Would this primary be so toxic if it were a different "Establishment" candidate?

[Armstead]

Primaries are by nature divisive (even if temporarily).

However, this one has taken on particularly nasty overtone.A personalized pissing contest and demographically divisive campaign.

I wonder if that would have been the case if it were Bernie vs. Biden, Kerry or Amy Klobeshar or some other Democrat who lines up generally with the Democratic "establishment" .

No doubt it would have been heated, and a lot of arguments about Democratic principles, the oligarchy, role of powerful special interests....the basic identity of the Democratic Party.

But I think it would have been heated in a much more healthy and constructive way. I think it would have been much more of a debate about issues and the future of the Democratic Party and America, and less about "me,me.me."

And less divisiveness over social and racial issues on which there is general agreement.

[daleanime]

1. No....

Hillary's actions might not be changed, but the party would have been banking the fire not feeding it.

[wyldwolf]

2. the key factor is the so-called 'anti-establishment' candidate

Followers of such are always nastier.

From 2003:

"There is an awfully distressing tendency among a minority of Dean supporters to serve up no end of lacerating comments about other candidates and then to react with a sort of stunned and outraged shock when anyone criticizes their guy. It's the flip side of seeing the race in such heroic, if not messianic dimensions." - Josh Marshall.

[Armstead]

3. You mean those awful Obama supporters in 2008?

Obama is, like Bernie, a high-road candidate. But when put up against Clinton both were tarred with the same memes.

[wyldwolf]

5. there were many, yes

I'm also talking about, for example, Nader supporters.

I'm also talking about Ted Kennedy supporters in 1980 who openly harassed Carter's supporters on the convention floor with their "go home boll weevils" mantra.

[Armstead]

7. And supporters of establishment candidates are all so polite and respectful?

I will agree that the supporters of "outsider" (or insurgent) candidates have to speak louder, and sometimes get carried away. They are also, by definition, angrier at the status quo.

But so do those of established candidates often ignore the rules of decorum and good manners too.

[wyldwolf]

9. they're certainly retaliatory

Some of you are like that kid back in grade school who always hit people on the playground then were shocked when people finally started slapping you back.

And this happens every election cycle. Supporters of the outside candidate love to dish it out to the established candidates then act surprised when it gets flung back at them.

[Armstead]

10. It does not need to be divisive to change course

I would compare it to the schoolyard bully who keeps beating up on individual kids, and then is surprised when the little kids get together and attack the bully together.

The Democratic Party SHOULD be the respected leader and include groups and actually listens to criticism, makes changes and brings them onto his/her side for positive reasons.

And what is particularly ironic is that the current centrist establishment is a bully internally, but weak and ineffectual when it comes to combating the GOP and actually changing the course of the nation.

[wyldwolf]

14. then why do followers of 'outside candidates' always make it divisive?

Here's the big irony this election cycle. Supporters of the outside candidates are more often than not political newcomers who make bold claims of being 'real Democrats.' The irony is they've now supporting someone who became a Democrat five minutes ago

[Armstead]

23. Remember the Crazy Howard Dean meme? The Obama the Messaah?

The Teddy as spoiler?

And the thing is none of these so called crazy radical spoilers were that outside the mainstream. They were just trying to open thing up more.

And you wonder why people get a little bit angry and defensive?

[wyldwolf]

25. I do

Those were reactions to their hardcore followers acting as if those candidates were men of destiny and to support someone was else was a betrayal of Democracy.

[Armstead]

26. I'm glad to hear that you hate enthusiasm

[wyldwolf]

28. What I do hate is

'progressives-come-lately' who see candidates in messianic terms and who believe they alone know what's right and wrong.

[Armstead]

30. Like I said....etc.

[stage left]

52. +1 nt

[seaglass]

4. If it was O'Malley vs. Clinton it would have been much less divisive. n/t

[Armstead]

6. I disagree...O'malley would be tarred with the same personal brushes

And he would have been labeled as having a "problem" with minorities too

[JRLeft]

13. Agreed, that's the Hillary way. You know what's funny her supporters

cannot comprehend why she is hated. It's obvious to a lot of us. She's earned her hatred and is doing everything she can to extend it.

[asuhornets]

37. Hatred for Hillary...

is based on the fact that she is Hillary Clinton.That is all. As a staunch Hillary supporter, I know exactly why she is hated. It has nothing to do with TPP, etc. She is hated because she is winning. Her haters believe she should drop out because they hate her. Not understanding she has supporters who are loyal to her.

[JRLeft]

47. No, she's hated because she's a liar and corporatist.

She is pro TPP.

[farleftlib]

49. It's because she's running a sleazy campaign full of lies and smearing

She wanted a coronation and now she's in a fight for the nomination. Good. She voted for IWR and every corporate and bank giveaway that's ever crossed her desk. She is a dirty fighter with nothing good to offer but she thinks she deserves the presidency anyway. She is her own worst enemy and her supporters are her second. Republicans couldn't possibly harm her more than she and her fans do.

[asuhornets]

55. Coronation..

and inevitability...Those are Bernie Sanders talking points..

[farleftlib]

60. That's exactly what she expected

and the party was down with it too. Too bad it didn't happen and she's scrapping like dog over a bone. She shows her total dishonesty and lack of class with every attack. It's so tiresome that people don't get it. Sigh.

[asuhornets]

66. I get it!!

Hillary is the most qualified. She is winning. It's time for a woman President!!!!

[farleftlib]

68. It's actually past time for a woman president

Just not a corporate hack, warhawk, bottom-dweller, sellout, racist one! See? We agree.

[JustAnotherGen]

50. I don't think so

He gained respect when he went to the protests in Baltimore and then sat down with Goldie immediately after the NRN blm protests.

He also had youth on his side and the ability to say - I learned. Clinton and Sanders - long time DC level politicians provided the criminal justice framework for the Mayor.

[Armstead]

53. I'm not talking about reality

Jesus himself could enter the Democratic primary against Clinton and his reputation would be besmirched and distorted.

[cali]

8. No. It is Clinton

[earthside]

41. It is Clinton.

Last edited Sun Feb 21, 2016, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)

If Hillary had done the correct thing, in my opinion, for the Democratic Party and the progressive cause, and retired and left the field open, then I doubt Sanders would even be running.

Without Clinton we would have likely had more than one woman candidate to choose from, women who would be serious candidates solely on their own merit without the benefit of a presidential husband/man.

Imagine Klobuchar and Gillibrand, O'Malley, Biden, and maybe Brian Schweitzer all running for the nomination -- what an exciting and inspiring experience that would have been.

But Clinton ambition and personal lust for power took precedence over what was best for the party and the nation. Can there be any doubt that Clinton machine intimidation, bullying, and bribery kept other women contenders out of the race?

If Democrats are so unfortunate to have Hillary Clinton as their presidential nominee in 2016, it will be the absolute end of whatever remains of the New Deal legacy in the party. This is why the Sanders candidacy is so important -- he was in the best, perhaps the only position, to take on the Clinton machine and he is now, ironically, the only hope to save the Democratic Party from terminal Clintonism.

[farleftlib]

51. What you said.

wow, that's it in a nutshell. Beautiful post. I think you've really summed it up and I would also have loved a primary race like the one you described. What we have is a nightmare and an almost iron-clad guarantee we will have a Republican president. Unless Bernie prevails.

[hifiguy]

57. Beautifully said.

Her campaign is about nothing but ego and entitlement.

[Beacool]

83. Bull!!!

Hillary has millions of supporters who wanted her to run again after coming so close in 2008.

The fact that this burns the backside of her opponents is their problem, not hers or her supporters'.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. In 08 both candidates were opposed to marriage equality and agreed on most issues

I wound up going with Obama for a few reasons but one leading reason boiled down to 'if they are both anti gay, I'll go with the one who is not also racist'. That's really what it came down to. I hate that sort of negative politics that they seem to do so constantly. The carnage among good people all for some candidate.

[blm]

12. Establishment DC has always been against Kerry. If they had been with him he wouldn't have

had to mortgage his house in Dec 2003. They sure weren't directing any money to his campaign until he won Iowa without them. Then they sent money to hedge their bets - that is all. That is what they do.

If they had been with him in the years earlier he wouldn't have been so easily ostracized in DC for exposing IranContra and his work to investigate and expose S&Ls, BCCI and CIA drug running. In fact, the DC establishment aligned against Kerry, and most of them still are undermining his efforts at diplomatic solutions every chance they get.

I'm a Sanders supporter, but, I don't believe in rewarding the corporate media who certainly jumped up and down in the 90s gleefully pointing out how DC establishment rejected the Clintons when they went to DC and treated them without the deference given to the Bushes. That is what made it easy for Dole to claim he was in the driver seat on policy issues. They came out fighting the Dem agenda from day one, just as they managed to do with Obama's large win. Dem wins don't matter to them because the REAL establishment power brokers in DC hates ALL Dem policies. Clintons are guiltiest of trying to play to some of their rules, and that is my biggest complaint against them. Complaints I voiced here at DU almost daily for many years. (Now my GOTV duties in a very purple state demand greater efforts and outreach to ALL opposing GOP.)

Now corporate media is eager to lump in Clintons as a dynasty equal to Bushes (that's a sick joke to anyone familiar with Bushes and their REAL history) to fit in with their next narrative that Rubio is FRESH, and he will be made to look and sound FRESH and appealingly youthful compared to any Dem candidate - THAT is how corporate media and the real power brokers operate. And THAT is why you will be saying the real power brokers and money endorsing Rubio, sometimes publicly where they think it will be useful, and most of the times quietly to keep from aging his 'freshness'.

[Armstead]

16. One of my own issues with the Democrats is they never challenge the corporate media

What was done to Kerry was disgraceful.

However, Kerry also payed the Democratic game in downplaying his differences. He went along with the "We need a war hero" stuff, downplayed his legitimate credentials and the reakl diofferences between the GOP.

I saw him on a talk show duri9ng the campaign and he was asked "Are you a liberal?" Instead of an honest "Hell yes, and here's why...." Kerry fumbled awkwardly and mumbled "Well I donlt believe in labels...There are times when solutions are conservative, and some where they may be less conservative..."

Then and there I knew he was sunk as a candidate.

[blm]

19. So sunk that BushInc had to steal Ohio to stay in office.

.

[MohRokTah]

15. The problem is Sanders. eom

[Armstead]

18. Of course it is. Just like the problem in 08 was Obama.

Two candidates known for high-road campaigns get caught up in a dirty primary campaign. And what was the common denominator?

[MohRokTah]

21. There was no problem in 08. eom

[Armstead]

24. You must have have a short memory

[MohRokTah]

54. Pretty standard fare for a primary back in '08.

Sanders' ego makes this one a problem.

[Armstead]

56. Now you make me laugh

All politicians have egos, iuncluding Bernie, Clinton and Obama.

But comparative when you speak of ego, count up how often Bernie talks about "we" versus how often Clinton says "Me"

[mainer]

17. I can't imagine Biden vs. Sanders would be nearly as toxic

And certainly not as divisive.

[farleftlib]

20. Hillary is the problem

With all her baggage and dirty campaign tricks, cheating, lying, innuendo, her surrogates slurring Sanders, none of that would be an issue with another establishment Dem. Clinton fatigue is very strong and she still has that huge sense of entitlement. She is her own worst enemy.

[hifiguy]

58. Not as long as I can draw breath she isn't.

[TCJ70]

22. I do think it would be different...

...if the establishment opponent wasn't running a campaign like the Republicans are. Attack, attack, attack. Examples: Single-issue! Doesn't care about women! Doesn't care about minorities! Unicorns! Rainbows! Ponies!

That's the only way it could be different.

[PowerToThePeople]

27. Anyone who voted for Iraq would be toxic.

The reason Hillary is so toxic is because she was supposed to be one of the strongest voices for doing the right thing.

She did wrong by the people of this planet. Millions died.

We will not forget.

[Armstead]

29. I disagree that's why it's toxic

It is certainly an important one, but so much else has been overlayed.

Even though Kerry or Biden had voted for the war, I think many would have found it easier to at least not let it be a deal breaker.

[PowerToThePeople]

31. I am just speaking of my personal reasons.

Others have theirs.

[Armstead]

33. That's okay...We all have our deal breakers.

[farleftlib]

35. ^^THIS^^

She has no respect for human life. Anybody and everybody can be sacrificed on the altar of her ambition. It's all about her and her quest for power. Nobody is safe. Millions died and she has no regrets about that. None.

We will not forget is right.

[Vinca]

32. It would be a battle royal no matter who ran, but . . .

I think people are annoyed that the field was cleared for Clinton. Especially considering the "honesty" factor.

[Armstead]

36. A much more clear cut battle royale over actual issues, is what I'm referring to

Not this personalized nonsense and division over issues on which there is agreement

[Vinca]

43. If you look closely at the issues, their positions are not dramatically different.

They are both for better wages, affordable college, access to healthcare, etc. What sways me is the passion behind the pledge. Bernie has believed in his platform his entire life and will fight to the death for it. Hillary, on the other hand, has flipped a little here, flopped a little there and will nose dive back to right of center once the primary is over. If elected, she will fulfill her pledge to work across the aisle by signing their legislation into law . . . just as Bill did.

[TDale313]

34. It's the Clinton Machine.

This is what they do- attack, divide, play us against each other. It's disgusting.

[Waiting For Everyman]

38. Nope, Hillary is toxic.

Any of her buddies would be the same. They're almost interchangeable.

[Jarqui]

39. Yes, it would be much different

Biden, Kerry and Klobeshar would not behave as badly as Hillary has when it comes to deception, flip-flopping, smears, aggravating racial issues, etc. The media has had issues with the Clintons for 25 years. They have not had major issues (aside from Kerry's swiftboating) with the other three.

I think all three of them would make better presidents than Hillary.

[Cassiopeia]

40. Those candidates all have some consistent stances

so they could actually run an issues oriented campaign.

Hillary doesn't have a single issue that she hasn't tried to have it every way possible. Therefore, the only campaign she can run is a mud slinging slime fest.

I think anyone other than Hillary would have brought a far more honest campaign overall.

[HooptieWagon]

42. I agree.

This primary battle is toxic because the establishment candidate is a particularly toxic candidate and campaigner. There won't be a 'kiss and make up' if she gets the nomination.

[geek tragedy]

44. if there weren't a 22nd amendment we'd be looking at Obama cruising to an easy re-nomination

and 400+ Electoral vote whupping of Cruz or Trump.

The problem is that there isn't an heir the the current president's legacy in the race, so it's two mediocre politicians trying to triangulate off it.

[cantbeserious]

45. HRC Is A Pawn Of the Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks That Pay For Her Campaign

Therein Lies The Problem.

[restorefreedom]

48. THIS. nt

[Metric System]

64. Biden was dubbed the "Senator from MBNA." If Sanders supporters are saying they have no problem

with his ties to the financial industry, then their opposition to Hillary is suspect.

[Armstead]

70. No that'd be a subject of debate.

Who candidates answer to and support is one of the issues that campaigns are about. It's what they should be about. But the campaigns themselves can be vigorous and oppositional in terms of those things without being nasty and personalized and polarizing in other ways.

[cantbeserious]

77. That Is Projection Of The Highest Order - Best To Check The Assumptions - Embedded In That Post

eom

[NowSam]

46. Well one candidate keeps telling the truth

and that really bothers the establishment. My answer is as long as a champion like Bernie speaks truth to power we can expect the machine to fight back and dirty.

[Gothmog]

59. I disagree with the premise of the OP

I think that Clinton is the strongest possible general election candidate for the party and has broad support in the party. Endorsements are important at times and these endorsements show that Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate according to leaders in the party http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

Hillary Clinton 468
Bernie Sanders 3

Before any votes are cast, presidential candidates compete for the support of influential members of their party, especially elected officials like U.S. representatives, senators and governors. During the period known as the “invisible primary,” these “party elites” seek to coalesce around the candidates they find most acceptable as their party’s nominee. Over the past few decades, when these elites have reached a consensus on the best candidate, rank-and-file voters have usually followed.

Of course, not all endorsements are equally valuable. We use a simple weighting system: 10 points for governors, 5 points for U.S. senators and 1 point for U.S. representatives (there are roughly five times as many representatives as senators and 10 times as many representatives as governors).

[Armstead]

61. If she is so strong she should have concentrated on selling herself instead of the bullshit

Creating a climate of racially divided constituencies, calling legitimate criticisms of the system "personal smears," sending out memes about how the supporters of her opposing candidate arr just rabble and bullies.....etc./

She could have bee positive but, as usual, she chose toxic

[Gothmog]

78. I disagree with the premise that Clinton has been negative compared to what the GOP would do

The concept that the Clinton campaign has been very negative on Sanders is simply false when you look at what Sanders would be subject to if he was the Democratic nominee. VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

The attacks that would be levied against Sanders by the Kochs, the RNC candidate and others in a general election contest would make the so-called attacks against Sanders look like patty-cakes. The GOP and Kochs are not known for being nice or honest and as the article notes there are a ton of good topics available for attack. Raising taxes is never a good campaign platform (Just ask President Mondale). The GOP would also raise the socialism and age issues if Sanders was the nominee.

Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders has not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like.

[farleftlib]

62. I believe the responses to this OP

prove you wrong. Bernie supporters are a majority here and we are pretty united in our opposition to Clinton and it is a reflection of how the public feels. She is a flawed and compromised candidate who is widely perceived as dishonest and untrustworthy. Endorsements really don't mean all that much if the candidate herself has bad reputation.

[Gothmog]

80. DU does not reflect the Democratic Party or the voting population

[Metric System]

63. Biden would have been attacked over writing the crime bill, his IWR vote, being the "Senator from

MBNA." I think Sanders supporters would have went after him and his record as much as they have Hillary's. Well, assuming that support for Sanders isn't just about hating Hillary.

[Armstead]

65. It would have been a heated campaign for the right reasons

Yes Biden would have gotten criticized and there'd be heated arguments. But it'd be about issues.

Biden and Bernie would have argued about issues. But I don't think either Biden or Bernie would have fostered the nasty personal undertones and racializastion and sexism and other opportunistic needless divisions over the social issues they basically agreed on.

[Metric System]

67. I'm also sure Biden wouldn't have been called a bitch, cunt, whore, etc., etc. by Sanders supporters

on social media.

[Armstead]

69. That's typical of the tone....All campaigns involving millions of people have bad apples

But using that to tar a whole group of people is a toxic strategy. "Those awful Sanders supporters"

Sanders did not set a tone to tell people to go out and attack Clinton as a person. Quite the contrary.

Also there was already a lot of personal animosity of Clinton to begin with. That's unfortunate, but it is one reason to question how wise it is to have a candidate whop is so polarizing on a personal level.

[farleftlib]

72. Hill supporters act just as hatefully

I know that the ones who call Bernie a crusty old jew, a socialist d-bag and other vile names are not representative of the whole group. I thought we Dems didn't use the broad brush to tar an entire group for the sins of a handful. Was I wrong?

[HereSince1628]

71. I think the recognition-popularity gap at the start set up much of this.

That had roots running deep into the bitterness of the end of the 08 that to some seemed to have considered to have concluded in a deal among the party establishment for that campaign's runner up.

Could any other candidate have started from such a lofty position without supporters and media broadcasting the futility of a primary challenge? I doubt it.

Would the supporters of -any- challenger to that high starting place had any place to go but to encourage others to views of reality and personality that would shrink that massive starting gap? I don't think so.

Would efforts to shrink that gap ever have been seen as welcome to the supporters of the candidate enjoying that gap? I don't think so.

Lastly, would it have been possible for any establishment candidate not to have been linked to the New Dem pro-corporatist, pragmatic technocratic professional politicians who have been so questionably effective in advocating for median Americans even if judged on incrementalism? I don't think so. Although it might have been possible to link to someone who is less connected to the financial rewards of elite status, someone who waited until existing political life to cash in on celebrity.

What other political point of view would have contrasted with that of the prohibitive favorite champion of the New Dem point of view enough to produce a viable challenge? I think none, even though it may well have been Warren instead of Sanders.

Sanders, Warren, and a few other national politicians have brought out in the open what millions of median Americans believe: the American system is rigged against median Americans. There is widespread belief that people under 35 will live an existence wherein being a median earner will be indistinguishable from being a member of the working poor. There are millions of people who consequently yearn to tear down the status quo politics of the establishment that supports that oligarchical system of the 1%.

Could any alternative candidate have presented that same cause without releasing the pent up and now noisy yearning for change? I don't think so

[Armstead]

74. I would prefer to see those issues fought out apart from personalities

We always seem to put these things into the boxes of the people involved.

The point shouldn't be whether either Bernie or Clinton is a "nice person" or not. It's the different impulses within the Democratic Party that each represents.

They are both well meaning people. But we get caught up in crap about them (and their "supporters&quot and phony divisions over social issues they agree on....and so that fundamental choice of direction becomes a secondary issue.

[HereSince1628]

82. A person must be chosen. People have characters/personality.

Personality and character especially around issues of trust and judgment, will always be part of the election process.

I'd argue it's those impulses that people want to understand and anticipate before being saddled with a president for 4 years

[Armstead]

84. True, but there are ways and there are ways

[LexVegas]

73. If it were a man. nt

[Armstead]

75. Irrelevant

Suppose it had been Warren against Clinton?

[840high]

76. Nonsense.

[Gothmog]

79. If Sanders was the nominee, he would be subject to a ton of far more negative attacks

Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.

[Armstead]

85. Clinton hasn't "beaten the GOP"...she's simply survived

And Sanders is pretty much what you see is what you get.

GOP can demonize him all they want, but he has proclaimed that he is a Democratic Socialist....and he still keeps getting more popular. The ones who will be scared off by that would never vote for a Democrat or moderate liberal anyway.

[Gothmog]

86. I honestly do not believe that Sanders would survive the same level of attacks by the GOP

I have seen the GOP at work and so far the GOP has actually been supporting or trying to help Sanders. Rove is running negative ads against Clinton and other GOP groups (the Ricketts and Future 45 groups) are using the Senator McCaskill trick to try to help Sanders in large part because these republicans believe that Sanders would be the weaker candidate. The GOP and Rove would love to run against Sanders in the general election because they have so much material to use against him.

All of that would change if Sanders is the nominee and I believe that the GOP would have a field day against Sanders. As the VOX article posted on this thread noted, the attacks by the Clinton campaign and its surrogates have been very mild in comparison to what the GOP and the Kochs would do to Sanders. Clinton has survived decades of negative attacks and the premise of your OP is that these rather mild attacks on Sanders are horrible. As noted in the VOX article, you and the other Sanders supporters would in a state of shock after the RNC and the Kochs started attacking Sanders in real.

We can agree to disagree as to whether Sanders would do okay under the full weight of GOP attacks but the premise of this thread tends to suggest to me that this is not the case. Again, the premise of this thread is that the rather "kid glove" attacks on Sanders by the Clinton campaign are horrible. I strongly believe the attacks you describe in the OP would pale in comparison to that the GOP and the Kochs would use against Sanders if he was the nominee.

[Armstead]

88. I am aware of how toxic the GOP is and how toxic their tactics will be

That's kind of been business as usual ever since Tricky Dick.

But I find it very distressing that the same tactics (even if slightly milder) are being used against Sanders. And what really bothers me is not so much that it is aimed at Sanders personally -- but against everything he stands for, and all of the people who share his views.

And the unnecessary racial divisiveness and sexism that has been stirred. You wanna fight racism and sexism? Hold your powder until this fall because that's when it's really going to be needed. It is totally counterproductive to be stirring that shit up against a candidate and supporters who share the same views on those social issues.

[Gothmog]

90. We have to disagree as to the comparison of the attacks against Sanders

In my mind, the 2008 race supports my belief and position. I supported President Obama in 2008 and while I wished that Clinton got out of the race at an earlier time, I knew that the attacks against President Obama by the Clinton campaign were mild in comparison to what he got from the GOP in both 2008 and 2012. To me there was no comparison to the degree of attacks during the primary process and the attacks used by the GOP in the general election (and this was with McCain who proved to be more honorable than Palin or Romney).

Neither Trump nor Carnival Cruz will be as honorable and reasonable as McCain and so the GOP, Rove and the Kochs would get very very nasty if Sanders was the nominee.

I honesty do not think that Clinton campaign or her surrogates are being racist in deciding to hug President Obama and his record. As I have noted on other threads, there is a real difference between how Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters view President Obama. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511087486 and my post in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511190772 I am not an African American or a POC but I strongly believe that President Obama has been a good POTUS and I am unwilling to jettison his legacy. While I like Sanders and many of his positions, I dislike Sanders' attacks on President Obama and his legacy. My beliefs are not based on race or religion (I am Jewish) but are on my strongly held beliefs about President Obama's legacy.

I am also the father of two daughters and I am so I admit that having our first female POTUS is a good thing to me. Again you are free to disagree.

After being involved in some rather nasty political fights over the years, I strongly disagree with the premise of your OP. I have seen what the GOP will do if they get the chance and the attacks against Sanders so far by the Clinton campaign really pale in comparison to what the GOP, the Kochs and Rove would do if Sanders is the nominee.

[malokvale77]

81. No, because nobody does toxic like the Clintons. nt

[Gothmog]

87. Have you heard of a guy named Karl Rove or two brothers with the last name Koch?

The attacks on Sanders described in the OP would pale in comparison to what the Kochs and Rove would do to Sanders.

[SwampG8r]

89. The dlc kochs?

[malokvale77]

91. You mean the same Koch brothers who funded the DLC?

You mean the same Karl Rove who's political bag of tricks is the favorite toolkit of the Clinton Campaign.

Yes I've heard of them.

Have you heard of David Brock? There's a real piece of shit for you. How about John Podesta?

I could go on.

[tk2kewl]

92. it depends on wether or not the other establishment candidate was low enough to hire Brock

[Armstead]

96. The Cliontons don't need to hire Brock.

They're the masters of dirty politics.

[Spider Jerusalem]

93. That depends, I suppose

on how inclined this hypothetical "different" candidate's campaign was to engage in the sort of tactics we're seeing from Clinton's campaign (scorched earth, essentially; outright lies and distortions and a total indifference to whether the result is going to be the alienation of a substantial portion of Democratic primary voters on the apparent logic that "well, if I get the nomination they won't have anywhere else to go&quot .

[Bucky]

94. Were you around in 2008? This primary is MASSIVELY less toxic than '08 or even '04.

Sorry, but as frustrating as both camps are finding it right now, the two campaigns are mostly behaving themselves and centering on the issues. Not exclusively, of course, but this is very substantive campaign all the Democrats are running.

[Armstead]

95. No excuse. It wasn't Obama who made 2008 massively toxic.

Massively toxic in 04 because of the War and Bush and the DNC trying to crush moderate Dean as crazy.

It's not the substance of issues that's toxic year. Once again it's Clinton pulling out all the stops to deflect talk of cire issues by stirring up racial and gender divisiveness and personalized deflections.