Is Bernie really advertising on Breitbart?

[Tavarious Jackson]

I callled Bernie's staff but they were less than informative and told me I did not matter since I am not from Vermont. Actually they were rude.

Can someone find out if this is true?

Link to tweet

[GaryCnf]

1. I don't know, does

the NRA advertise on DU, because I just saw an NRA ad when I logged in?

Delete this.

[forgotmylogin]

2. It's possible his advertising is done by an adhosting service.

Sometimes clients don't know what sites their ads will end up on. I've seen plenty of rightwing stuff pop up on DU.

Not that he doesn't need to fix this, but this likely might not have been intentional on his part.

[regnaD kciN]

3. Most likely a third-party service...

...and, yes, I've seen plenty of right-wing ads on DU as well.

[Ninsianna]

6. Sure, but that's something his staff should look into right?

The OP says that they were rude to him, what gives with that?

Perhaps if a Vermonter calls and asks them what's going on, it will spur some action?

I don't think the OP was saying it was intentional, but that when he called to ask his office what was going on, the response was not good.

[Warpy]

28. If his name is mentioned in a story there, his add will appear

Just like if you mention the name of the Dumpster Fire, his name will be in a Google ad on DU.

[Ninsianna]

61. It depends on other factors though.

I don't think it's intentional, but weird reaction to someone inquiring about it.

[virtualobserver]

4. the problem is that the ad pops up because of who YOU are.....

not because of the site.

[Ninsianna]

8. I think advertisers can request that their ads do not appear on certain sites.

The problem here is that when it was brought to their attention, they were rude to the caller. If they didn't know, that's understandable based on how 3rd party ad hosting works, but that doesn't excuse the response.

[virtualobserver]

11. they are there to respond to their constituents

it may seem rude to tell people that, but it is the reality.

[Ninsianna]

15. The reality is that they were rude, and they have no cause to be.

Stupid move on their part, and they have no real way of knowing who's a constituent and who is not. Making this level of defensiveness indefensible.

[virtualobserver]

17. based on the post, they did know

they always ask....for that very reason

my representative and Senators always ask

they aren't interested in talking to people unless they represent them

[Ninsianna]

22. Eh, doesn't excuse the rudeness.

[virtualobserver]

37. the rudeness appears to be that they didn't answer the caller's question....

because they were not from Vermont, which doesn't need to be "excused".

The caller could just as easily been someone like James O'Keefe recording something to distort as anyone else.

I only have experienced my own reps, but they operate the same way.

[Ninsianna]

51. There seems to be a need to excuse unprofessional behavior.

So, it's better to deliver rudeness to an O'keefe type than to simply treat all callers with politeness? How exactly is delivering the bad behavior to random people on the phone preventing distortion? Easing up on the effort they need to put into distortion by delivering rudeness?

I've made lots of calls and what I've noticed is that professionals who answer the phone are unfailingly polite no matter what, since that's their job and it reflects poorly on their office if they're not.

[virtualobserver]

65. Neither one of us were on the call.

There is no mention of bad behavior.

They did not answer the callers question and they clearly communicated the reason why....because the caller was not from Vermont.

That would feel rude, but it was not inappropriate. Someone who is not their constituent was questioning their advertising strategy.

[Ninsianna]

68. There is a mention of rudeness from the person who was on that call.

So now it's he didn't get answers because he wasn't from Vermont?

Nope. See, that's just it, when you get off the phone with someone and they feel that you were rude and your job is to answer phones and deal with questions, it means you failed in your job.

Sure and given that Bernie isn't just limiting his fund raising efforts or his public appearances to Vermont, it's an unacceptable reason to be rude to people calling you. In fact there is not reason to behave like that, it makes you look bad and your employer.

Know what I'm saying?

Doesn't matter which politician, workplace or company this is not professional behavior. Those of us who have made calls to entities that advertise on various outlets do think we have the right to call and ask questions, anyone rebuffing us for daring to question their advertising strategy is well aware they have a bad one and can't face up to it.

That being said, I don't think this is strategy just a staffer being unprofessional, no one who calls a politicians office should get off the phone feeling disrespected, regardless of whose constituent they are. That's just basic professional adult behavior if you're answering phones.

[virtualobserver]

71. rudeness is an interpretation

we only received two pieces of information

1. did not answer questions

2. because they were not from Vermont

that could feel rude, but they were doing their job

you are leaping to conclusions.....until we hear more about the call, I stand by my explanation.....when someone will not answer your questions because you are not represented by them.....I can see how that would feel rude.

[Ninsianna]

87. Indeed from the person who was there and experienced it.

Unless their job is to be rude and offend people who call into their office, no they failed to do their job.

I"m not the one leaping to conclusions, that's all the people making up things and heaping abuse on the OP for posting something they feel is against their favorite Senator.

Your supposition is not explanation isn't assumption that's not based in reality of professional phone etiquette. The bias that's clouding the abuse is identity of the office being called. The behavior is unprofessional.

And literally it's utterly ridiculous to state that ANY senator or representative's staff can be rude if a non constituent calls them.

With all the calls I've been making over the past 8 months, I've never run into staffers, even the Republicans ones (and my Sen and Reps are all Dems) who were rude, even when they'd been subjected to many many calls.

This staffer was rude, and he doesn't get to be rude just because the called isn't a constituent, that's not how it works in America, and even Republicans and their staff get that.

[virtualobserver]

89. rude is in the ear (in this case) of the beholder

neither one of us possess the ear in question, so we can not know what our impression would have been.

I'm saying that I don't have enough information to know....all I know is that it felt rude to the caller.

The details....not answering the question.....indicating that they are there for Bernie's constituents (Vermonters)
are not necessarily rude in context.

You are determined to declare them rude....whereas I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I do that based on my own experience with politicians who were or were not my own representatives when I called.

[Me.]

72. His Followrs Aren't All From Vermont

Do they deserve rudeness when trying to alert the staff to what they think might be a potential problem? No.

And yes, most staffs represent their bosses well.

[Ninsianna]

88. It's weird why this is an issue. But all the "thank yous" are even more odd.

Are Bernie's staff members posting here or something?

[Me.]

95. THat's My Guess

[sheshe2]

77. My thoughts after being in retail for years.

Every 'customer' is treated with respect, never rudely.

Yet the people spoken of here are not customers, they are citizens of our United States and no matter which state they call deserve respect and answers to their questions. Polite answers are not that difficult.

[whathehell]

53. Thank you.

[SunSeeker]

91. But Bernie is always introduced by Thom Hartmann as "America's Senator."

At least that's how it was when Bernie was doing "Breakfast with Bernie" segments on Thom Hartmann's old radio show (I stopped watching when Thom started airing on Russia Today).

[virtualobserver]

94. Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, he only has "Vermont's Staff"

I've rarely watched Thom, myself.....

I get tired of his long stories about his periodic shirtless vacations with Vladimir, and how tired he has grown with the freedoms that we enjoy. Starting his show by playing the Russian national anthem on slide trombone was the last straw.

[TheBlackAdder]

63. I have no problems having progressive views land on a RW website. Hopefully, it might sway a mind.

[delisen]

5. If he is targeting Trump voters it seems logical to advertise

where they are.

[ucrdem]

52. What is he targeting them for?

He's already admitted that he has no expectations of actually passing this legislation. So what is the purpose of this campaign?

[delisen]

75. I assume he wants them to be part of his "revolution"

The Trump voters that he thinks the Democratic Party has not reached out to.

Personally I think the many of the people he wants to peel off from the Republican party are voters who are anti-human rights and Sanders is not going to win them over with his particular economic platform.

They read Breitbart not because they are job hunting but for other reasons.

[ucrdem]

80. Thanks. The problem here is that he appears to be stoking discontent with the ACA.

It's fine if he wants to place ads in Breitbart, but not fine if he wants to lead a revolution against the ACA which is the most inclusive national health care plan we've ever managed and by his own admission (see below) has not a breath of a chance of being replaced by Sanders' plan, whatever it is. So it has the appearance of giving aid and comfort to enemies of the ACA.

"Bernie Sanders Knows His Medicare-For-All Bill Won't Pass. That's Not The Point"

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will introduce a bill next month to create a government-run, single-payer health care system. And he knows it's going to fail.

"Look, I have no illusions that under a Republican Senate and a very right-wing House and an extremely right-wing president of the United States, that suddenly we're going to see a Medicare-for-all, single-payer passed," he said recently, sitting in his Senate office. "You're not going to see it. That's obvious."

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/11/542676994/bernie-sanders-knows-his-medicare-for-all-bill-wont-pass-thats-not-the-point

[tblue37]

7. Google ads are selected by algorithm. If a word or topic is used often on a

webpage, then that causes related ads to appear. That is why right wing ads appear in DU: because we keep mentioning those topics in our posts.

[gratuitous]

9. Okay, let's go through this again

Websites that have advertising don't routinely pick and choose which ads appear on their site. They contract with an advertising aggregator to display a bunch of ads in rotation from various sources. For example, Democratic Underground gets ads from an outfit called AdChoices, which posts ads from a lot of different advertisers. Advertisers who pay AdChoices for ads get exposure on a lot of different websites, and those websites in turn get some revenue from that advertising space. Websites no more "choose" the ads that run on their pages any more than a bingo caller "chooses" to pull ball N34 out of the tray when it falls out of the hopper.

Depending on the website and its agreement with AdChoices, the website can specify that it doesn't want to carry ads for, let's say, the NRA. But a lot of websites either don't have that kind of an agreement or they don't monitor the ads all that closely, they just collect the ad revenue. If a Bernie ad shows up on Breitbart, it's because the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, not because of any nefarious scheme that caused that one rain drop to fall right in your eye.

[Ninsianna]

16. So when someone calls the Senators office to bring it to their attention

and ask what's going on, it's acceptable to be rude and not just inform them that they'll look into it and then do their due diligence?

That snarky condescension tho!

[gratuitous]

19. It depends on the caller

If someone calls the Senator's office from a non-Vermont area code, blustering and full of fury about something that isn't the Senator's doing or fault, it's possible that the staff person might respond in a manner that the caller would deem curt, rude, or even snarkily condescening. In which case, the caller should, by all means, keep calling and being a pest, because that's how things get done by golly.

Or, the caller could educate himself or herself about how things happen on the internet, and realize that something they're all worked up about isn't really the fault of the person they seem to think it is.

[Ninsianna]

23. Nope, depends on the professionalism of the perosn answering phones.

Don't care what fiction is created to justify rudeness, but it's possible the staff person should learn how adults conduct themselves, or just move over to Republican where such abuse of callers is rewarded.

By all means, everyone should just shut up, cause why bring concerns to the attention of a Senator's office or anything, since the person answering phones apparently don't know how to answer phones or speak to callers.

Love how the assumption was that the person calling was "all worked up" and "full of fury" so the person whose job it is to answer phones and communicate with citizens failed miserably at doing their job.

The snarkiness wasn't in reference to the rude staffer, since I have no clue what they said, and I don't think making up scenarios whole cloth to excuse bad behavior is a smart thing to do.

[gratuitous]

27. I wasn't the only one making assumptions

The person who called Sen. Sanders' office obviously thought the Breitbart ad was something the Senator had consciously decided to place. But rather than back up a step when told that wasn't so, the caller decides that berating the staff and questioning the receptionist's professionalism is the way to go.

Life can be a constant disappointment.

[Ninsianna]

42. You kind of were, since the OP doesn't say that.

OP says he called the Senator's office to see what was going on. He also specifically said that he wasn't given information, so again, more assumptions more making up stuff.

Now he was somehow 'berating" the staffer? Yes, life can indeed be a constant disappointment, but retreated to a fantasy world of one's own creation not based at all in reality is no way to deal with that disappointment, nor is dishonestly attacking a poster who didn't do anything of the things the fantasist has accused them of.

[LovesPNW]

58. +1000

Thanks for that ...

[Dreamer Tatum]

20. Why would they care one way or the other? nt

[Ninsianna]

25. Why would a senate staffer care if they're advertising on hate sites?

[Dreamer Tatum]

35. Yes. Why?

Maybe it converts someone.

[Ninsianna]

43. Well, generally people don't wish to be supporting financially sites that promote hate

so, if the rude staffer simply had said, sure, we're doing so consciously to "convert" Breitbart readers who we think our ads will somehow convince to cast off their Right Wing ways.

That's a pretty hefty ask from that ad, but that's not what happened here.

So, if the question is why would anyone be concerned if their ad dollars are going to support hate sites and associate their brand with hate mongers who cheerfully promote violence, the answer is, it's not what sane or rational people "choose" to do.


Unless they're fine with financially supporting hate sites, then indifference is just fine, and they embrace what they are. There are some companies and individuals who don't have a problem with where their ads appear and who support these types of sites.

I wouldn't think that Bernie would be one of them, but if that's where he's choosing to go to "convert" people, I think that's rather vile. I think this was some dumb staffer who doesn't know basic professional etiquette, and wasn't smart enough to handle the call effectively.

Even if he didn't know enough to speak of 3rd party ad hosting, he could have thanked the caller and looked into it, if only to, I don't know, do his job?

[grantcart]

34. Is this going to be on the midterm? :)

[FSogol]

36. LOL

I see what you did there.

[George II]

39. An advertiser (Sanders in this case) can stipulate which categories of websites and actually exclude

....particular sites that they don't want to appear on.

[Ninsianna]

44. The knee jerk offensive tactics are amusing.

Less time with the fiction writing in which the OP is cast as some raging psycho on the phone talking to a hapless, yet heroic phone staffer, and more with actually figuring out why this is a valid question and deserves a respectful answer, rather than condescension and ignorance.

[R B Garr]

83. lol, great description.

[R B Garr]

10. Isn't that John Conyers' bill anyway? Democrat from Michigan. nt

[Ninsianna]

26. This isn't about a bill, it's about campagin fundraising.

[R B Garr]

38. The ad was about co-signing as a citizen sponsor on to what

looked like a Medicare for all bill. Maybe the ads change, but that's the one I saw. I hate to see Conyers' not get credit for his efforts.

[Ninsianna]

46. Yes, it uses that terminology, but Conyers bill was a House one,

Bernie's would have to be a Senate one, and "citizen co sponsorship" is not a thing. Also people who have clicked on that site were sent to a fund raising site that seems to be set up to get donations and build up a list of contact information.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

70. Bernie's bill is much better.

[R B Garr]

81. What bill? Conyers' has been introducing Medicare for all

over 15 years. Looks pretty good.

From lapucelle's post:
Conyers' bill is HR 676 "The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676

[JCanete]

33. Yes, by all means. If its John Conyer's bill, are you in favor of it? nt

[lapucelle]

40. Sanders is asking for co-sponsors for a bill that he has yet to unveil.

You can see exactly what is in the Conyers Medicare for All bill that was introduced in January 2017 for the 15th time. It currently has 116 Democratic co-sponsors. And they had the advantage of being able to actually read it first.

Conyers' bill is HR 676 "The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676

[R B Garr]

41. Yes! Thank you, this is the John Conyers bill -- Democrat from Michigan

Thanks for the link. Just a quick look shows it is calls for increasing taxes on the top tier 5% of wage earners as part of the funding.
I recall Bill Clinton also raised taxes on the rich over a couple decades ago.

Thanks for clarifying that Conyers has submitted this for 15 years now! Great work supporting average Americans from the Democrats.

[Ninsianna]

47. But citizens have no standing for bill sponsorship, that requires Senators and Reps.

[lapucelle]

55. It's a bit of a gimmick.

What I don't understand is why people would be willing to "co-sponsor" a bill that hasn't been introduced. People should at least be able to read it first.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Monitor

[Ninsianna]

60. Seems like it's a fund raising tactic and data collection nothing more.

[Me.]

73. +1

[Binkie The Clown]

12. Did Jesus preach to the sinners and prostitutes?

Of course, I'm an atheist, so what do I know about it. But it seems if you want to convert someone you go where the people needing converting hang out.

[Tavarious Jackson]

13. Thank you everyone for your answers

It makes sense that he may not have choice of where his ad pops up. If only his staff would have said the same thing as some here did.

[juxtaposed]

14. you spend a lot of time at breitbart?

[Tavarious Jackson]

18. No. I saw the question being asked on twitter.

Did you see my post?

It's just a question. Why he aggressive answer?

[leftstreet]

21. So you're kinda asking for a friend

That's nice of you to do

[A-Schwarzenegger]

48. It's just shocking how some people respond

to such an innocent little sweetheart lamb of an inquiry like yours.

[Tavarious Jackson]

56. I know, Right? nt

[Autumn]

24. It works like this. You visit any site. a shopping or service site .

They don’t show ads, per se, but they do include some content provided by an advertising network.
That content allows the advertising network to place a cookie on your computer that says, in effect, “this computer was looking at X”, where X is the product or service offered by the site you’re visiting.
Eventually, you move on to another site that site is supported, in part, by advertising, so ads are displayed.
Coincidentally, that site uses the same advertising network as the previous site.
That advertising network is given its own cookie back – the one that says, “this computer was looking at X”.
That advertising network then elects to show you ads for “X”, since it “knows” that you have shown an interest in it.

Since "Elizabeth Clarke" is interested in Breitbart, when she went to Bernie's site the cookies from Breitbart showed her ads based on her interests and browsing habits. I have found when I contact a Senator that is not from my state if I am nice they are nice, if i'm rude they are rude.

[Raster]

31. if I am nice they are nice, if i'm rude they are rude...

...funny how that works, eh?

[Autumn]

32. Yeah, it's an ancient secret my Mom taught me when I was 5.

[mucifer]

29. these threads really upset me . Bernie has been fighting for our rights for decades!

Why are you trying to divide us?

We need to fight together and not have this petty paranoid Bernie Vs Hillary crap.

[Raster]

30. que the anti-bernie dependables in....

five... four.... three... two...

[Weekend Warrior]

50. I have some issues with Sanders.

There isn't one word of your post I disagree with.

[R B Garr]

84. Considering this weekend's events, extremist websites are all over the news, so it's

not that abstract for someone to come across an ad and wonder what is behind it. Geez, this is still current news. The POTUS himself is an internet troll.

[Weekend Warrior]

93. Google ads are not current news.

One quick glance and it's clear the person wit that Twitter account has a consistent issue with Sanders. Also some really good stuff at her account.

I'm not really sure what you are saying. Sorry if I got it wrong.

[R B Garr]

96. Malicious and extreme websites are definitely all

over the news. Hasn't Brietbart been on the news since Trump took office because of Bannon? Some Storm site is mentioned in the news now. White supremacy websites. Etc.

I didn't read her account. What was wrong with noticing an ad on a RW website after an attack on our country by extremists?
Edit-just looked and she is outraged about racism. Isn't everyone after that attack?

[Weekend Warrior]

45. Elizabeth Clarke needs to learn the meaning of collaboration.

This is a really shallow attack on Sanders and is based on a position of ignorance.

[ucrdem]

49. This does not seem likely to increase support for the ACA.

In fact, it seems likely to have the opposite effect.

[left-of-center2012]

54. We do not know if they were rude

Most or all Senators and Congressmen limit calls, emails, etc to their constituents.
Someone from out of state or district may be offended by that,
and consider it "rude".

[whathehell]

59. No we don't, since "rudeness" is subjective, to a large extent.

I sense people with an anti-Bernie agenda making much about little to nothing.

[left-of-center2012]

67. Amen to that

[whathehell]

92. Thanks.

[X_Digger]

57. Oh FFS. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. n/t

[m-lekktor]

62. Is this what keeps you up at night? seriously who the fuck cares!?

I can understand why Bernie's staff was rude to you if they were. you must have lots of spare time on your hands.

[Rob H.]

64. Do people seriously not understand

that ads often appear on pages they visit based on their search and browsing histories? It's been a thing for a while now. Maybe I should call Fender MIC and demand they tell me why I keep seeing their ads on 90% of the sites I visit.

[QC]

66. Sure they understand it, but the 2016 primary's not gonna rehash itself, you know. n/t

[woolldog]

69. He's got to keep his base. nt

[melman]

74. .

[PatrickforO]

76. Probably an ad service.

Nice though, seeing a 'Medicare for all' advertisement on a far right blog. That's great.

You know, over 54% of Americans approve of Medicare for all, but when the verbiage is 'single payer,' it goes down into the 40s. Words matter, folks. They really do.

I think you might be being a bit divisive here. I mean, think of it this way - Bernie's central platform plank, single payer, is being ADVERTISED, getting EXPOSURE to people who seldom go anywhere else for news that Breitbart. This is a good thing, because since the slithering snake Ronald Reagan allowed the Fairness Doctrine to die in 1987, a whole segment of our population gets their 'news' from these right-wing propaganda sites. Any time you can talk about the progressive agenda to these people, or even expose them to it, is a GOOD THING.

[Tavarious Jackson]

78. I got good responses from others on this thread

I genuinely wanted to know and what most explained made sense. Bernie was not my guy but not every post that is not positive Bernie is divisive. I now believe Bernie camp has nothing to do with some seeing ads on Breitbart.

[R B Garr]

82. Your curiosity fits with the current events, which is about white

supremacy and how they network and network online. It's been all over the news today that various IP's are deleting accounts of those hate mongers, so it's just a natural curiosity to wonder who advertises there. Geez, the extremists websites have been all over the news.

[virtualobserver]

90. A tip for you, if you want to avoid the perception of divisiveness

Don't post a tweet that contains the quote "Congratulations, Berners, you're collaborating with literal Nazis".

[David__77]

79. That tweet is the political equivalent of snuff porn.

Sick stuff..

[bobalew]

85. Well, apparently, Donald Trump advertizes on DU, also..... so what?

This is a result of ad servers, more than anything else. Google ads are stupid, as the mere mention of a subject, google ads posts something on that subject, even if it's inappropriate....