2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton addresses the "Sanders or I Stay Home" mentality
In Iowa, Clinton was asked about disillusioned Sanders supporters. Clinton had the following to say (excerpt from the WP follows):
"I think it's very dangerous to look at the alternatives and believe that your staying home is a responsible choice," Clinton said. "It's hard for me to believe that anybody who would support Senator Sanders would want to see any of the Republicans elected president of the United States.
"I would just ask that when this nomination is wrapped up that they come and join with us to make sure that we don't turn the White House back over to the Republicans," she added.
...
"I have no sympathy for those who would then decide that they're going to pass after they've expressed themselves because whoever the alternative is, is not pure enough, is not able to fulfill the hopes that we all have," Clinton said. "Politics is hard and it is something that is not for the weak of heart."
Republicans "would be thrilled if people who are progressive decide to stay home," Clinton added. "They will do everything they can to try to make that happen."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/22/hillary-clinton-tells-bernie-sanders-backers-when-this-nomination-is-wrapped-up-join-me/
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)that she is sooo sure of herself
""I would just ask that when this nomination is wrapped up that they come and join with us to make sure that we don't turn the White House back over to the Republicans," she added. "
840high
(17,196 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)I'm sure she and Bernie have the same view on this.
riversedge
(70,282 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 23, 2015, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)
All candidates speak in the "when I win" mold.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)...because one of the knocks on her--one of the perceptions she's trying to avoid--is that she feels like her nomination is inevitable. This kind of talk plays right into it.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)writing his inauguration speech.
How is that any different?
dsc
(52,166 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)see:
We are going to vote for progressives, h.
Bring on the caucuses!
SunSeeker
(51,658 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Well, that makes two of us.
artislife
(9,497 posts)He will be the nominee.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Don't his supporters WANT to win in November?
artislife
(9,497 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It's not even a third party. That's just the way the game is played.
artislife
(9,497 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)yeah we can't let the GOP win, blah, blah.
But Clinton represents the "game" as a distraction. If the Red and Blue "teams" are owned by the same oligarchs it dos become little more than a game.
....And yes we DO have an oligarchy because as a nation we are so acquiescent that we never seek anything better. Those on the left hand side of the spectrum always just settle.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)Bernie, I am sure is thankful for people like you. Go Bernie!
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Both parties are subservient to it.
You got it!
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Not much difference. Look at the mess she made in the Middle East with Libya, Syria and the post George W. Bush Iraq. Look at the mess in Afghanistan.
Watch the Democracy Now interview of Seymour Hersh today. It's great.
Hillary is not qualified to be president in my opinion.
I will vote for all other Democrats on my ballot and especially for my congressman, Xavier Becerra. He is my favorite politician. I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)If Hillary IS Elected, err Appointed... The Opposition to Right Wing policy will be Immobilized. Ask yourself... Is Hillary going to expand Social Security or Diminish it? Is Hillary going to stand for Progressive tax Policy ... like raising taxes on the 1% of which she is a card carrying member? Is she more or less likely to get us embroiled in a shooting war... Possibly far worse than we have been engaged in over the past 20 years? Think about it.
Consider which candidate can be trusted, whose word is golden... vs Whose is NOT?
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)We don't consider a Clinton win as a victory for anybody but the status quo.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)from anyone else, save perhaps conservative corpora-Dems (and even then, those preferably in the 1%).
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Good luck on carrying the election with the NRA independents.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I really don't think she is qualified to be president.
Please watch the Democracy Now interview of Seymour Hersh today.
It's really important that we realize how many mistakes Hillary has made, how she changes her mind on so many things that it confirms for me that she has no basic values. She does not decide her point of view on issues based on values but on something else -- expediency is what I think it is.
I really cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary for president.
In fact I think she is so poorly qualified for the job that she should end her candidacy.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)"Well, thank you very much for hosting this debate, and let me applaud my colleagues up here. Because I think frankly, maybe I'm wrong, but on our worst day, I think we have a lot more to offer the American people than the right wing's extremists."
In other words, he endorsed whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I'm glad he said it but I didn't think it would make much difference to his supporters. Did you?
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...and maybe a remark like that doesn't matter now, but I expect him to repeat that when primary season is over if he isn't the nominee, and help bring us together.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)At least that is how I read it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Like, "I'm confident that we'll all rally around the nominee whoever it is" or something like that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think she has no doubt about Bernie ... His followers, well, that's a different, and sad, story.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)and not them because the presumption is so fucking irritating. god, I hate this kind of crap.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)BainsBane
(53,054 posts)The people who stay at home, vote Republican or third party, or write-in someone are not Democrats. They may have been Democrats at some point, or they may have always been swing voters or right-wingers. Of course it is their right to vote or not vote as they choose. That right, however, doesn't mean they get to use Democratic websites and Democratic databases, and Democratic funding to work against the Democratic Party, anymore than I have a right to use Republican resources to work against the GOP.
In full disclosure, I voted third party for the presidency twice when I was younger. I did not, however, consider myself a Democrat at the time. While I always voted Democrat or leftist third party through 2000, I only became a committed Democrat following the election of George W. Bush. I learned then just how disastrous the consequences of a Republican presidency could be and resolved to vote for Democrats then on, and I decided to work to help them get elected. I know a lot of people seem to think Democrat is defined according to the reflection they see in the mirror and not by membership in and loyalty to the party, but they are wrong. If you think being expected to vote for Democrats is a "loyalty test," you aren't a Democrat. People have the right to vote any way they choose, but they don't have a right to legitimately claim that being a true Democrat means voting for anyone other than the Democratic nominee.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Can't be said often enough. Thanks BB and have a holly jolly!
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)I guess a true Democrat votes for the Democrat on the ticket without fail or question. However, there are only so many years in a life. Eventually, some of us say No More.
The more I think about it, I'm an Independent at heart. I have blind loyalty to only a few things in my life and politicians didn't make the cut.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)This is not a site for people to be advocating against electing Democrats. Period.
If you want to pretend that people should vote for your candidate if he wins the nomination, but you get to not vote for the Democratic candidate if he doesn't, you need to go somewhere else.
Permanently.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)ConservativeDemocrat. Your moniker says a lot.
I've already posted in a few threads and will do so again now. If Sanders doesn't get the nomination go ahead and ban me. I will obey the rules of the board.
By the way, aren't we all a little Independent at heart?
haikugal
(6,476 posts)BainsBane
(53,054 posts)I am very independent-minded, but I don't take voting as a reflection of my soul. No politician reflects me. I vote for Democrats because I prefer them to the GOP. There are lots of ways one can advocate for political and social causes aside from voting.
Frankly, I don't understand the fixation on a single politician. I think many of you greatly overestimate the differences between the candidates, what they can actually accomplish, and the role of an individual president in political and social change.
BainsBane
(53,054 posts)The TOS doesn't control how you vote but rather what can be posted on this site. It's not that DU thinks they can compel you to vote in ways you don't want; the owners' jurisdiction begins and ends on this website.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...through abuse of the jury system.
Democrats will disagree with each other over things, but at the end of the day, pull together to actually keep the nation from going completely off the rails. People who constantly bash Democrats, seek to throw us into another Bush-like presidency, deserve nothing but derision.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)If so, I like it!
I get the pull together to keep an ass clown out of the White House - I get that.
I feel that there are a lot of us that are tired of pulling the lever to prevent rather than provide. Will most of us do it again this time? Yep. Will fewer this time than last time? I would wager so. How long before another candidate like Sanders gets this close to the presidency? Will we be alive long enough to see that?
That is why I think you see such passion around here. People tend to get worked up when they are excited and Sanders excites a good bit of us. Some poo flinging comes with that level of excitement, there are always a few bad apples.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)If you want to pull that lever for Bernie, you go right ahead. That's part of the normal give and take in the party. I may disagree with that choice, but I respect it. And as I've said at least half a dozen times on this board, if the guy happens to win, well then hell, I'll go buy myself a fucking "Che" t-shirt to fit in with you people, and work my ass off to try to get him elected.
That said, if at the end of the say, anyone who is not willing to support the will of the majority of the Democratic voters, especially in light of what the alternatives are, isn't a Democrat.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)If he wins the primary I'll personally send you a Sanders t-shirt and a few stickers (all new of course).
Peace be with you.
Cheers.
DFW
(54,436 posts)Actually, not long, I'll bet.
Just like Hillary's candidacy (or Merkel's in Germany, Gandhi's in India, Thatcher in England or Benni Bhutto in Pakistan) has made it no longer a "hey wow" to consider a woman for head of state, regardless of political persuasion, I think Bernie has broken another kind of ceiling, and made it OK for a candidate advocating his kind of agenda to enter the race, garner a serious following, and be taken seriously as a candidate. Look at Greece and, just a few days ago, Spain. The movements in Greece and Spain are nowhere as organized or firm in positions as Bernie's campaign, but they prove that the right message at the right time WILL acquire a following serious enough to be considered a contender.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Sanders is among a very small group of politicians in this country. His positions are popular with the public but not his colleagues. I hope you're right and we're about to see a paradigm shift.
Cheers.
DFW
(54,436 posts)I say this not as a Sanders supporter, but as an observer. I live in Germany, so the ceiling has been broken here on a coupe of levels already. Woman as head of government, openly gay foreign minister, that kind of thing. Germany has not disintegrated. If Bernie is not the nominee, it's not the end of the world. His following is big enough that it cannot be ignored by Hillary or any other winner of the nomination. Obama knew he needed Hillary's supporters in 2008, too. Any non-Sanders nominee knows he or she needs Bernie's supporters in the primary next November. That will be forthcoming, too (DU abstainers notwithstanding). As with Hillary in 2008, this will come with strings. If a non-Sanders Democrat wins the White House, he or she will have two choices. First, they can reward Sanders or someone close to him by awarding some serious recognition (as SecState for Hillary), or say thanks and ignore them, in which case the risk of a one-term presidency is very real. The backlash will be intense, and deservedly so. Electoral politics rarely rewards biting the hand that fed you. It does happen (Obama-Rahm-Dean), but it rarely ends well.
The trick is not getting on the map again. The trick is getting on the map AT ALL. Bernie has now done this. History can be denied, but not erased.
BainsBane
(53,054 posts)Have you seen any polls to that effect? Or is your comment based on your social circle and comments online?
People across the political spectrum are fed up with government, hence the emergence of so-called outsider candidates like Trump and Sanders (neither of which really fit that designation but are seen as such). Yet the reason that government doesn't function is because of the increasing political divide, a divide that many of those same voters want to see increased rather than lessened.
Your own voting decisions are entirely up to you. If you don't want the Democratic Party to retain the presidency, you are free to vote for someone else. However, there is a clear terms of service for this site which has to do with commitment to a political party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
---(I wound up writing on and on. Please don't think this is directed at you personally because it is not. Rather it was prompted by your comment that fewer and fewer people are Democrats).
As for the Democratic party, new Americans--particularly Hispanic immigrants--are overwhelmingly Democrats, while white Americans are overwhelming Republican. I personally think we are witnessing a new party realignment like the US experienced in the 1930s and then the 1960s-1980s. I think more whites, particularly men, will either migrate to the GOP or outside the Democratic Party in some other way.
There are people who insist they are "true Democrats," but their notion of Democrat seems to mean what it did in the 1950s-60s. They display a great deal of resentment toward America today, not just or even primarily "corporatism" but especially toward Democratic voters. The personal vitriol toward individual Democrats who support a candidate other than Sanders is unparalleled; I have never witnessed anything close to it in my life. That is accompanied by a contempt toward groups of Americans who likewise support other candidates. African Americans are insulted as suffering from Stockholm syndrome and women voters as uninformed, voting based entirely on gender. Both of those arguments are right wing, the sort of thing the GOP has long said about Democratic voters for some time. Now people who claim to be "progressive" engage in the same arguments and some even demand that Hillary Clinton apologize to Trump for making a factual statement. None of that is leftist, not by any stretch the imagination.
We've seen the Democratic Party recently move to the left, but at the same time we see increasing dissatisfaction from the white middle and upper-middle class. Meanwhile, the same people have no problem justifying a candidates' voting with the GOP on guns and immigration. They even justify their candidate's support for drones, while denouncing President Obama as a war criminal for the same policy. The claim that the Democratic party is now, in this election as opposed to all others, suddenly more conservative is not supported by evidence, not when the entirety of the population is taken into account.
Part of the problem, I think, is that those now most disenchanted with the party are people who bought into the mythology of the American dream, who believed the grade-school indoctrination about the US being a government of the people. It has never been that, not for the majority. Global capitalism has wrought changes in the economy that are now experienced throughout American society, including among the white bourgeoisie who previously benefited; the rest of Americans, however, never experienced those same benefits.
An African American president followed by a leading female candidate as a serious contender for the presidency has brought to the fore fissures in American society. Polling demonstrates that this primary cuts along race, class, and gender lines. We have people who average incomes over $80k a year angry that the subaltern doesn't share their same priorities. They assume their concerns and experience are universal, and they refuse to hear otherwise. No matter how many times we explain that that many--in fact the majority--were excluded from prosperity and denied basic rights in the good ole days they long to return to, they repeat the nostalgia. They then turn around and insult those, often far less fortunate, as allied with the 1 percent or suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Some arguments are particularly tiring when those doing the lecturing are in the upper 5-10 percent of incomes (or, in one case, the upper 1 percent).
Not a single vote has been cast in the primary, yet some are already calling for write in campaigns. The idea that anyone but their chosen candidate getting the nomination is unacceptable. They can't conceive that the rest of Americans have any legitimate reason to prefer another candidate or care about other issues. They describe the majority of Americans are ignorant, uninformed, as intrinsically less valuable as human beings. Claims that they care about the "99 percent" (an artifice that enables people of means to pretend they are as exploited as the poor) or great equality are exposed as false by their contempt for most American voters. People can claim to care about equality, but when they treat people as less, their rhetoric rings hollow. They can claim they know what is best for the poor and people of color, but when they don't listen to what those voters have to say, they aren't convincing.
Ultimately, their concerns about their own interests, and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem comes in assuming those interests are universal, so much so that they refuse to hear what the rest of Americans have to say and insult anyone who disagrees.
.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)That much is true and I appreciate your comments. As far as the shrinking, there is a constant ebb and flow of course and right now we seem to be ebbing.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
The Dem and Dem including leaner columns are interesting.
I also think having to register in some states inflates the numbers for both parties. I am for open primaries in all 50 states.
BainsBane
(53,054 posts)The variations are as great week to week as over time. That leads me to believe the differences are due to Gallop's polling model as much as anything. It would be interesting to see polls that went back a few decades.
I expect you're right about party registration for primaries. My own state has an open caucus system, but I have lived in states where I registered as a Democrat.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)I had always been a registered Democrat until 2009 - that's when I went Independent and that's where I will go after the primary in Oregon. Not that any of this matters, just felt like typing a bit!
A caucus system seems like fun to me - I've never had the opportunity.
Cheers.
Paka
(2,760 posts)In case you hadn't noticed this is a new century and a new political generation.
BainsBane
(53,054 posts)and wrote extensively about those changes in this same subthread.
hack89
(39,171 posts)A political insider with a mediocre record at best with absolutely no past indications of being a transformational political actor.
You're in charge of who is or isn't a Democrat....
pugetres
(507 posts)Does she have any sympathy for them?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-half-of-clintons-supporters-wont-back-obama/
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)And, not that it matters, but I was one of them.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She is the one responsible for the mess the party has become.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Cha
(297,513 posts)Well said, Hillary. But, the stats are out that most sanders supporters will vote for the Dem nom no matter.
And, we'll do it without those who stamp their feet and sit home.
But you are usually right! Happy hollies Cha!
Cha
(297,513 posts)I just forge ahead.. no way are we getting a rwinger in our White House.
Happy Hollies to you, ucr~
cheers, maggie
Cha
(297,513 posts)riversedge
(70,282 posts)Cha
(297,513 posts)It's going to be a great eight years! Happy Christmas to all!
:
Cha
(297,513 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)riversedge
(70,282 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)at least DWS waited a few months out before saying 2014 was lost--but this is pre-conceding to Trump *eleven months in advance*
mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)thanks for posting, Cheers, Maggie
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Right back atcha.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)and perhaps bow out to support the obvious eventual nominee.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)that might heal some primary butt-hurt.
Karma13612
(4,554 posts)Term president.
I just cannot see Bernie selecting her as VP
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I think she is unqualified to be president.
We see the evidence for that in Iraq, Syria and Libya right now.
I recommend that everyone watch the Democracy Now interview by Amy Goodman with Seymour Hersh. I have long suspected that the meeting of the Turkish ambassador and our ambassador in Benghazi might have had something to do with arms sales to Syrian rebels. The Turkish are not responsible partners with regard to certain matters in the Middle East.
Seymour Hersh's interview confirms my opinion and suspicion for me.
There is a video showing all of Hillary's many opinions on all kinds of issues, opinions she changes from one side to the other on gay marriage, on the Keystone pipeline, on the TPP, on the Colombian trade agreement, on universal healthcare. It has been taken off this website. Google it and watch it. It explains why I do not want to ever vote for her.
You name it. Hillary has changed her mind about it at some point. She is unstable with regard to her opinions because she does not derive her stances on the issues from certain basic human values that are important to her but rather on the mood of the time.
I wonder if she really believes in anything.
A resolution against burning the flag???? That's one of the boondoggles she supported.
Just compare Bernie's speech on why he voted against authorizing the Iraq War, against the Iraq War authorization and Hillary's speech about voting for it.
As we know now, Bernie's questioning especially his probing question about how we would govern Iraq after defeating Saddam Hussein was so intelligent. That is the kind of thinking we need from our president.
Hillary is just not qualified to be president.
And if the majority votes for her, it will mean that the majority voted for her, that she won an election, but it will not mean that she is qualified to be president or that she will make a good or even acceptable president.
What I think of Hillary is that she was a good student. She "got" good grades. But she is not a good critical thinker. She just is not. She is not very intuitive either. She learns. She does not reason for herself very well.
I don't want Hillary to be president. To me, she is not the lesser of two evils. She is just another evil.
Sorry. But that is how I see it.
I will vote for ALL OTHER DEMOCRATS ON MY BALLOT. I know many of them personally and know they are good people with good hearts and a good sense of values.
No. I will not vote for Hillary. But I will vote for all other Democrats on my ballot.
I am a life-long Democrat. I wore a button for Adlai Stevenson. I remember Truman.
Hillary cannot say the same.
I like Bernie. He may not have called himself a Democrat all his life, but he sure was one in his heart in my opinion.
I really do not think that Hillary would be good for our country.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)My Democratic Club and the campaign in my area of Los Angeles relied on me. I was always dependable and active.
I will not be there if Hillary is the nominee. All other Democratic candidates will be a shoo-in in my area.
Hillary's policies toward Libya and Syria have harmed our country. They helped support the growth of ISIS according to Seymour Hersh who was interviewed on today's Democracy Now.
I trust Seymour Hersh. I do not trust Hillary.
pengu
(462 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)And I would never vote for Hillary.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)leftupnorth
(886 posts)Sorry. No room in my Democratic Party for Trojan horse backstabbers.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)leftupnorth
(886 posts)Maybe the rest of the Democratic Party will wake up and realize neoliberals don't belong in the party of the people.
And, sadly, it seems that neoliberals make up the majority of our elected Democrats. Time for a purge, folks.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Good for her. Leave no stone unturned.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)I'm not voting to cut off my hand as opposed to my arm.
Edited to add: If I believed what Sniper Dodger Clinton had to say, I'd be voting for her.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)Bernie Sanders.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)and you petulantly sit home instead of voting for the Democratic nominee, then you get either Trump or Cruz.
That will be on your head.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Plenty of posts here with Hillary supporters refusing to vote for Bernie should he win the primary. Consistent with Hillary supporters in the 2008 election.
ecstatic
(32,727 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"I'm working with a few (mostly republicans) to get our liquor laws changed. They are from 1949 - it's time to change things. Bring my preoperty taxes down and lets get some wine and cigar bars on our main street.
That said - point blank - I don't believe in Sanders platform or approach and I won't vote for him.
I simply won't."
From this thread,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251700805#post59
In this next link, a poster named MaggieD who has made a cottage industry out of declaring she won't vote for the nominee if it is Bernie while claiming to be the definitive Democrat and Hillary supporter says it a few times:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251878490#post21
Perhaps the best of them is the poster who runs about smearing Bernie with the exact same set of smears he used on Obama in 08, while 'Obama supporters' befriend him in 2015. Called both Obama and Bernie 'fakes' and used to like to play spelling games with Obama's name 'Barook' and Bareek' and that sort of thing. That poster is currently very popular with the Hillary folks. Said Obama was not electable, said he would not vote for him in the GE if nominated, now says the same about Bernie. I'm not linking to that one but I'll PM you the name if you actually care.
I don't like this listing of persons thing, but many on the Clinton side who cheer for these 'I won't vote for Bernie' posts later claim they've never seen any such thing. 'It's only Bernie supporters who say that' they assert, having rec'd the threads and shouted agreement in some of the worst of the threads. I don't care for that.
Hillary needs to clean up her own team first in that regard. Right now, her standing is damaged in my eyes by behavior I have seen here not just now but in 08. Same posters 'for Hillary' attacking both Bernie and Barack with the same smears. That just sucks, and that is a culture, it takes a village.
ecstatic
(32,727 posts)I don't know who the third person you referred to is, but it sounds like a troll!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)of hearing that Hillary supporters do not notice any of that on their side when there are such virulent and obvious posters in that camp, just as in any other. Several posters in this thread pull that 'I've never seen it' crap. If you don't see it that is an admission of fault, not proof that it does not exist. I showed you a few and I could do far more but all I see from that cohort is 'only Bernie supporters say that, I've never seen such a thing'. It gets tiresome.
If her supporters would stop claiming this universal perfection and clean their own house, others would not have to point this out to you.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)It's the same 40-60 people that screamed at LGTB folks for being disgruntled about the Rick Warren mess and the spent the next 7 years telling us all how we "hate" PBO and on and on.
Same almost to a poster.
I won't vote in this election. No need. We just moved to northern Ecuador and like your state my state is utterly Blue.
I wish other posters that tell us how unworthy we are to be Democrats would pay a little more attention to their own states instead of constantly pointing fingers at us.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)I've not seen any at all.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)I don't spend my time on DU collecting links to use for some theoretical future argument in which I'm trying to convince people of something they're not the slightest bit interested in.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)that there were plenty of DU Clinton supporters who say they won't vote for Sanders if he is the nominee. I say you're wrong about that. I"m a Clinton supporter, and I'll vote for and campaign for Sanders if he is the nominee.
You say "plenty." I say there are none. So, you made the claim. If you can support that claim, please do so. I do not believe you can do that. Prove me wrong, if you can.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)then come home and fall into line."
Great salesmanship
seaglass
(8,173 posts)in the GE.
Anyone who does not is a Republican enabler - no matter the self-serving reasoning.
I have issues with all 3 candidates (O'Malley least of all) but I remember the 8 years of misery under Bush and would not subject my family, friends, neighbors to anything like that again.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)as a core cognitive motivator?
America, the home of the brave? You gotta be crapp'n me.
This was old when it was first employed last spring. No she's advocating 'no sympathy' which I suppose is an endorsement of rudeness and abuse for persons who don't want to vote for her.
Yes, and why this way it is GDP.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)affirm the notion that the Democratic Party takes its base for granted. The better approach would be to represent them by giving them something to vote for, that's how democracy is supposed to work.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)My ballot comes with more than 2 choices.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Hillary is now involved in that. She is not clarifying what the 'no Clinton mentality' really is.
She can ignore it all she wants.
marlakay
(11,484 posts)The more she says the more turns Bernie supporters away.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)So when/if Bernie is the nominee the Clinton supporters here can be reminded of what Hillary said on this subject.
Thanks
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)sense to not vote for the nominee against another candidate who is even further away from one's ideals. That action would basically be saying that the person is fine with letting their political polar opposites gain power and fine with getting virtually 0% of what they want from their personal agenda (rather than 50-70% of what they want from the major party's candidate who is closer-aligned to them) if it means supposedly teaching the corporatistcentristturdwayersrepublicanlites a lesson. Never mind how this tactic of letting everything go into ruins to pave the way for a leftist paradise historically has been unsuccessful.