popes are known to shit in the woods, and yes the money is now flowing full stream.

There's no law against anyone taking the money. In fact, to not take the money is to not play the main game in town. In "the beltway", especially. There's no law that says disclosure is a necessity. And everyone is doing it, even the Republicans and Satan, so the argument is that if one doesn't also do it then how can one expect to win? That argument has been a slam against Sanders from the outset. (Answer: by honesty, by raising awareness about the actual issues.)

(The decision Citizens United vs FEC happened, it's law certified at the highest level, and we're experiencing the result. No Sanders supporter should forget that for a single instant.)

[sabrina 1]

9. Jonathan Alter is a tool, you are right. He's just another pundit fighting for relevancy

among the elite political class and they all sound the same because they all belong to the same cult. To them it's all about 'winning', a game and they are just the sports announcers.

The PEOPLE are speaking now and shouting them all down. Alter and Todd et al are a bit lost since they've been of the opinion that no Leftie could draw even a dozen interested people to any venue in the South. Conventional Wisdom, pragmatism, reality based community, etc, they have all the lingo, but they are so out of touch with the people.

These elitist snobs have been telling the left to get lost for decades because the country is 'center right' and we need to stop asking for 'ponies' etc.

Never could stand Alter.

[Enthusiast]

8. The big point is this. Big Ed has got to go. MSNBC said so. And we know the reason.

It's the same reason Phil Donahue and Keith Olbermann had to go.

MSNBC will not tolerate a TV "journalist" that strays too far from the script.

[sabrina 1]

10. Then we should start a huge boycott. Let them spew their propaganda

with no one listening or watching.

Ed should go volunteer for Bernie2016TV where he will get more viewers anyhow, MSNBC and the rest of the Corporate media is dying.

[Enthusiast]

11. I agree.