This is breaking my heart.
There is no doubt, in my opinion, that Bernie Sanders is the better candidate for working people. If you're a banker, then Hillary is your pick, of course. But I'm just another member of the working class. So it really upsets me to see that Hillary Clinton has swept South Carolina.
I'm really not all that angry at Hillary (or the DNC). One percenters gotta do what one percenters gotta go. Instead, I'm disappointed that Bernie's team was not able to get the message out effectively enough.
Team Bernie, it's past time to take the gloves off.
Presidency. We had good jobs and doors, that are now shut to us, were opened. It was an era when our workplaces were more civil, people more willing to listen to others and the massive Clinton-Gore program of "putting people first" saw many good and lasting changes to Federal government public services, including Social Security services and FEMA. We also remember that many of our neighborhoods that were subjected to drive-by shootings, petty crimes, and attacks on elderly neighbors became much safer with neighborhood watchers supported by the additional police put on the street. This is what older black people remember about the Clinton years. We began to see blacks and hispanics entering the board rooms and indeed the President's cabinet. Midnight basketball, youth centers, youth job programs...some more memories. And yes, there were plenty of youth who refused to take advantage of what was being offered, preferring instead, to get rich fast by being runners and chumps for the drug lords who were looked up to by many.
Were things perfect...NO. Were things a s bad as they are now NO! Things weren't as bad then because the tone was being set at the top and the tone was community, education, work, service, and equal opportunity.
These are the things that older blacks like myself remember about the Clinton years...and no amount of lying, trying, or smearing will remove those memories for many blacks.
Or maybe, as a single-issue voter, voting to have the first woman president? Perhaps you can provide insight into your motivations instead of leaving it a mystery for others to decide.
It's their vote, that's the end of it.
Some people support Hillary because they think she has the most relevant experience. Some support her because they feel it's past time for a woman president. And yes, some support her because of her last name.
I won't argue against any of that. But here's what bothers me. Hillary has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from bankers. That's no little thing. Bankers will invest in something only if they think they'll get a good return on their money. They are not charities. They are sophisticated investors, and sophisticated bribers.
I just can't get past that when it comes to Hillary. Sorry, but I can't.
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...
Total Bill and Hillary Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$153,669,691.00 $210,795.19 729
Total Bill Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$132,021,691.00 $207,255.40 637
Total Hillary Clinton speech income, April 2013 thru March 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$21,648,000.00 $235,304.35 92
Access is everything; paid access like this is legal corruption.
The system is rigged in every way it can be, and it's frustrating as hell. We knew it was gonna be hard. There have been road bumps even I didn't expect. (Or at least didn't expect to be this rough) And in other ways we've come far further than I thought.
What makes me saddest is the divisiveness. Once again we're being played off each other to protect the vested interests- only this time it's not Dems vs Repubs.
As demonstrated democrats are perfectly capable of voting against their best interests, it is not just a republican phenomenon.
Goldman Sachs, and Henry Kissinger, and her Iraqi war vote.
But it does explain how the country has gotten so fucked up.
you as a Sanders supporter are creating a crisis that doesn't exist. Again.
I've read several threads that the South and particularly SC is full of stupid people who don't know any better, now it turns out they're all cunning 1% 'ers. I'm having a hard time keeping track of why SC is so disappointing to some folks.
that serves the few rather than the people, yeah. If you aren't with us, you must be against us. How else could it be? Hillary is pretty much status quo, except when it comes to social issues that garner votes it seems. At least, that's her record and the persona she has created by being so.
Maybe we're all wrong, but why take that chance when we have a strong and consistently progressive leader to support?
We're in this to win it -- for Bernie, but mostly for all of us. So, yeah, go ahead and think and feel what you will, including feeling like the enemy, if that's how our support for Bernie and the fundamental principles he represents feels to you.
meaning what the Bernie supporters want.
South Carolina's voters voted the way they did because, in my opinion, they really don't understand the true difference between Hillary and Bernie. And as I noted earlier, that's mainly on Bernie's staff. It's their job to highlight those differences.
Team Bernie has done the following:
Are you telling me there's something that's been left undone?
I'm no fan of anything on your list. Any Bernie staffer who has promoted any of that needs to be shown the door.
But...there is a key difference between Hillary and Bernie. Hillary has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the banking industry. Let that sink in for a moment. Hundreds of thousands of dollars!
As the old saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I have walked away from Sanders.
Instead I'll just leave it at there's a difference between trolls on the Internet and what comes from the official campaigns. If you look at the stuff from Bernie and his surrogates vs Hillary and her surrogates, yes, he's kept the gloves on. Not gonna say that was wrong- I think he's run a very good and decent campaign. But no, he hasn't gone negative.
But I have not. And, increasingly, Sanders has been moving toward verbalizing those issues himself. I heard him on a live broadcast change his mind about the emails. Is it only time before he embraces all of them?
By the way -- if you can give me a link showing me where you have told other Sanders supporters to back off on any of those issues, I'll make an open and loud retraction and issue a full unconditional apology.
It seems passe, but I'll say it anyway. The Hillary camp behaves exactly like Republicans -- including using classic projection. Shepard Smith's advice seems fitting, "Maybe you should consult a mirror."
Particularly the few times I've seen anything about Bengazi. And I've seen some horrible stuff from Hillary supporters online. That's not the campaign although it certainly colors how we see each other and the candidates.
By the end of the day on Wednesday there will be Vince Foster threads on GDP.
Not even close. It doesn't even represent the AA vote, we vary as much as anyone. There's still plenty of time to win.
And we will win.
If by "gloves off," you mean attacking aggressively, going negative. No. That's how we lose, it's exactly what Bernie's opponents want us to do. I, for one, am not using their tactics.
There's plenty to attack (policy, record, etc) without going negative.
It ain't over yet, don't listen to them.
They wouldn't give Bernie a blink for seven months, but ran Trump 24/7 as the guy who'd shake things up.
Bernie, unlike EVERY other candidate in this race, is a good man, an honest person of integrity who won't go negative against an opponent.
Hillary's faults, egregious as they are, cannot be harped on by Bernie, but must see the light of day through social media and word of mouth. Whether it's too late for this to happen is a big question.
...had Bernie gotten more exposure early on, his campaign wouldn't have gotten as far as it is even now. I think part of the appeal of Bernie was the excitement of the roar of the crowd at his stump speeches. 15,000 screaming fans can be very convincing and the movement built up steam. I liken it to the difference between how much you like a song hearing it live vs. hearing it for the first time on your iPod while commuting.
I think the optics of Bernie, sans the screaming crowds, are tough to overcome if you're not already on board with the fervor of his message.
Case in point: I listened to a panel CNN put together yesterday. SC AA's - male and female, young and old, some for Bernie, some Hillary some undecided. One of the comments that really struck me was from three young men who said they wouldn't vote for Bernie because Bernie scared them. They said he reminded them of "your Grandfather who is always right and you respect him but he yells at you and he's scarey so you keep away from him."
Large venues work for Bernie. They built excitement. One on one television, not so much IMO.
This country is full of ignorance and fear (hence Trump), and it may well be that we're not ready for or deserving of someone like Bernie. That's what pisses me off so much about Hillary's supporters on DU: they ought to know better.
Hillary supporters ought to know better than what? How to win an election?
I completely understand the tenants of the revolution but to my mind, it's not grassroots enough. To truly turn this ship around there need to be more progressive seats held in the house, and a strong majority in the senate. That same revolutionary enthusiasm needs to continue through to the midterms. It's a long slog to enact as much radical change as Senator Sanders proposes.
To just jump in at the presidential level is jumping without a net. There's too much at risk should a republican prevail. We can't just have better ideas than them, we always have better ideas than them. We have to out maneuver them. That's politics.
There's not a whole lot of difference between our two camps. Some yes, but we're still all aiming for the same shore: raising up the ones at the bottom, more stability for the ones in the middle and greater accountability for the ones at the top. (Yes, I generalize here, I know). We just have dramatically differing views on how to achieve the movement.
So Hillary and her supporters engage in politics. Well, for now, politics is the sea on which this ship of change sails...
But that's just my opinion...enjoy your evening.
My "ought to know better" comment, and what is so distressing to me, is that simply winning an election, in this "end times" era of politics in 2016, is to prolong the inevitability of change, and to exacerbate its wrenching consequences when change finally does come, which it must.
I don't agree that "jumping without a net" is what Bernie's candidacy is about; I do agree that House and Senate, and even more importantly, state houses and county commissions and city councils are where the sea change must occur, and this will take time that we really can't waste.
I believe Sanders' "bully pulpit" effect would be powerful in codifying, expressing and delivering the message we need to turn away from Empire and toward a sustainable community and that the trickle-down effect could make the difference.
I think the only cure for Trump and trumpism is Bernie Sanders, both electorally and politically beyond 2016.
Again, good wishes to you.
...from the outside, his campaign looks more anti-Hillary than it does pro-Bernie.
He needs to get back to explaining why voters should choose him, and distance himself from these folks who believe fighting Democrats is more important than focusing on the republican opposition.
1) He has not personally "opened up" on her. He's respectfully told the truth.
2) His campaign, "from the outside," is being portrayed by the media in terms of Hillary's campaign. You expect them to talk about his issues? When he's pointing a finger at their bosses?
...and supporters are urging him to go even further..
It's your campaign. It's a terrible idea for your candidate, but I say go for it.
I'm a Democrat who respects Bernie Sanders, but supports Hillary Clinton for president. I will gladly vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
So I do have a huge stake in reforming banks so my nest egg does not go poof, like it did in 2007. I have worked for the last 40s years and I'd like to retire in 10 years, when I'm 67.
I really don't want Bernie to bring down Wall Street....
...I see him reforming Wall Street. As it is now, you and I and all the all the rest of the working class, we're just pawns in the game.
We don't get the insider information, and we don't get the bailouts when we bet wrong. I'm not asking for any advantage. I just want some fairness in the system. And the people who don't want that have sent huge amounts of money Hillary's way.
They haven't sent anything Bernie's way. There's a reason for that.
there are twelve primaries on Tuesday. If Bernie loses 10 of them, like the polls say he is going to, then it is pretty much over.
No, she will not have enough delegates to clinch, but an insurmountable lead and all of the momentum. It would take a miracle for Clinton to not get the nomination. Something like the Lord God Almighty endorsing Bernie with two mile high flaming letters in the sky over Missouri.
I am a working person myself, and an advocate for the lower classes, and I don't see Bernie bringing us anything except crushing defeat.
So I don't think his nomination would be better for us. Not at all.
Do you back the working-class champion who will likely lose the general election (in this case, Sanders), or the corporationalist (Hillary here) who will likely win?
To each his own. But as for me, I'll stick to my principles and vote for Sanders.
ordinarily I would tilt at the windmill.
If the "working class champion" was somebody like, say, Russ Feingold, then I would be happy to support the underdog.
If Feingold won the nomination, the RWNM would attack him and say "he is a socialist". And Feingold could say something like "don't be silly, I support common sense proposals to help ordinary working people and the poor."
Sanders, on the other hand, would have to start the marathon 20 miles behind Feingold. He would have to say something like "Yes I am, but that is NOT a bad thing. Here's what I mean by that...."
Well, if he and his phalanx of followers had thirty years to re-educate the public about socialism, he might have some chance. But in a five month campaign, Sanders would go down in flames and take the whole Socialist party with him. Every candidate running as a Democrat would have to explain how he/she is NOT a socialist even though his/her party just nominated a socialist for their Presidential candidate. Might as well nominate a pedophile and then try to explain to the voters how pedophilia is not really a bad thing, it is just misunderstood. Good luck with that.
The Democratic Party already has a hard time winning and maintaining a majority in Congress. The Democratic Socialist Party would have NO chance.
...but for me, the sheer number of likely SCOTUS nominations in the coming 4 years (and hopefully 8 years if a Dem is in office) are preventing me from considering the stance you have taken. Personally, the risk of allowing a Republican in office to make those nominations because we didn't back the Dem candidate who could take the general leaves me only the one choice.
I'd love to see a revolution that shakes up status quo and revitalizes the political process in this nation. This particular election, the potential long-lasting negative consequences of taking that risk and losing don't justify the magnitude of the risk for me.
To each his own, as you said. This is my personal perspective and not meant to be judgment on anyone else.
It is a long journey.... so don't get discouraged.... We will win!
I'm not a 1%er or a banker. But I have carefully reviewed Bernie's policy proposals and I've found them to be...well, complete crap. Let's face it, Bernie is 90% rhetoric and 10% flawed logic.
He wants to bring back jobs by incentivizing businesses with higher taxes. His Rebuild America Act sounds good in theory, but once you realize it's nothing more than a short term injection of cash into our economy, which will be short lived and economically unsustainable after a short period of time; the appeal really wears off.
He wants to fund "free college" with Tobin taxes that often lower tax revenues and move securities to foreign exchanges, while hurting middle income 401k savers with taxes and loss of market liquidity (higher spreads).
He wants to raise the minimum wage without any regard to whether small businesses could actually afford it. In large swaths of the country, a $15.00 minimum wage would mean a lot of unemployed people. I think minimum wage should be higher, but exceptions need to be made based on business profits, size, and cost of living. The details matter.
I could go on and on, but Bernie's proposals are a joke. My theory is that he doesn't bother with the actual policy details due to the quid pro quo nature of his campaign...."vote for me, everything will be free."
One of the main efforts of the DLC/Third Way/Whatever They want to call themselves this week has been to stack the early primary with Southern states. They tend to be much more conservative, so they're far more likely to vote for their kind of Democrat.
Al From started really pushing the effort in the 1980s. They got it done by 1988, but the plan didn't work well when the candidates more-or-less split the states.
It really came to fruition in 1992. Bill Clinton "came back from the dead" based on winning several southern states on Super Tuesday. Gore also used it very effectively in 2000.
Things started going a little awry in 2004, with several states trying to create an even earlier "mini Tuesday".
The strategy really went off the rails in 2008 when 24 states all lined up for Super Tuesday. Half of the delegates were up on that one, including states like CA and NY that could completely break the Southern-heavy plan.
This year, we're back to a Southern-heavy Super Tuesday. Most of the delegates are coming from TX (222), GA (102) and VA (95). The only heavyweight (in delegates) that isn't in the South is MA (91).
The thing to keep in mind is the race is currently 2.2% Clinton, 1.6% Sanders. The same people that stacked the deck are attempting to apply massive pressure on Sanders and Sanders supporters to give up, based on losses in the South....in states we will lose in the GE anyway.
It is not time to take the gloves off. It is time to keep working.