2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumYou will get your wish.
Hillary and her campaign have stated up front and plain that they neither need Bernie Sanders voters or want us.
That is going to be the dead ox and the wagon it was carrying dragging her race through the meat and bones GE.
Half of the Democratic constituency is neither motivated by her, or sure that she isn't corrupt.
A bunch of folks around here like to talk about reality.
That is some reality you can sink your teeth into, and ignore the taste.
Renew Deal
(81,841 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)though. DWS is her mouthpiece and pretty much muddied the water so badly, that iron plate is more see through.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)dchill
(38,423 posts)pokerfan
(27,677 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)You said she stated up front she doesn't want them or need them. That is a flat out lie.
Sweet Jeebus! WTF is the pint of a post like this? It's one thing to feel sad in the wake of you candidate losing. It's anither to go into full "cut off one's nose yo spite one's face" mode.
Your guy lost. One of them was bound too, and it was always a hard slog for him. Now is the time to pull on your grown up pants and deal with the issue at hand.... Ensuring that naricisstict maniac Trump never gets near the White House.
What's more important? Stopping Trump, or provinig to yourself that you were "right."
If you can't support Hillary, at least fight Trump in the only way that matters.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)I stated my opinion.
Yours may differ.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)that had meaning that they did NOT. A very shabby post just meant to stir up dissension.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Can we expect a return of the communications decency act, maybe?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)There's your unification ticket. The party and its megafunders.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)paraphrasing to the effect : She said it was up to Sanders to get his people to unify behind her she's very confident that it happen... cuz Trump.
But "want and need" ? I never heard anything remotely close to that.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)If anything, she's turning me off more (if that's possible).
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Truer words have never been spoken.
2banon
(7,321 posts)It really says it all, doesn't it?
pinskinny
(82 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Too little too late, after way too much crap has gone down.
The Hillary Campaign's Project "Discredit him, disqualify him and unify the Party later."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-democrats-unity/
And then there's the Hillary campaign's Project "Bernie Lost Me," which finally explains to me a phenomenon on this board I've been mocking for months because poseurs on this board were not sufficiently skillful to pull it off.
Bernie's supporters have taken the and used it for their own purposes, ending their #BernieLostMe tweets with #HillaryLostMe.
dchill
(38,423 posts)Much, much later. Maybe never.
arikara
(5,562 posts)because it wasn't a month ago she said she didn't need them.
yuiyoshida
(41,818 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)I read a poll today that said 72% of Bernies supporters would vote for Hillary.
I guess maybe you don't speak for those huh.
Whether you like it or not>
And obviously you don't.
Bernie isn't going to be our nominee.
That wasn't because DUers rejected him.
Democratic primary voters rejected him.
Hillary is ahead of him by hundreds of delegates and millions of votes.
You didn't get your preferred candidate because he didn't get enough votes.
Sorry
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Have been since the first time I could cast a vote.
I voted for Gore in *FLORIDA* for God's sake.
If you think I will not get pissed off at election fraud, you are addressing the wrong person.
Election fraud on behalf of the United States of America allowed George W. Bush to perpetrate death, destruction and decimation.
I am in no way fond of that.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)dchill
(38,423 posts)Guess I'll send it to Bernie.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Hillary Clinton Seizes The Upper Hand Before Voting Starts With Super Delegate Pledges
In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the partys estimated 713 super delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made private commitments to support Hillary.
Superdelegates are elected officials and party leaders who are given special voting delegate status at the national convention separate from the delegates who are chosen by Democratic primary voters and caucus attendees. While they make up just over 15 percent of the total delegates at the Democratic convention, they can be decisive in a close nomination contest.
To become the partys nominee, a Democrat will need to secure a majority of the approximately 4,491 delegates at stake in 2016. If the Clinton campaigns count is accurate she has secured the support of over 60 percent of the superdelegates, which puts her 1/5th of the way to locking down the 2,246 delegates she would need to win a majority at next years convention.
Delegates who have pledged their support this early are under no obligation to honor their pledge. However, the high number of superdelegates planning to back Clinton demonstrates her enduring popularity with party leaders and current elected officials. Barring a campaign collapse, it would be unlikely for many pledged superdelegates to defect away from supporting her.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/29/hillary-clinton-moves-lock-nomination-voting-starts-super-delegate-pledges.html
Then there was the
Clinton's former campaign co-chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has been far more loyal to Hillary Clinton than to the Democratic voters. There has not been one decision where she went against Clinton's wishes.
The media has examined hack attacks from the gop clown car, but not serious concerns from the left wing of the Democratic Party, such as her support of the Honduran coup, what risks of war with Russia would result from her proposed Syrian "no-fly" zones, her pushing for regime change in Libya (with no plan to stabilize the country afterwards), her promotion of fracking around the planet as Secretary of State, etc.
Saying that Clinton has been vetted because she didn't kill Vince Foster doesn't make it so.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)You're at a track race. One racer (Hillary) gets assigned to run on the inner lane by the officials. What's more it will be a staggered start and she will get to start halfway around the track from her opponent. Her opponent (Bernie) is told by the officials that he gets to start in the furthest lane out and has to jump over hurdles while she will have none. As they are coming to the finish line, while he's closing in on her, despite the handicaps he's been under, her supporters and the race officials all yell that he needs to drop out of the race before he hits the finish line because she is to be the winner.
Yeah, it's been a real fair campaign.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)You're a lifelong independent candidate. You're too lazy to get your name on all the state ballots so you decide that you'll just latch onto the resources of one of the national parties.
They see you as an outsider (because you are). Another candidate that has belonged to the party and recognizes the importance of down ticket races for decades is favored by the majority of primary voters.
You are confused because the party is not supporting you while you trash the party and the party's presumptive nominee.
You are confused about why people are getting angry toward you.
Well, not you, but you know who I mean.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)not very talented drive (25 year in Congress and NO support from colleagues). The lead racer from the very beginning was far out ahead, taking the inside lane for herself as the leader and was always too far ahead to be caught.
You might want to read about the "invisible primary." The race started long before we sat down to watch.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)There is only one party that is already registered in all 50 states. The Libertarian Party. It's not something one candidate can or neglects to do.
There is a legal reason. Try something else. Oh, i watched it on Rachel a couple of nights agp
Blanks
(4,835 posts)The point is that he took advantage of the existing resources of the Democratic Party and then complained about how unfair it is that the party (that he doesn't belong to) doesn't treat him like he's a member of the party. Or whatever it is that he's complaining about...
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)ally for Leftish causes. And you want to make him bad? Time to think...not regurgitate talking points. I mean he's been voting for and with them for years.
I don't think it's too much to ask to return the favor.
Problem is, the Democratic Party is now the DWS/HRC/DNC Party. They do not represent the views of the Left OR Bernie. Why do you think no Democrat ran against HRC? Think about it. Does "Coronation" ring a bell.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)and he was a good solid candidate, but like Bernie, he wasn't getting more votes.
You're seriously gonna accuse someone of using 'talking points' and then say 'coronation' in the same post?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I respect him.
If you appreciate his candidacy, it should tell you, without doubt, why Hillary Clinton is the worst possible candidate our party could have decided to back.
I'm confused that our party didn't pick a decent human being like Martin O'Malley. No, we can't have O'Malley, no we can't have Bernie Sanders, we get Hillary Clinton.
And people wonder why there is a general air of somnolence when it comes to voting.
The only votes Hillary Clinton can drive to the polls are the ones against her. She's never going to be President, and I don't care if she is running against a sack of dog doo doo. Democrats in the party have warned you, we will vote for her despite the fact that we are tepid at best, and when she loses, we will say it.
[font size=3 color=maroon] We told you so. [/font]
Blanks
(4,835 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)of needing to recant my statement in this dimension of time, space and reality. I've never been the "shut up and play stupid" variety of person so I'm not going to start bullshitting at this date in my lifetime.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)It'll be because Americans love their celebrities. Sanders wouldn't be able to beat him either.
It's why Reagan won, it's why Swartznegger won, it's like Eddie Murphy in 'The Distinguished Gentleman' vote for "the name you know".
I'm indifferent to which democratic candidate wins, but I don't believe that Bernie has a better chance of winning. I think Hillary has the better chance of beating whoever the republicans put up, regardless of what pollsters try to tell us.
They'll tear him apart on TV commercials if he gets the nomination.
brush
(53,725 posts)Trump will lose spectacularly.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)I liked him but he didn't get out of the starting gate.
And I'm tired of the same old talking points...indeed...and they go hand Iin hand with the Coronation that will not happen. At best we'll have a severely flawed candidate. And the Republicans will rejoice.
And my saying so has no power to do anything...just observing.
But the OP says that half of the Democrats don't like her.
Bernie math.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)and I am not voting for Hillary Clinton in the general.
840high
(17,196 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Otherwise any complaints about Clinton supporters you have will apply to Sanders himself.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Mike__M
(1,052 posts)He's for us more than we're for him. We know it and he knows it; it's what he's been saying. That's why he tells Clinton that she'll need to win us over, because we're not his to give away.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I think 75% represents Sanders supporters more than 25%. But I know this math thing is really difficult in these trying times.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/sanders-supporters-not-vote-clinton-221642
A good chunk of the 25% were probably never Sanders supporters.
But it's telling how there seems to be a rift in his supporters, some think that he will take it to the convention and contest the thing, while the others realize he will do the right thing and are just going to shrug off their support.
dchill
(38,423 posts)You don't get to say ANYTHING for sure. That absolutism and authoritarianism is just a nail in the coffin of the DNC/HRC campaign.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)by this point, agreeing.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Most are just anti-Clinton.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I consider myself to be both.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)When Sanders starts supporting her.
I've supported them both from the start, though I preferred Sanders and he won my state with ease, I never had an issue about Clinton that wasn't constructive factual criticism.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Funny, sounded about right to this one.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... have stated no such thing.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)If they exist, they should be easy to find.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)says otherwise. This is what the OP claims, "Hillary and her campaign have stated up front and plain that they neither need Bernie Sanders voters or want us." So you say that's not true, that Clinton-Sachs actually needs the Sanders supporters. Show us a link for that bullcrap.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... and you know that.
One cannot prove a negative - one can only prove a positive. So if HRC or her campaign "have stated up front and plain that they neither need Bernie Sanders voters or want us", the quotes of them saying so should be easily accessible.
Where are they?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)proving that the Clinton Campaign has asked or shown any indication that they want the support of Sanders supporters. That's a positive. It hasn't happened. The hubris prevents it. All the Sanders supporters have gotten from the Clinton Campaign is name calling and derision. Whenever the Sanders supporters object to the heavy handed shenanigans, they are now being labeled violent. And you have the Corp-Media on your side, echoing the labels of violent thugs. This is supposed to be a democracy but Sanders supporters are facing a Democratic Party elite that is favoring Clinton and a Corp-Media that is glad to go along with the Oligarchy's favorit candidate.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... you really don't understand how this works.
The OP stated: "Hillary and her campaign have stated up front and plain that they neither need Bernie Sanders voters or want us."
I simply asked for a link to one or more of these "up front and plain" statements.
Again, if they were so "up front and plain", they should be easy to locate - unless, of course, no such statements were ever made.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)mind. I think the hubris and arrogance of the Clinton Campaign, with the billionaires, the DNC, and Corp-media behind them precludes them from "wanting" help from anyone in the lowly 99%. If your getting millions from Goldman-Sacs and friends, why do you need the middle and working class.
In this class war why would you choose to side with Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street? It's rhetorical, I know why. Adulation of the wealthy.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... "up front and plain" statements from HRC or her campaign, I see.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Some side with the big money, Wall Street, the Koch Bros, Goldman-Sachs, the neocons, even Ruppert Murdock, Corp-Media, Citizens United, and turn their backs on those among us struggling and have nerve to be arrogant. Shame.
I am done so Bob-Bye
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)You couldn't find those "up front and plain statements" by HRC or her campaign. So rather than just admit they don't exist, you do the "buh-bye" thing.
Par for the course.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Pressure off.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)I actually can respect that a little.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)69% of Sanders supporter say they will support Hillary if she wins the nomination.
The writing is on the wall. Just waiting for Sanders and his over exuberant supporters to see it.
But they are looking through angry eyes right now, so the denial remains.
25 percent of Sanders supporters say they would not back Clinton in a general election
McClatchy-Marist poll.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article70202867.html#storylink=cpy
Aerows
(39,961 posts)not at all.
Think you have a message?
Step the fuck up to the plate and let's discuss issues.
I'm right here.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)Your point.
" we might just get our wish ...Hillary and her campaign have stated up front and plain that they neither need Bernie Sanders voters or want us."
Your point being directly addressed:
We have 69% support from Sander's non-insane supporters
Bernie's fanatics have 25% that would not support her.
Dems don't need the fanatical Sanders folk making demands and threats.
Your plate is empty. Your "point" moot.
Response to Aerows (Reply #10)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Member since: Tue Apr 19, 2016, 09:16 PM
Number of posts: 694
Number of posts, last 90 days: 694
Favorite forum: General Discussion: Primaries, 483 posts in the last 90 days (70% of total posts)
Favorite group: Hillary Clinton, 93 posts in the last 90 days (13% of total posts)
Last post: Thu May 19, 2016, 10:03 PM
Jury
Willing to serve on Juries: Yes
Chance of serving on Juries: 0% (explain)
Hosting
puffy socks is not currently hosting any forums or groups.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)profile updates?
Was there a hall monitor announcement that I missed at some point, or is this a self-appointed gig?
Considering that you're still counting your stay in months, this thing you do with the member profiles seems kinda silly.
Try a term on MIRT or something.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #51)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Almost a whole year, even!
Too funny...
ETA:
Seriously though...
I'll "worry about it" as long as you do, I suppose. You want to keep harassing new members, that's up to you, but you might get called on it from time to time. I'm sure Skinner might not care much for the ad hoc screening of his membership.
Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #69)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)And you're still new, AFAIC.
Looks like you racked up a few more without my help.
Now who's "unhinged?"
Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #143)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)It's funny that Sanders supporters talk about bringing in new people to politics and yet you behave like this. I guess that doesn't apply if they don't agree with you. Hypocrisy is sadly common.
Response to mythology (Reply #137)
artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)if she won against a bag of hair.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)That's 25% of Sanders supporters, which is only ~40% of the Democratic voters
That leaves a small fraction of people who say now that they won't support her and keep threatening as if someone is going to press their lips to their back sides for their vote..a vote none of these fanatical supporters ever intend on giving. And thats what they say now.
Some of these people will wake up before Nov.
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Recent elections haven't tended to have margins that can afford that volume of lost votes.
dchill
(38,423 posts)Those crude, false, defamatory tactics are having the opposite effect of what Hillary "the Anointed One" Clinton should want. Way yo go, Brockolytes.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)Great how you picked up on that so quickly.
dchill
(38,423 posts)I see.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The lunatic fringe is indeed crazy and doesn't matter a goddamn bit.
They are nothing more than this year's PUMAs, who were saying the same kind of shit 8 years ago. The importance some people place in their own ridiculous tantrums is directly proportional to their irrelevance.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Right here, right now is an opportunity to espouse it.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)The problem with (some) of the Bernie supporters here is that they believe their numbers are legion, that they all think alike, and that they are all rabid BS fans who will never, ever, ever vote for HRC.
A lot of people who supported Bernie in the primaries do not see themselves as part of a "revolution" or a "movement" - they simply preferred BS to HRC. But they will vote for the Democrat in November without hesitation.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Legion? Not getting the authoritative-ness of all of this short but declarative tome. Just on DU?
Over generalize much?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that behind every vote cast for Bernie in the primaries there is a rabid "revolutionist" who won't vote for HRC in November, that's your prerogative.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... who are BS supporters. Not one of them thinks they are part of a "revolution", and not one of them has even considered not voting for HRC in November.
I know that's anecdotal evidence, but the law of averages would dictate that if all Bernie supporters, or even the majority of them, are rabid BSers who consider themselves part of a "movement" determined not to vote for the (D) if it isn't Bernie, at least some of that 40 would be of that mindset.
And yet there isn't even ONE.
Go figure, huh?
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)At least that's my take away here. In any case, anecdotal information I understand. But grand generalizations tend to not fit my style, that's all.
As for myself, the only one I am certain about, I don't know what I will do or not do. I guess I'm uncommitted other than a Bernie Supporter. This is quite a roller coaster political time.
Thanks for the thoughts.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I'm not the one convoluting the "revolution" with not voting Democrat. It's the Bernie supporters here who have done that all along.
That's why you see posts about "try winning in November without US", and "Hillary will never win the GE because WE won't vote for her".
They seem to think that every BS supporter is automatically an anti-Hillary voter - and they are deluding themselves as to the numbers of BS supporters who actually feel that way.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Into the system. Young and those formerly disgusted with the choices and the system. Many do not idolize the Clintons and look at her record with fresh eyes. She has not earned a pass to them.
In fact, she likely represents the establishment in a negative way. So I don't think Bernie is to blame if these potential voters decide to take a pass.
Bernie was their hope. The Establishment appears to have done whatever was necessary to silence him...and those new or formerly disillusioned voices. He brought them in, but they like he, were rejected.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)gets the nomination, I expect the vast majority (not all and perhaps not the most strident) of her supporters will support him. I prefer Bernie but know that a President Trump is not a liberal option.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I wouldn't like voting for Bernie Sanders - a true nose-hold operation - but it would be absolutely necessary to avoid social catastrophe. People with sense don't play around with shit like that.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)nervous necessity. From the beginning I wondered if he would draw the line where people like me do, and now I know I at least cannot trust him to do that. But, he's still, I believe, 1000 times less risky than Trump. And who knows, maybe he'd accomplish some good things through extreme intransigence and not be a failed president.
HubertHeaver
(2,520 posts)I will have to go to my secondary browser to see the others.
They will get their wish.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)HubertHeaver
(2,520 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...gauging by my FB feed. People that were pleading other Sanders supporters in the GE are now vowing not to vote for Hillary. I've never before seen a campaign with such a single-minded focus on driving away voters, but there it is. Maybe she figures GE is in the bag because of election fraud.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)is behind Clinton. You want to continue the destruction of the middle and working classes, vote Goldman-Sachs/Clinton.
JudyM
(29,177 posts)but I'd be willing to bet she is going to have far fewer canvassers in the GE than any dem in recent elections.
I will be one of the regular, hard working volunteers that she will not have. After decades of volunteering. I will not spend 1 minute of my life helping her. I will likely vote for her because I'm in a purple state, but that would be all.
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)and vote for Mrs. Clinton. She is really pushing back on Mr. Sanders and has forgotten how she stayed in the race in 2008. I cannot imagine Americans who really want change can now hold their noses and vote for Mrs. Clinton. That is a decision Mr. Sanders supporters have to make just so that Trump does not get elected as President. Every fricking voting season, it is the same old!
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Have to hope that Bernie gets there, she cannot beat trump ...Th r's won;t even have to stretch the truth much to make her look bad...she does that to herself...
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)establishment nominees, especially the ones who give speeches and refuse to release them, lies all the frigging time and am hoping Americans do not fall for this shit yet again. But if not her and Bernie does not have a chance in hell, we still do not want Trump. What is going on in America? 440 million people and only one non-establishment person is running for the presidency! How on earth Bill O'Malley did not gain any traction, his views were similar to Mr. Sanders. The Webb guy got lost on his way to the Republican debate, he was useless!
elleng
(130,683 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)I never have to doubt your sincerity, and you never have to doubt mine.
You are the real deal, lady.
MFM008
(19,803 posts)what then?
840high
(17,196 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)than that happening.
I really do like to ice skate, though, so you never know.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)HRC might not be my ideal candidate but I'm voting for the Democratic Party's nominee, whoever they might be.
It's not a tough call for me.
Your vote is your business.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)LonePirate
(13,405 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Doesn't seem he's looking forward to banning half his userbase. That's not gonna be good for business.
frylock
(34,825 posts)eastwestdem
(1,220 posts)Peachhead22
(1,077 posts)...tell a large block of people that they DON'T want their vote. I swear, she must have Larry, Curly and Moe advising her.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Sancho
(9,067 posts)Neither Hillary or her campaign have said any such thing. Both have repeatedly said they would unify the Democrats, represent all people, and that Bernie's positions are much closer to Hillary than anything the GOP puts forward.
The vast majority of Democrats have polled they would vote for Hillary since Bernie has lost.
The only stubborn person who attacks fellow Democrats is Bernie Sanders (because he is not a Democrat).
djean111
(14,255 posts)Social Security instead of raising the cap, and now says yes to single payer? She is now against cluster bombs and the TPP?
Wow! I must have missed that news!
No, she and Bernie are not closer in their positions, looking at them on the ACTUAL ISSUES. She is a Third Way DINO, and Bernie embodies everything the Democratic Party used to stand for. Nothing RW about it. Except Hillary, the Third Way, and Debbie DINO are dragging the party over to the RW.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)same affect as 2008.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)sidelining themselves and then hiding from their disreputable history.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)This has been the most bizarre election season/campaign I have ever been involved in all my adult years. I remember '68 but, I was a child. I remember assassinations being commonplace. I remember Kent State.
I think.
This can get worse.
I hope it doesn't but, some of the things I have seen on here this morning give me pause.
I keep using ignore but, in real life I know we will not be ignored and neither will they.
We live in interesting times.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I believe you op is completely based on a lie.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)That is a non-starter for me.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)and they do not want us to have a voice in determining policy.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)the Democratic Party is almost nothing but liberal progressives, plus some of those whose dysfunctional conceit is to consider themselves The Only True Progressives.
Demsrule86
(68,454 posts)Hillary has put up with much crap from Sanders to try to unify the party...be he would rather hurt people and help elect Trump it seems.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Telling lies is not my particular issue.
Failure to tell the truth has never been my wheelhouse, and don't I know it.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)arikara
(5,562 posts)You're making me laugh.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)but people are saying it's a shoo-in for her. LOL.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I am stunned that there are people in this very country, on this very planet that sincerely believe that Hillary Clinton will make it through the General Election without being indicted, much less ascend to the Presidency.
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Prognosis: no hope of building consensus with Republicans; Plan B = capitulate.
LexVegas
(6,022 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)So, I guess we're even.