I like to point out that:

1. More than 40% of the American public identifies as Independent and Bernie has been an Independent for decades. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx)


2. Republicans HATE Hillary, how is she supposed to win them over for the general against the Republican-Fox News machine that has been preparing to run against her for 8 years? (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/exclusive-republicans-really-hate-hillary-clinton)


3. In her words Republicans are the 'enemy', how is that attitude help reach out to Republicans for the general? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/20/what-hillarys-claim-that-republicans-are-her-enemies-is-really-about/)


4. Polls show Bernie does better head to head against Republicans than Hillary (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/27/1440343/-The-Electability-Argument-Is-Dead-All-the-Polls-Show-Bernie-Does-Better-Against-GOP-Than-Hillary)


5. Bernie is raising sums of money no one thought he would be able to do, he has plenty of money to run a successful campaign even against Hillary Clinton. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fundraising/)


6. Bernie's favorability ratings are consistently better than Hillary. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/favorability-ratings-show-hillary-clinton-is-unelectable_b_8388316.html)


7. People aren't excited about Hillary and everyone just expects her to win. Her supporters are just going to stay home for the primary because they think she has it in the bag. Bernie supporters on the other hand are fanatical about getting Bernie in the white house and will turn out in droves.


Honestly I think its deluded to think that someone as divisive as her is easily going to win, she could win but it will be far from easy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3x4djk/arguments_against_people_who_say_hillary_has_a/

The COMMONS Online
Your Independent, Nonprofit Source Of News And Views
From Windham County, Vermont



I write to urge U.S. Representative Peter Welch to endorse Bernie Sanders for president.

It is disturbing to me that Sen. Leahy and Gov. Shumlin have endorsed Hillary Clinton, the pro-war, pro-GMO, pro-1-percent candidate, against the candidate of the 99 percent. I am disturbed because of Clinton’s obvious faithlessness; I hate to see them associated with it, and I would dislike even more to see Welch joining them.

On militancy, Sanders has said: “Our response must begin with [...] the reflection that failed policy decisions of the past — rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, or Guatemalan President Ábenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President Allende in 1973. These are the sorts of policies that do not work [and] do not make us safer.” We don’t often hear such broad, useful, and truthful historical references in politics.

In contrast, Clinton propagates endless war: “It is time to [...] intensify and broaden our efforts to smash [ISIS] in Iraq and Syria. That starts with [...] more allied planes, more strikes, and a broader target set.” No history here, because our misguided wars are what gave rise to ISIS in the first place.

Clinton has also recommended a no-fly zone in Syria, which would put us in direct military opposition with Russia. I can’t think of a worse direction for our foreign policy. Sanders’ rhetoric concerning wealth inequality and banking is basically sincere if more than a bit wishful, and he knows it. Clinton, on the other hand, gives lip service to public interest while the Clinton Global Initiative promotes Monsanto; and Jerry Crawford, her top campaign advisor, is a former Monsanto lobbyist.

Add to this the vibrancy of Sanders’ distinctly left-wing candidacy and potential left-wing support for Clinton is bound to be tepid, while it is well known she energizes conservative voters who might have stayed home. Thus, recently The Hill reported Sanders polling much stronger than Clinton against Republican opponents. Sanders is simply the more favorable candidate.

And it is obvious which of them would be better economically. Every major economic indicator besides the stock market is down now. This is because Americans have no money to spend due to export of jobs and because our elite culture refuses to fund badly needed infrastructure refurbishment and sustainable-energy conversion.

Privatization is also a factor, where public institutions are transferred to private corporations, which then reduce employment in search of profits, causing quality of service to plummet. Think “automated customer service.” The only people who don’t suffer from all of this are the one percent who comprise Clinton’s true constituency, and a Clinton presidency would merely give us more.

Where does your heart lie, Mr. Welch? Do you really want to give your neighbors and fellow Americans more bank bailouts, perpetuating financial ills, austerity (proven to not work anywhere), war and more war (which is actually not economically helpful), stress, debt, sickness, and more stress?

That is what you would give to us by endorsing Clinton!

Please don’t do that; please show us that you, like the vast majority of your constituents, simply cannot stomach any more corporate deceit and corruption!

Mr. Welch, please endorse Bernie Sanders for president now.

Readers, please contact Mr. Welch to add your voices.


Wat Sterns

Brattleboro


http://www.commonsnews.org/site/site05/story.php?articleno=13644&page=1#.VnJovza0AQI

We’ve officially reached the 2,000,000 contributors mark for Bernie Sanders’ campaign.

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-get-2-million?refcode=em151216pm/…

Amazing! The Bern is real. Way to go, Berners!



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/17/1460938/-We-Did-It-FeelTheBern

Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadn't acted and had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.

http://billmoyers.com/story/hillary-clinton-is-whitewashing-the-financial-catastrophe/

"Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by itself," Reed wrote. "It makes the entire finance industry more fragile…. As is now clear, traditional banking attracts one kind of talent, which is entirely different from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and trading. Traditional bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate reward." Reed concludes, "As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable. No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that."

http://billmoyers.com/story/hillary-clinton-is-whitewashing-the-financial-catastrophe/

DFA'S ENDORSEMENT PROCESS

Democracy for America was founded out of the presidential primary in 2004. Our goal is to empower our members to vote — and to get out the votes of their friends and family — to decide which presidential candidate DFA should endorse in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary process.

Here's how DFA's presidential endorsement process works:

- The endorsement vote ended at 11:59pm Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 15.

- Just like in a real election, you will need to work hard to maximize support for your candidate if you want them to win this endorsement. That means getting your friends, family and other like-minded progressives to cast their votes for your candidate as well — on Facebook, Twitter, over email, on the phone, or however you want to spread the word!

- DFA will only endorse in this presidential primary if there is overwhelming support for one candidate. That means that, just like in 2007 when we last conducted an official presidential endorsement vote, we will only endorse if one candidate reaches DFA's super-majority threshold of 67% (two-thirds of votes cast, or 66.67% to be technical about it).

On Thursday, December 17th — after a complete security review of the votes — we will announce the results.


http://2016.democracyforamerica.com/?source=hp