Most of the voters up for grabs are uncommitted former Sanders supporters.

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Tue Sep 6, 2016, 08:48 PM - Edit history (2)

We already have ALL the "moderate Republican" voters(no Republican voter anywhere is actuall "moderate" in the sense we use the term anymore) we could ever get. There is nothing HRC could say or do that would gain us any more of those voters(at least not without lowering us to the 1996 platform, which is unthinkable).

The path forward is to the left...to the 10%-15% of former Sanders supporters who have not committed to any candidate (I'm not talking about those who are actually supporting OTHER candidates...they are lost to us no matter what) .

We can GET those voters...but here is what we need to do:

1) Make it clear that with us, they will absolutely get an administration that stands up to corporate power and treats it as something that is simply one part of this country, not something above and beyond all the rest of us.

2) Make it clear that our military policy will have a bias towards moving away from military intervention...we've proved we will defend this country, so we don't need to keep "projecting force" for the sake of projecting force. The voters want a choice between a war party and a party that at least sees peace as a possibility in the perceivable future.

3) Support trade policies that open markets WITHOUT imposing a race to the bottom.

These are not radical or unachievable things. Nor are they unpopular.

But they can be the difference between victory and defeat.

We win if we persuade people that the differences are major and that their voices will be heard.

[Demsrule86]

1. Right because the Donald is offering all that?

Unless Hillary could magically morph into Bernie...it won't work...die hard supporters who would elect Trump rather than a Hillary at this point..they are not reachable unless they come to their senses...as for your list...the president is one person. In order to do what you want, we need Congress. The supporters who remain opposed to Hillary Clinton are more about the man Bernie...not the policies or they could never support Trump...and you go on JPR, you know this...I have seen the posts on JPR where they talk about voting for Trump, and it galls me that many still post here.

[Ken Burch]

5. No, The Donald isn't offering that. That wasn't what I'm saying.

And if you read my OP, I made a distinction between those former Sanders supporters who are uncommitted(THEY are the ones I was talking about) and those who are backing Trump (a group that is extremely small and too irrational to reach).

I AGREE with you that we need Congress. Bernie and everyone who supported him agrees with that and we always did.

BTW, I don't go to the site you mentioned, and I'm not talking about trying to reach its supporters. From what I've heard, it's both toxic and irrelevant.

And it's not about HRC morphing into Bernie...actually, it's about acknowledging that, even if people believed that she was more electable, Bernie's movement was not and is not something that needs to be crushed...a lot of HRC supporters actually agreed with and still agree with the agenda of that movement. We vastly increase our chances of victory in the fall be having the ticket keep embracing that agenda, and in accepting that Sanders supporters are HRC's allies and deserve full trust and acceptance.

The clearer we make the differences, the better we do. Any blurring hurts us, as would any "Sistah Souljah" moments or left-bashing.

[Demsrule86]

43. If you won't vote for Hillary, you are backing Trump. And that includes any voting third party.

That includes all Green voters. And I have seen the posts on JPR from so called 'left' voters (many are rightie trolls on JPR). I do not believe that those who are not committed after seeing Trummp in action are reachable. If you could listen to that immigration speech and not do everything you can to stop that man...then you are not progressive and are driven by personality and not issues. The 'I hate Hillary' crowd'...some bought the right wing Bullshit and some can't get over the primary...whatever the cause, I don't think we can do much. I think they are a very small percentage of the vote and some are first-time voters. We won without them last time and will have to muddle throug. I don't want to see Bernie's movement crushed. Although, I have to admit...forming a 501(C)(4) was odd. I mean Bernie did it with small donations...remarkable really. You can't donate directly to candidate with this sort of organiziation either...ah well. I am not an expert. I am sure there is a good purpose. As for left bashing which I don't really see here myself. I do not consider those who refust to vote for Sec Clinton left...you can not be progressive and vote for Trump or a third party candidate with the courts at stake...sorry they are not left. If by not bashing the left...you mean allow Greens to come here and attack our candidate than I sayabsolutely not.

[CajunBlazer]

67. Sanders supporters aren't stupid - Hillary shouldn't have to pander to them

If they don't understand where their selfish self interests lie in this election, if they don't understand what a danger Donald Trump is to this country, no amount of pandering is going to persuade them. If they don't understand these things, it is because they have convinced themselves that Hillary is evil and speaks in lies.

They have done this to themselves and only they can address their personal problem.

[Demsrule86]

82. I agree with that.

And most will vote for her if they vote at all. Some are more like groupies really...they were never Democrats or interested in policy...but really just a fan of Bernie Sanders. Who knows what they will do.

[onecaliberal]

2. 90% of us are with HRC.

[writes3000]

3. I'm grateful for that. As for the others, they should vote for the candidate...

Whose platform most closely aligns with Sanders' platform. If they do want to do that, oh well.

[Ken Burch]

7. And we can get most of the rest to join us(at least the ones still undecided).

It would help if people stopped acting like we haven't proven our loyalty and can't be trusted.

[onecaliberal]

13. Agreed. I'm doing all I can.

[LongtimeAZDem]

34. If someone claiming to be a Democrat hasn't committed to Clinton at this point,

then they haven't proven their loyalty, and can't be trusted, IMO.

Why should we waste our time with them?

[oberliner]

4. That is definitely not true

There are lots of Republicans who are disgusted by Trump and contemplating supporting Hillary.

In fact, several prominent ones have already done so.

[Ken Burch]

6. Not many, and there support would come at too high a price. n/t.

[oberliner]

8. Many more than you think

Especially in the states that matter most, such as Florida.

[writes3000]

9. What imaginary price is that?

I've seen no Republicans asking Hillary to change her positions. Nor have I seen Bernie supporters saying they would support her if only she changed something.

The Republicans who have supported Hillary have done so because they believe she is the most prepared candidate. This idea that if more Republicans support her, it will chase away liberals seems like fantasy.

[Ken Burch]

11. If they didn't want her to move further right, they'd already BE supporting her.

Anyone who's ok with her positions is ALREADY supporting her.

What else would keep anyone on the fence?

[Demsrule86]

44. How is that?

You want to take votes from the other side...remember Reagan Democrats? I am not so 'pure' that I don't want every damn vote (except from white supremacists). Are we a political party that wants to win or a discussion society...that puts out lofty ideas that never come to pass?

[LongtimeAZDem]

10. Nonsense; there are far more dissafected moderates

Those Sanders supporters not already on board cannot be won without extremist concessions, if then, and for every one of those we gain, we'll lost three moderates. There aren't enough of them to be worth it, regardless.

[Ken Burch]

12. If the moderates aren't already backing HRC out of simple decency...

...they aren't actually "moderates".

And there aren't any changes we could make to win them over that wouldn't be betrayals of everything we stand for as a party.

[onecaliberal]

15. ^^^ that^^^. There are two people running and one is EXTREME.

If you haven't made up your mind you are clearly NOT moderate.

[LongtimeAZDem]

17. "If the moderates aren't already backing HRC out of simple decency" - They are, which is the point

That is exactly what is happening, and is why your premise is unfounded.

The fact that the Sanders supporters you want to pander to are still "up for grabs" demonstrates that they are NOT showing that same simple decency.

You're contradicting yourself.

[relayerbob]

31. Bull ... and don't demonize those who disagree

There are many in this country who want NEITHER candidate. Hillary needs to make her case on why she is the best candidate, not why Trump is the worst. There are many who are sick of negative campaigning and want answers. She'll do just that, I'm sure. Obama won on hope, not on John McCain/Mitt Romney is an asshole.

[Ken Burch]

35. I'm for positive campaigning.

And I'm fully aware that a lot of people have issues with both candidates.

I'm fine with HRC trying to convey "hope", too.

What I'm saying is that there aren't any large groups of voters who could be won over by our candidate shifting further right and especially not any who'd switch to HRC if only she made a show of telling progressives to go Cheney themselves on anything.

That's what I'm trying to ward off, here.

[Demsrule86]

45. Our party has never been far left...that is the Greens.

We have a variety of beliefs. And I would remind you that all progressive policy has come about because the Democratic Party did it...Nancy Pelosi sacrificed her majority in order to give us healthcare which has saved thousands and thousand of lives ...perhaps millions in the end.

[Ken Burch]

61. Even the Greens aren't "far left"- "far left" is the Khmer Rouge, not peaceful activism

for real, small-d democratic change. No one who is progressive should use terms like "far left", terms which are intended to delegitimize decent people who seek to make life better.

All of us accept that, from time to time, there will only be incremental gains.

The point is to never lose the vision of BROAD change, of the creation of a society and a world that is genuinely just, compassionate, inclusive, sustainable and peaceful. Even when we accept half-measures, we need to be telling people to keep working for the next gain, that the peaceful struggle for the world we need is always valid and must always go on. There must always be fiery calls to keep struggling, to fight on for more, to push for the next set of gains.

We didn't lose the House in 2010 because of the ACA(if that was the case, Bill Clinton would have held onto the house in 1994, because health care reform was stopped).

We started losing it right after the 2008 election, when Rahm Emanuel basically told the Obama movement to fuck off and die, that they weren't needed. The people in that movement had been led to believe that they would continue to be part of the project AFTER the swearing-in. Instead, they were simply dismissed and all the enthusiasm the Obama movement(a movement that was probably more popular than the actual candidate it supported in some respects)had created was dissipated.

The lesson of 2010 isn't that we shouldn't have tried for a healthcare bill(it was the most important thing the administration got through in those first two years...everything else, while good, was minor in comparison). It's that, when we are forced to accept a watered-down thing like that, we should use the anger over those who took the most important things out of that bill(AND those who stopped "card-check" for union recognition, and those who killed Van Jones "green jobs" ideas)to MOBILIZE THE BASE to show up at the polls and wipe out the people who were impediments to real change. Had the Obama movement NOT been demobilized, it could have done the work of saving and possibly increasing our majorities in 2010. It was only that movement that was going to bring out the base, and we could never win by making the choice our party's strategists made to distance the party from that base and treat the base as if it had no right to have a say in this country at all.

If the party had had anything like a competent GOTV effort in 2010, if the administration, the DSCC, and the DCCC had run ads DEFENDING AND PRAISING the ACA, featuring people who had been helped by it, if the president had been on the stump every weekend that fall, as he should have been, we could have used what happened in Congress to get a high enough turnout to at least hold the House and possibly enough to make gains in both chambers. Instead, the party leadership basically gave up on the midterms by mid-summer, and then blamed the VOTERS for the result they had given up trying to prevent.

I am thankful for all that Speaker Pelosi did to get the ACA through, and yes, the Democratic Party has done a lot of good. But to keep doing good, we need to encourage, validate and SUPPORT the work of people on the leading edge of the justice struggles-after all, they are the ones who have given the party every good idea it ever passed into law.

[Demsrule86]

62. Well the greens attacked Obama as a sell out and the watered down version

as you call it saved my daughter's life last year when she had a serious illness.

[Ken Burch]

70. I'm glad the ACA saved your daughter's life.

Imagine how much better we'd have done in 2010 or 2014 if the party had run ads showing people who had been helped by that bill...if we had had mass rallies across the country mobilizing the people Rahm had made unwelcome and promising to fight on for what they cared about(which is also, or at least should be, what you and I care about).

We lost those midterms because the national leadership didn't even try to win them. That has to change. If anything, we should be spending MORE on GOTV in the midterms than in presidential years...because we would sweep EVERY midterm if only we mobilized and enthused the base.

Instead, in 2010 and 2014, we cared only about not offending "centrist independents", a group who mainly wanted to make sure that MOST of the people who voted Democratic are stopped from making any major gains in politics. And after leaving the base out in the cold, refusing to do any serious GOTV effort AND demobilizing the Obama movement just to appease them, we couldn't even GET those centrist independents to vote for us in the midterms(or in 2012).

The lesson is clear: This party must never again run a campaign like we did in 1994, 2010, or 2014.

[Demsrule86]

81. I agree completely.

We should have fought back...but the craven pols did not back Obama and the ACA. People who don't have pre-existing don't understand that before the ACA...you could not get insurance if you had one or you were priced out of the market. Thousands died every year. What we have is not perfect...I spent 8000. out of pocket plus premiums last year...but at least we had it...without it, she would have been refused treatment. My cousin died six months before the ACA went into effect in a water skiing accident...head injury...they waited to make his Mom agree to pay, and it was too late.

[JI7]

14. the Sanders voters who are undecided are not liberals

anyone who can look at this election and isn't sure how to vote is not a liberal.

it's mostly moderate republicans which is mostly white women who are the true undecideds .

[GulfCoast66]

16. For Christ sake

Give it up.

[Ken Burch]

20. Give WHAT up? I'm trying to help the Democratic ticket get elected. n/t.

[GulfCoast66]

29. Ok

Then vote for Hillary.

And instead of telling her what she has to do to capture the votes of 'leftists'...spend your time telling them that they have their heads up their ass if they are not voting for her.

Because this election has highlighted more than any I can remember that there is often a big difference between a liberal and a leftist.

[Ken Burch]

33. It doesn't work to insult people if you want to win them over.

Why pretend it does?

[LongtimeAZDem]

36. Nothing is going to win them over

To paraphrase you: if the Sanders supporters aren't already backing HRC out of simple decency...

...they aren't actually Sanders supporters.

[KitSileya]

79. More like: If the Sanders supporters aren't already backing HRC out of simple decency

... they aren't actually decent, and no amount of reasoning will change their mind.

[LongtimeAZDem]

80. Exactly (nt)

[Demsrule86]

63. If this is another be nice to greens post and welcome them here...

NO WAY!!!

[Ken Burch]

66. No...it's an anti-McCarthyism post.

Progressives should never say anything that sounds like redbaiting.

[Demsrule86]

83. First of all...I don't see how this is anything like McCarthyism.

I dislike Greens and have no interest in them period end of story...they have done nothing but damage the progressive agenda. McCartyism would be if the government arrested them or made them testify before Congress...nothing to do with my opinion. And they don't belong at Democratic underground. I have no interest in pandering to potential voters who are so selfish they would consider electing Donald Trump and yet claim they are progressive.

[LongtimeAZDem]

30. Any Sanders supporter not already committed to voting for Clinton is a lost cause

They are either too ignorant, stubborn, or sanctimonious to be swayed by reason.

They have chosen to make themselves politically irrelevant, and you're not going to change their minds.

[BainsBane]

18. Thank goodness Clinton has you

to guide her. She might actually think the hundreds of millions of Americans, most of whom never cast votes in the primary, actually matter. But no. Thanks to your sage advice, we now know the only voters who count are the ones who so despise Clinton that they are willing to sit back and let Donald Trump be president. That they show absolutely no interest in her policy positions might lead some to think that their opposition actually has nothing to do with policy. But if she suddenly--a mere two months from the general election--becomes the guy she defeated in the primary, she can finally win over that approximately 1 million voters who matter so much more than the rest. And now that you've issued your great words of wisdom, she can finally slog her way through a presidential campaign to stand a chance against an opponent who is trailing by 8-10 points in the polls.

[zappaman]

19. !!!

[LongtimeAZDem]

27. +1 (nt)

[Ken Burch]

24. You assume the voters I'm talking about

are in radical disagreement with those "hundreds of millions of Americans" you speak of, or as if there is a need to choose between the two groups.

In fact, there is little if anything the two groups actually disagree with.

There is no massive support for perpetual military intervention in other regions, or for trade deals that require a race to the bottom. or for deference to the wishes of corporate America on economics.

HRC has some good positions...she just needs to draw the distinctions more clearly, push hard for a massive turnout and spark as much passion as possible in the electorate.

I'm not calling for anything you would actually disagree with here.

[BainsBane]

72. You are the one who proclaimed that those are the only undecided voters in America

Everything you have posted is an assumption. You don't even make an effort to provide evidence. Why bother with data when all that matters is what you believe? Everyone has their own beliefs and priorities. The difference is that you assume that yours are universal, absolute.

Then there is your absurd assumption that your posts here act as some sort of conduit to the Clinton campaign and the higher echelons of the Democratic Party. You seem to badly want to be a political strategist, without having put in the decades of work to get yourself to that position.

I know you have a particular penchant for the fire-breathing type of politician that prioritizes rhetoric over action. That is not Clinton, and it never will be. See cares about what she can actually accomplish.

You get what every other voter in this country gets: one vote. That's it. You decide how you cast it, and please for God's sake quit pretending you are the sage for all things political, when your prognostications have been proven wrong time and time again. It really is absurd.

I don't actually disagree with your priorities stated above, but your refusal to distinguish between self and absolute truth is maddening.

[Ken Burch]

76. You have me completely wrong and I've never done anything to deserve your hostility.

This isn't about me or my ego.

It's about the people.

I want EVERYONE who has been kept powerless in this country to not only have a vote but a real say in the process. Change doesn't happen when the powerless are denied a say, when politics is reduced to nothing but transactions in backrooms. When politics is ONLY transactional, when activists and those on the outside are told to shut up and "leave it to the grown-ups", change doesn't happen.

Yes, sometimes compromises need to be made, but they must always be just temporary compromises, and it never serves any purpose to make demobilizing the grassroots part of those compromises.

And yes, we need to win elections.

But that isn't enough.

There needs to be electoral victory AND constant inclusion and mobilization of the grassroots(with the grassroots taking the lead if at all possible) in the process. Without that, you don't get the Civil Rights Act of 1964...you just get the Civil Rights Act of 1957...the kind of "increment" that is always too tiny to matter and that doesn't lead to any further gains down the line(the breakthrough in '64 ONLY happened because of the grassroots mobilization).

And this talkboard exists for people to spread ideas, so why do you always lash out at me when I use it for that purpose?

And why do you accuse me of wanting rhetoric without action? To get action, you HAVE to have the passion for change, even when it is untidy and impolite.

If it hadn't been for Occupy, no one in politics would be challenging corporate control at all.

If there had been no militant antiwar movement in the Sixties, we might still be bombing Vietnam.

If there had been no Stonewall rebellion, there would have been no LGBTQ movement.

If there had been no sit-ins Freedom Riders, we'd still have Jim Crow.

If there had been no Knights of Labor, Wobblies, or CIO, most of us would still be earning the relative wages people got in 1880.

Nothing changes without demand from below, and the changes always stop when the voices from below are silenced.

And nothing I've ever suggested would be bad for the party or the country, or even in conflict with your political priorities(priorities that don't conflict with mine).

I'm committed to getting the Democratic ticket elected.

Everything I said in the OP was about making that more likely.

So stop treating me as the enemy, please.

We're both working for what's needed.

[NCTraveler]

42. Well said. Nt

[MineralMan]

47. Nicely said.

[lunamagica]

58. Grreat, great post!

[DanTex]

21. I wonder who these sociopathic "former Sanders supporters" really are.

Do they understand that Trump is a racist? Do they understand that Trump is giddy about being in control of nuclear weapons? Did they hear Trump's latest hate screed against immigrants? Do they know that Trump is going to appoint supreme court justices to overturn Roe v Wade?

Oh, wait, of course. Social issues "don't count". My mistake. All that matters are economic issues.

Speaking of which, do these "former Sanders supporters" understand that Trump is promising huge new tax cuts for billionaires? And slashing regulations?

I gotta be honest. These "former Sanders supporters" you're talking about don't seem to have a firm grip on reality.

[Ken Burch]

25. Nobody EVER said social issues don't count.

Just that they aren't the ONLY issues that count, and that they don't justify centrism(conservatism) on other issues.

Social issues would have mattered just as much with any other possible Dem nominee.

There was never a dispute on that and never less of a commitment on that.

[bettyellen]

55. But when you continuously ignore them in favor of other issues people notice....

and trying to invalidate people talking about then by spewing the centrist crap, just nope.
Is this why you don't expect these voters to have "simple decency" - you've learned you cannot expect it from them? Why are they exempt- so you can manufacture reasons they should be pandered to? This makes zero sense.

[Ken Burch]

59. I have never ignored them myself. Don't think anyone I've supported has ignored them, either.

Nor have any of the people in the campaign I was involved in advocated things that would only help us, while leaving others out in the cold.

I agree that that campaign should have referenced what you refer to as "social issues" from day one on its website...but it simply isn't fair to accuse it or the candidate we supported of not caring about those issues or of wanting them to be ignored. So please, now that the primaries are over, can THAT particular accusation finally be put to rest? The candidate you wanted stopped was stopped-why can't the line of attack on this be stopped as well?

Those who backed the campaign I was in cared just as much about fighting institutional bigotry as the people on your side in the primaries. It's just that we also thought that economic issues(some of which intersect with social justice causes, all of which deeply affect people of ALL races), were also of importance and that both sets of issues needed to be addressed. We never believed or argued that institutional racism didn't matter, that police murders of people of color didn't matter, that sexism, homophobia or transphobia didn't matter. We wanted ALL the injustices addressed and addressed promptly. We still DO.

We stand with you in insisting that all of the issues you prioritize need to be dealt with yesterday. Can you please, finally, now that the campaign is over, accept that? There never really was a dispute between us over these issues-all there was was failure to initially communicate that. But we're in the same campaign now.

[bettyellen]

69. why are those supporters exempt from the "common decency" you expect- the decency to care about

the nation as a whole more than their sense of self righteousness? I agree with you everyone with a sense of common decency is already onboard. The very few holdouts I know (among those you speak of in the OP) aren't listening to Bernie, are no longer engaging or planning on doing jack shit except a protest vote for Stein. I don't think people so easily put off are worth the effort. Lets move forward and GOTV with people who have not stuck their fingers in their ears!

[DanTex]

56. Nobody ever said social issues are the only issues that count.

Not that it really matters, because Trump is off the charts on both social and economic issues.

And like I said, any "uncommitted Sanders supporter" who can't see that should to be committed.

[demosincebirth]

22. What they have to think about, deeply, is the Suppreme Court. If that doesn't change their mind,

then they really don't give a shit about anything except their own selfish pet peeves.

[frustrated_lefty]

39. That argument no longer carries water among the disaffected.

It comes up every election cycle along with the need to vote for the lesser of two evils. It's not an argument that changes people's minds.

[Demsrule86]

52. Excuse me?

Have you looked at the ages of SCOTUS ...or perhaps you might have noticed the deciding vote on SCOTUS ...is in limbo because the GOP won't confirm the President's choice which is unprecedented. And guess what the Supreme court really matters every election and those who don't vote or vote third party are just as responsible for rightie policy like United and tax cuts for the rich as Republicans.

[bettyellen]

57. Then they don't understand or care how shit works.

Looking for one person to save them? Idiots. They are a big part of the problem and we should be honest about it. Politics is not about their personal feelings. Gotta grow up at some point.

[Demsrule86]

65. Right

Your post is completely correct...I see much spite,disappointment and hurt feelings...and this is about our future.

[demosincebirth]

78. then, they're mindless.

[Goblinmonger]

60. I supported Sanders. I will vote Clinton.

If Clinton wins and the Dems win the Senate, we better see a REAL LEFT SCOTUS appointment. If it is some moderate, this "you have to vote for the SCOTUS" will never work again.

[ucrdem]

23. She's already winning by healthy margins in PA and MI, by slimmer margins in OH and IA,

but she won both those primaries, so it's swing voters she needs now, not Bernie's, and a leftward lurch is not going to help her with those. They're more concerned about wedge issues. Also she made an impressive reach-out to Sanders supporters at the convention if you watched it, including some key policy issues like minimum wage and TPP, and her college tuition plan was better than Bernie's to begin with. So I don't see the utility at this point.

[mountain grammy]

26. I disagree. Since this is your opinion, I'll give you mine.

No Bernie supporter I know, or anyone I know knows, isn't supporting Hillary. Even the most die hard, disappointed and disaffected know Hillary is the only qualified candidate in this race. We are thinking people.

Here's who I see up for grabs. A friend on fb who says, "i'm not saying I'm voting for him, but here's an article where Trump isn't treated fairly and Hillary gets nothing but roses." Of course, I comment, "WTF? The thing about Trump is a lie and Hillary's been held to a different standard for 20 years." Her response? "I think all media is biased, let's have lunch." Fucking lunch while she what? Tells me she's voting for fucking Hitler, pass the salt. These are people I've known for years.. not very political but generally sane and reasonable. They've bought the propaganda from the right wing jerks who run my town and everyone in it. We're in trouble, all right, but it's not Bernie people.

[NanceGreggs]

28. First of all ...

… I don’t agree with the idea that “we already have ALL the ‘moderate Republican’ voters we could ever get”. Trump loses votes every time he opens his mouth. So unless he shuts his yap between now and November, we’ll undoubtedly be seeing more Republicans deciding to vote (D) as the only sensible option.

As for the 10% to 15% of former Sanders supporters who have not committed to any candidate, I think it’s up to them to do what is right for their country and fellow citizens without having to be coddled like children, lured with false promises that simply can’t be kept without Congress, and/or a need to be reassured at every turn that their “voices will be heard”.

Any former Bernie supporter who is still weighing whether to vote for HRC, vote for Trump, vote for a third party candidate, or sit this election out entirely is either completely ignorant of what the consequences of a Trump presidency would be, or they are too wrapped up in their pissed-off-itude about Bernie not getting the nomination to be concerned about the impact of those consequences.

As you say downthread: ”It would help if people stopped acting like we haven't proven our loyalty and can't be trusted.”

Exactly who is doing that? I haven’t seen it here. The majority of us knew that the BSers would come on-board with HRC, just as we knew the HRCers would get on-board with Bernie were he the nominee. This didn’t come as a surprise to anyone here who has experienced other primaries. As a result, I’ve not seen any former Bernie supporters here whose loyalty or trustworthiness has been questioned. The only former BSers who have been called out in that regard are JPR members – for obvious reasons.

As you also say downthread: ”Anyone who's ok with her positions is ALREADY supporting her. What else would keep anyone on the fence?”

That’s a good question, Ken. What else WOULD would keep anyone on the fence?

Well, I can think of quite a few “what elses” – and none of them speak well of the alleged “undecideds”: They don’t want Hillary to win because their candidate lost. They would rather see it “all burn to the ground” than see Hillary elected. They think a Trump presidency will trigger “the Revolution”.

You know, we all hear a lot about how the candidates have to earn our vote. And fair enough. But it puts a hundred percent of the responsibility of a successful election on the Party’s candidate – and, in the doing, ignores the fact that voters have a responsibility, too. A big part of that responsibility is informing oneself, and choosing to support/vote for the candidate that will best serve the interests of your fellow citizens and your country as a whole.

Given the positions of the two candidates, the idea that any former Bernie supporter is still “sitting on the fence” speaks for itself – it speaks to wanting to be coaxed, convinced, catered to. At this juncture, there can be no other reason for sitting on that fence. The line between the two candidates has been
clearly drawn. Anyone who can’t see that line is deliberately not looking.

[lamp_shade]

40. Thanks Nance. You have the enviable gift of putting into plain words

what 99.99% of us are thinking. The "alleged" undecideds (as you noted) are but a handful. I dismiss them.

[napi21]

32. I disagree with your premise that the only voters left to grab are the former Bernie supporters.

I personally know of 5 voters who were strong Trumpers, but for various reasons, they've rejected him. Some were because of the way he treated the Goldstar Family, some have finally recognized that he has no idea what he's talking about ALL THE TIME. Although I don't personally know any, I'm positive that lots of the few Latino voters he did have, have removed their support because of his insane speech in AZ. I honestly think the easiest voters the Dems can get are some of the remaining Trumpers through his daily insane tirade of lies and impossible promises.

I don't know if it's possible to convert the former Bernieites because they are not Dems or Pubs, they just want a dramatic change. They probably don't want the kind of change they'd get from Don the Con, but they see Hillary as NO CHANGE.

The only way I can imagine we MAYBE have a shot with them is to prove to them that the problems are almost ALL because of the do nothing Pubs that control Congress. Even if we can't get them to vote for Hill, if we can get them to vote AGAINST any Pub incumbent, we win!

[Coyotl]

37. The unregistered are still there too.

Depending on the state, the deadline to register varies.

2016 Voter Registration Deadlines by State

[Ken Burch]

38. Them as well. n/t.

[Coyotl]

48. Only a few uncommitted Sanders voters, enough unregistereds to overthrow the Republican Congress

Last edited Mon Sep 5, 2016, 10:12 PM - Edit history (1)

The biggest focus right now should be on getting young people to become voters.
Trump can't do that for us all by himself, but he's doing a great job.

[Ken Burch]

77. Agreed. n/t.

[NCTraveler]

41. The the base of your argument is blatantly false.

"The only voters up for grabs are uncommitted former Sanders Supporters."

Not only is that a false statement, it is deceptive in the fact there are even superior methods available to get people to the polls over that of placating people who voted for Sanders and are now uncertain of who they will vote for. Even an all hands on deck GOTV effort would increase our numbers at the polls in greater numbers than going after a small group of undecided voters on the "left".

I feel that over half of the fifteen percent of people who voted for Sanders and are now undecideds to be liberal isolationists. They are not Democrats and we do not want them. So your whole thought is to placate under ten percent of an already small group in hopes they will vote Clinton? No thanks.

Go read her tax plan. Sanders supporters can get behind it.

Go read her affordable college plan. Sanders supporters can get behind it.

Go read her plan to reform and additionally regulate sectors of the economy. Sanders supporters can get behind it.

There are larger and more influential groups to go after.

He's With Her

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[MineralMan]

46. I'm content to let them make up their own minds, actually.

I'm confident that they will do the right thing, in the end. Those who do not cannot be convinced, frankly. I'm not buying your basic premise, anyhow. I think you are incorrect.

GOTV for Hillary!

[TCJ70]

49. The only one of those 3 you could maybe argue successfully would be number 1...

...She'll get her chance to prove me wrong and if so in four years you could make an argument for the other two.

[JTFrog]

50. Not this shit again.

Hey everybody..... Look At Me!!

[book_worm]

51. Well not the "only" but I would say, esp. among the young a large majority

are ex-Sanders supporters. Hopefully they will come our way if not they will either vote for Stein or Johnson-I'm pretty sure not Trump, but that could also make a difference in tipping some states to Trump.

[Demsrule86]

53. Nonsense.

There are only a few Sanders supporters left...and I don't consider them Sanders supporters as he supports Hillary Clinton now. The young have never voted in large numbers and didn't during the primary either...large rallies but fewer votes.

[MineralMan]

54. Not really. A "large majority" are not ex-Sanders supporters.

In reality, a "large majority" of young people will not even bother to vote, if history is any indication. But there was never a "large majority" of that group who were Sanders supporters. Perhaps not even a majority at all. And most of those who will vote have already indicated that they will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Most of the ones who won't do that will simply not vote at all, as is their wont.

[LongTomH]

64. "A large majority" of young people will not even bother to vote."

That's our problem! I've talked with a lot of those young people, and they're turned off to politics.

Before you can get them to the polls, you have to convince them that the Democratic party represents their interests.

[MineralMan]

74. Young people have never turned out

in large,percentages. They didn't in the 60s and seventies and they don't today, either. Those are the facts. It pissed me off when I was young, and it still pisses me off. It has nothing to do with political parties or candidates. It has to do with attitudes. You just have to look at the numbers. It's clear.

[CajunBlazer]

68. Sanders supporters aren't stupid - Hillary shouldn't have to pander to them

If they don't understand where their selfish self interests lie in this election, if they don't understand what a danger Donald Trump is to this country, no amount of pandering is going to persuade them. If they don't understand these things, it is because they have convinced themselves that Hillary is evil and speaks in lies.

[grossproffit]

71. If they're okay with electing a white nationalist then they were never "up for grabs."

[ismnotwasm]

73. I dunno

I find them sadly pathetic and difficult to convince of anything, as immersed into conspiracy theory politics as so many seem to be.

[FSogol]

75. I'll make up a stat too: The only voters up for grabs are uncommitted former lacrosse forwards!