Vilsack says negative ads against Sanders will 'start soon'

[henster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMmzUJIIYgg

[NeverAgain]

Ew.

[The Free North]

Attacking a man that 90%+ of primary voters view as favorable seems like political suicide.

[Lief 🗽]

Good. Sanders has been running a negative campaign for months and came out with an ad attacking Clinton and Obama today. He and his spoiled children supporters need to be taken down a peg.

[Lief 🗽]

Attacking a man that 90%+ of primary voters view as favorable seems like political suicide.

Clinton and Sanders have basically the same favorables, last I checked. Of course everything Clinton does it always bad when seen through a sexist lens....

[Asian Nazi]

They should just ignore the loon and let him do his thing.  Would Clinton attack O'Malley or De La Fuente too?  Would TRUMP attack Jim Gilmore?  Attacking him gives the irrelevant nutter and his pathetic supporters unnecessary attention.

[This account no longer in use.]

[Vega]

Why is a sitting Cabinet secretary getting involved in politics? It's not like he's Secretary of State, but still. Seems odd.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Clinton/Vilsack 2016!!!1 nah.... I don't know what future he has in politics.... Something probably if this is what he's doing... 2018 Governor?

[RogueBeaver]

Why it wasn't done from the outset is mind-boggling.

[Likely Voter]

He didn't say anything about negative ads that will "start soon"...the context was he was talking about how Sanders and Clinton perform in general election polls and he noted Clinton has already been the subject of a lot of negative advertising and Sanders has not. It seems that what he was saying was that if Sanders were ever to be the nominee he would be 'redefined' by negative advertising and his general election numbers would go down.

[Trapsy]

I don't like this at ALL.

[IceSpear]

He didn't say anything about negative ads that will "start soon"...the context was he was talking about how Sanders and Clinton perform in general election polls and he noted Clinton has already been the subject of a lot of negative advertising and Sanders has not. It seems that what he was saying was that if Sanders were ever to be the nominee he would be 'redefined' by negative advertising and his general election numbers would go down.

Yeah, talk about misleading. Vilsack is simply stating the FACT that Sanders' favorability/GE numbers are so good because Republicans have not bothered to attack him at all, short of a few cheap socialist jokes. And that if he actually won the nomination, he'd be receiving those attacks in abundance, all the while being outspent about 10:1.