2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhere's the Revolution?
Zeke Miller @ZekeJMiller
Tad Devine on the Democratic race:
"It is not a matter of delegate arithmetic"
Only4RM @Only4RM
#Recap It's NOT:
1) States
2) Pledged delegates
3) Superdelegates
4) Popular vote
#WTF is it then, @BernieSanders?
"WTF is it then?" indeed. More precisely, where's the revolution?
Of course, there never really was a real people's revolution, and, maybe labeling the Sanders campaign as one is a bit of opportunistic politics on either side. The entire notion of a decades-long D.C political figure waging a broad brush revolution against the political establishment he's still part and parcel of is an absurdity in the still-ebbing wake of a successful, two-term Democratic presidency.
In fact, the campaign of this newly declared Democrat - who kept the party at arms length throughout his legislative career until he decided he needed our coalition for 'media coverage' for his presidential run - has focused his revolution almost exclusively in this primary against any Democratic figure or institution who dares associate themselves with his rival. The entire campaign has devolved into an anti-Hillary endeavor which appears to be more about electing him at this stage than anything substantive.
What are we to make of the mere handful of Sen. Sanders' peers who have stepped forward to endorse his candidacy? The dearth in support from Congress is amplified by the spectacle of all but a couple of members of the 'Progressive Caucus' he founded when he was a congressman backing his opponent.
What are the American people to make of a campaign which promised a revolution of support, yet, halfway through the primary have seen a sizable majority of the voters who are a legacy of the Obama coalition rally to his rival? How does a campaign which is so far behind in votes and delegates earned get to claim that it's a 'movement?'
With a lot of damn hubris, is how. Here in this forum, the Sanders campaign is presented as some heroic deed; the final chance to save our party from itself. Yet, Sanders campaign and supporters have far overestimated the appetite of Democrats to eat their own in an aftermath of their divide and conquer campaign which has left an astounding number of Democratic and progressive icons by the wayside.
As the campaign, and eventually the candidate himself, put aside Sanders' expressed objections to personal attacks against his Democratic rival, they are left with very little comity available for a rival who's seen republican smears co-opted by Sanders defenders to suit their increasingly cynical campaign.
What a rising majority of our party's voters are actually saying by choosing Hillary Clinton, is they don't see a need to tear down the structure of our Democratic coalition, but have expressed their desire to continue and build upon the gains made in the past 7 years under Barack Obama.
The candidate who emerges victorious at the end of our primary is the person with the legitimate claim to any 'movement' of voters. No amount of the projection that's occurring here and elsewhere from Sanders supporters toward Hillary can diminish the hopes and desires of those who've rallied to her campaign.
The values and principles they hold are not defined by whatever the opposition is projecting on their rival. They are no less 'heroic' than anyone else investing their resources and dreams into this campaign which presents an especially historic prospect in the election of the first-ever woman nominee for president, as well as the potential advancement of the maverick candidate from Vermont. Supporters of Hillary should be proud of their candidate, and themselves, as well, for committing to the election of this historic choice.
Black and Latino voters should also take pride in their efforts in providing wide majorities of votes in several states which have buoyed Hillary's delegate and popular vote to over THREE times Barack Obama's biggest lead at this point in 2008. That's a 2.5 million + vote lead, so far, over Sanders.
Instead of just talking about a revolution, these voters are creating a movement of their own. It's no coincidence that these folks are under direct attack from the republican opposition. They also deserve more recognition than intended by the Sanders' camp's 'low information voter' slurs and the crushed meme of some regional difference in knowledge or support between voters in the North and South.
At some point, the party will need to respond to these voters' interests and concerns, rather than just process angry rhetoric from someone tilting against them who can't rally enough actual voters to his cause to even defeat his Democratic rival.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)how to talk about AIDS?
riversedge
(70,262 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Silence = Death
Knowledge = Life
. And your tactic of leaping to the personal insult is one that LGBT are oh, so supremely used to. It is also a demonstration of the mindset that motivated Hillary's praise of the Reagans for doing the very thing they are detested for not doing. Supremacist attitude.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)declaring marriage between a man and a woman.
"As Mayor of Burlington, he signed off on an evangelical-led We Believe in Marriage Week in 1982 defining marriage as between a husband and wife."
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/02/08/asking-bernie-sanders-about-same-sex-marriage-was-like-pulling-teeth-from-a-rhinoceros/
Would you like a link to that document?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8FLYbegXp9JNENTR0pVelk3bHM/view
And by some amazing coincidence Sanders campaign comes up with a plan for HIV/AIDS only immediately AFTER Hillary Clinton's stupid gaffe (which she apologized for).
Some people would see Sanders campaign as being highly opportunistic and using HIV/AIDS in a most cynical manner.
Of course the Clinton Foundation has done more for confronting the HIV/AIDS issue than Sanders ever will.
Two-thirds of people who need treatment in the developing world are still not receiving it.
When the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) was founded in 2002, only 200,000 people were receiving treatment for HIV/AIDS in low and middle income countries, with medicines that cost over $10,000 per person per year. Over a decade later, more than eight million people are receiving treatment and CHAI has helped reduce the cost of medicines to around $100 to $200 per person per year in many countries. Countries have repeatedly proven that it is possible to rapidly scale up treatment services. For the first time, there is real promise that we can turn the tide against HIV/AIDS
- See more at: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/clinton-health-access-initiative/programs/hivaids#sthash.6j5tzsmO.dpuf
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)It's a symptom of the PTSD she suffers as a result of dodging sniper fire.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)think
(11,641 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)bigtree
(86,004 posts)...I swear.
think
(11,641 posts)bigtree
(86,004 posts)...have you learned anything?
think
(11,641 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)gratis.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)And nobody should choose her.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Here's Sanders with his anti-Union and anti-pension crew which I suppose you could try and rationalize using "nuance" although Sanders likes to give the "short" answer in debates:
?1457481859
think
(11,641 posts)By Walter SmolarekMar 16, 2016
~Snip~
In 2012, SolarCity made a deal with the University of Oregon to build two large solar energy installations. As part of the deal, the company received a nearly 12 million dollar subsidy in the form of tax credits from the Oregon Department of Energy.
After taking the public money, SolarCity had the job subcontracted to prison labor. Prisoners were paid less than a dollar an hour effectively slavery. Normal pay for workers who are not imprisoned range from $27-$70 an hour.
Lyndon Rive is a monster, and Hillary Clinton is glad to accept his and his friends money.
Clinton claims to be a friend of the labor movement, but she clearly has no problem with the super exploitation of an extremely vulnerable section of the working class...
Read more:
https://www.liberationnews.org/clinton-to-attend-fundraiser-hosted-by-exploiter-of-prison-labor/
Who really supports the American workers?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)#1. Progressives don't demonize anyone
#2. If he was a candidate with a strong message he wouldn't spend so much time demonizing any sector.
think
(11,641 posts)Should this corporate corruption be rewarded or stamped out for the unethical conduct it is?
riversedge
(70,262 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Her 30 and 40 percent polling leads against a VIRTUALLY UNKNOWN candidate have evaporated into almost nothing. And you ask such a ridiculous question?
Revolutions never start out with a majority.
Your post is sophomoric, to put it as kindly as possible.
bigtree
(86,004 posts)...revolutions are rarely defined by losing candidates in a presidential election.
brooklynite
(94,657 posts)...Bernie's not running against Clinton's expectations, he's running against her. Where he is winning, the margins aren't that large; where he's going to have to win in the future, the margins won't be large either. If you can explain a clear path of States he can win by a large enough margin, I'd love to see it.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)The OP asked where was the revolution. All revolutions start slowly. They gather steam over time. The revolution is manifesting itself in the very fact that Hillary has had to struggle to get the nomination.
As for Hillary's delegate lead--the primary deck was stacked by the DNC to let the Southern, more conservative states to dominate early. That was to help Third Way Hillary and it worked.
I don't know if there is a "clear" path, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is a large part of the Democratic base is FED UP with conservaDem policies and politicians like Hillary. There is a revolution (or in this context, rebellion) within the party.
If Hillary wins the nomination (probable) and loses the general election (very possible), all hell will break loose.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)democratic primary and went on to win the presidency,won through winning the southern states in the primaries,Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)and who was completely unknown.
LexVegas
(6,080 posts)riversedge
(70,262 posts)strategy for implementing his proposals. Each time --during the debates he says this. It has yet -to-be--. But he will need all those millennials, fans to protest day after day--month after month to get anything done. Not going to happen.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)The bros love the fact that the upcoming primaries are in majority white states.
You cannot win the democratic nomination by cutting out the base of the party!
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Instead of a sinecure in the Cabinet?
An Interview with Tim Anderson on Obama's Commerce Nominee, Penny Pritzker, the Sub-Prime Queen
The Privilege of the Pritzkers
by DENNIS BERNSTEIN
CounterPunch, May 3-5, 2013
EXCERPT...
TA: $38 billion. One publication listed eight casinos, another listed 13, with each license worth a half a million dollars. There is another $5-7 billion in casinos. When you own 13 casinos for 5-7 billion, you are a player in the casino business. Thats just the hotels and casinos. There are many other companies they own such as the second largest chewing tobacco company, which they sold for 3.5 billion dollars. They actually owned the second and third largest chewing tobacco company, but have since off-loaded those for billions of dollars. Many of their assets are not what society considers clean assets, but hey dont care. As far as money goes, they want it. When it comes to casinos or chewing tobacco companies, they dont care. Their wealth is almost incalculable, because according to Forbes magazine, they are the only family in America to have off shore tax-free trusts because they were grandfathered in. Their off shore trust can ship money back to their family tax-free. It was grandfathered in because their grandfather got it through Congress he was smart to see the future and got it done. Congress closed the loophole and grandfathered him in. Forbesmagazine wrote about the Pritzkers off shore trust, they emphasized that there are over 1000 separate trusts. Many families have two or three different savings accounts to keep track of what money belongs to who, but when you have over 1000 different trusts to handle the family estate its very hard to comprehend how much wealth there is and how many businesses they control. A few years ago, Penny sold TransUnion, the largest credit reporting agency in America, but theres a question about whether she sold it to herself by selling it to various hedge funds which her family has a large interest in. Until she sold it, you could say that Penny Pritzker had more files on every citizen in America than the CIA and FBI combined, because everybody has a credit score and credit report. Penny Pritzker had the credit scores and report on every single citizen in America.
SNIP...
TA: She had TransUnion while she had Superior Bank, so she controlled the credit scores of everybody who was getting a subprime loan. You pay a higher interest on your subprime loan based on your credit score. Whether or not it was ever brokered between the credit bureau and the bank, we dont know, but we know the same people control both entities.
SNIP...
TA: Superior Bank was acquired back in 1989 as part of the original savings and loan giveaway by M, D and E Wall. As I wrote a in a paper for an economic conference in Denver, Superior Bank was sold to the Pritzkers for 42.5 million dollars. They changed the name from Lion Savings and Loan to Superior Bank after they acquired it. Lion Savings and Loan was sold to the Pritzkers just to put up money for the capital. But as government reports show, they only put up a million dollars cash and pledged their assets as the difference, the capital. Thats not supposed to be done, but they are privileged people so they get privileged deals. After they acquired this for $1 million they also got $640 million in tax credits.
SNIP...
TA: The tax credits were designed so they could use it in any entity they wanted. They didnt have to use it on what they bought. It could be sold on the open market for value, the credits could be used to file back taxes or warehouse them for future taxes. So for a million dollars, they got 640 million dollars for agreeing to take over Superior Bank, which they then looted for years then gave it back to the government with an enormous loss to the uninsured depositors and the whole subprime industry.
CONTINUED...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/03/the-privilege-of-the-pritzkers/
PS: I don't have anything against rich people, per se. I'd just like to see the offices and powers of the government go toward helping somebody other than the rich. Especially when Democrats are in office.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)the next Sanders AMA on Reddit starts.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)AMAs are moderated question forums; very popular on Reddit.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,101 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)you might have a point.
But behind the scenes the leadership of that "coalition" is too embedded with the Elite Network of CEO's, Wall St. Crooks, Corporate Monopolies, and has been advancing the systemic corruption of our system for 35 years.
Renaissance Man
(669 posts)... should Hillary be the nominee, is going to be happening sometimes around early November, when millennials decide to sit out the election.
There. You asked. There's the answer.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)People of color will more than make up the difference. Hillary will destroy Trump among non-whites. There are not enough angry white men to give Trump the victory.
Renaissance Man
(669 posts)The black/POC electorate is not nearly as large as the white electorate (conservative or liberal). You can't expect to write off young millennials (of any color) and expect to give Hillary the surge needed to beat Trump (especially not in this election year, where Republican turnout in the primaries has increased since 2008 and is higher in every state so far that has caucused or has held a primary).
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)That laughable meme totally died in Nevada when Bernies masses of young voters failed to show up and actually vote for him.
If your joke revolution depends on the votes of young people, you are doomed before you start! Its an historical fact that people under 30 always vote the least of any age group. And that's what happened this year as well, what a surprise!
Its laughable that a group of people think they can impose a "revolution" from the top down with Bernie or any other life long pol! The very embodiment of the establishment they rail against!!
A REAL revolution will start in the street, create its own....young....leaders and build its strength from there.
The Bernie revolution OTOH is nothing more than political theater in a presidential election year. In the off-year elections there will be no trace of the BS revolution, anywhere!
Maybe after Hillary is elected President this year, we can finally put to bed the notion that big rallies, facebook/reddit popularity, online clickbait polls, bumper stickers and yard signs determine who is going to be elected president!
pandr32
(11,595 posts)...and suddenly it is about right now??? He gets it???
Sanders has been using the same message all along and never got any traction with it. What propelled him forward was the deals he quietly made; kissing up to the military industrial complex for huge contracts, as a mayor who sat his wife on the Commission that oversaw the dumping of low-level radioactive waste right next to a poor community in Texas, and also the pay-for-play he gave the NRA--as examples. He never advanced his political career because of "his message."
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Playin footsie with the NRA and the MIC while pretending to be holy is laughable.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)Shorter version: What I think should invalidate what you think and saw.
Jokerman
(3,518 posts)A bunch of so called democrats celebrating the victory of the wealthy over the working class.
Maybe after Trump is sworn in you'll see the error of your ways, maybe not.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)The darling of the elitists, queen of the corporatists, with her millions per year in "speaking fees", is lauded over a champion of the working class. Geez.
randome
(34,845 posts)Celebrating Clinton's rise to the Presidency? Sure. I don't particularly like her but I'll support her. That's a far different thing than celebrating the victory of the wealthy. I think she will surprise us all when she's in office.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
Jokerman
(3,518 posts)That's a pretty pathetic reason to support any candidate.
Bill Clinton was full of surprises, all of them bad.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Gleefully gloating at your perceived victory over an attempt by a good man to actually turn the country left.
HA HA! He almost did it but we stopped him and installed a candidate who is a massive hawk!
HA HA! We stopped him and put someone super friendly to Wall St in instead!
HA HA! He wants us all to have single payer health care coverage but our candidate mocked it in front of the entire country and totally discredited it!
HA HA! He supports a strong social safety net but our candidate CLEVERLY trashed the entire concept as just giving away free stuff like the Republicans do... in front of the entire country.... so they'll all believe it now because Democrats and Republicans apparently agree on that now. She's so canny and good at politics!
Do you even see what you're doing or are you just so wrapped up in the horse race cheering for your celebrity candidate that you're on auto pilot and haven't stopped to look at yourself in a mirror for the last 6 months or so? Because what you are gloating over is fucking disgusting.
And you people wonder why Hillary isn't getting our support as the nominee in some magical act of reconciliation until hell freezes over.
riversedge
(70,262 posts)Zeke Miller Verified account @ZekeJMiller 18h18 hours ago
Tad Devine on the Democratic race:
"It is not a matter of delegate arithmetic"
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I just gave you a laundry list of policy based horror stories and your only reply was, essentially, "but she's gonna WIN!" with not a hint of concern and not a whiff of rebuttal.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)It also gave me pause when the country elected Bush twice. Want to tell me that means I should have thought it was a good thing because lots of people voted for him?
And I still see no sign of concern whatsoever about what her positions are. Just "she's winning!!!!!!!" mindlessly repeated over and over and over and over...
randome
(34,845 posts)She will have hundreds of aides and support personnel. Not all of them will be as 'evil' as you think she is. Good things will be done, I have no doubt.
And yeah, without knowing Clinton personally, that's really all any of us have to go on. A politician can say anything, we don't actually know what he/she will be like until they take office.
She's on the correct side regarding LGBT rights and has a voting record 93% in sync with Sanders. That's pretty good.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Your argument in favor of her is she'll change AFTER she's elected. THAT is what you just said to me.
Did you have a little stroke just now?
And no that is not all we have to go on. That is what a freaking primary is FOR. And she has spent it attacking single payer. Attacking progressive social philosophies. Making excuses for Wall st payoffs. We have THAT to go on. The things she's actually decided to fight for or against when she's up for election!!!!
She's on the correct side regarding LGBT rights and has a voting record 93% in sync with Sanders. That's pretty good
I'll give you that she is willing to be led..... eventually... once the polls make it safe... to the right side of social issues even while she battles consistently on the wrong side of economic or foreign policy stances. Unlike Sanders who gets there first then fights like hell. But a 93% in common Senate voting record says relatively little.
You get a bill.... you can either vote yes or no. Binary decision. That is miniscule information on the actual positions of the people voting. People could be voting for or against it from *anywhere* to the right or left of it. Or even reasons that have nothing to do with whether they're right or left of it. As president it's not going to be Yes/No binary decision roll calls. It's crafting policy. So those policy positions MATTER.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Maybe she'll change after she's elected?!
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And the stunning thing is I'll see Clinton supporters accusing Bernie supporters who are on the right side of essentially EVERY policy issue of being caught up in a "cult of personality".
frylock
(34,825 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)She's a Democrat and she has voted 93% the same as Sanders so that's pretty much all I need to know. Everything else will sort itself out and there will be plenty of Senators and Reps and aides who set her straight when she goes down a wrong path.
This idea that a President is one person who transforms America every 4 years is hardly based in Reality.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)We can't know how anyone will be as President UNTIL AFTER THEY'RE PRESIDENT?
Well great, then we might as well just draw straws for the presidency since there's nothing to base a vote on right? Policy arguments, prior record, beliefs and behavior demonstrated throughout an entire career and life.... nope. No way to make any judgement until after you elect 'em! So just pick a candidate and then blindly and feverishly support them against all opposition for no other reason that that that's the team you picked and you have to win the election game.
And as you have simply ignored the rather obvious reason that 93% number you throw around means very very little I see no point repeating myself so you can ignore me again.
randome
(34,845 posts)I'm quite satisfied with Obama's terms but to hear some tell it, he betrayed us all the moment he was sworn in. So yeah, those who see his accomplishments that way would think he was not the same person we elected.
Every election is 'faith based' to some extent. I think most of us get a general sense of the individual and use that as the bedrock of our voting decision.
Clinton has enough of a background as a Progressive that I'm comfortable with her. Policy details don't matter that much since it's Congress that has more power. It's only the broad outlines of policy that sway most of us. Regardless of how one feels personally about Clinton, she will always be more of a Progressive than anything the GOP can offer.
And now she pretty much has all the votes so I'm going to make the best of it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And everything we know about Clinton says she'll move right. Hard. PERIOD.
(I'm trying not to bash my forehead through the back of my skull with the surface of my desk at your "record as a progressive" comment)
riversedge
(70,262 posts)changes with her proposals when she is in the Oval Office.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Her hostility to universal single payer health care?
Her derision for progressive social safety net principles?
Her adamant defense of Wall St payoffs to politicians (particulary one of them)?
Her being one of the most hawkish members of the Democrats party?
What in the hell are you basing an expectation of positive changes on besides magical thinking like I just saw above where I was told after she gets elected "she'll change"?
Land Shark
(6,346 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Hillary supporters, for all there protestations, aren't progressive. Sure they are liberals on social issues. But on economic and foreign policy they are not progressive in any sense or they couldn't support her.
riversedge
(70,262 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)She's a Third Way "Democrat". She was in on the DLC plan to turn the Democratic party to the right on economic issues from the beginning. She hasn't changed on that. Her economic policies are pre-Reagan republican.
Do you deny that fact?
bigtree
(86,004 posts)...never expected one from a decades-long D.C. politician. The further this campaign has gone along, the more it resembles Sander's self-isolated legislative career.
I suppose I have some sympathy for the people who've invested their hopes and dollars in such an ill-conceived and poorly executed political strategy.
pandr32
(11,595 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)when General Washington and his ragtag army were huddled up at Valley Forge.
Next thing the British knew, they were scrambling for their shorts when the patriots surprised them at Trenton.
is bought and paid for by Corp interests, that's why real progressives do not trust her, what don't YOU get about that fact?
H2O Man
(73,577 posts)you are ill-equipped for quality patronizing. That's okay, though. Ask for help the next time.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)bigtree
(86,004 posts)...
always have my attention!
frylock
(34,825 posts)Well played, sir!
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Many of the Sanders supporters who were once the backbone of the Democratic coalition have been called 'retards' and 'fringe' - Hillary disses MoveOn for crying out loud - an organization formed to blunt the right-wing shit thrown at her husband.
If anyone has been busy marginalizing the large chunks of the Democratic Party coalition it has been the Clintons/DLC/3rd Way, and they have been doing it for decades.
Sanders campaign is in fact trying to rebuild the liberal/progressive coalition that the Clintons have pushed aside.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Don't worry about it. You just keep supporting cheaters and liars.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)like him, not the other way around.
He wins even if he loses, the millennials will be ever more pronounced within
the next 8 years...so with or without you, we'll be moving on. Corruption
in politics is not only found on the Republican side.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)What if you threw a revolution, and nobody came?
Sid
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Weird.
bigtree
(86,004 posts)...it should have been redeeming enough to win big Tuesday, after the withering assaults on Hillary and anyone who dared speak a word of support for her escalated after Michigan in a post NH-like orgy of insults, boasts, and attempts to convince us something was fatally wrong with the Clinton campaign.
It was bad enough for me, personally, to not have any opportunity here to revel in the massive turnouts of black and Latino voters, who were very instrumental in providing Hillary such a wide delegate lead, without having to endure the sneering and disdain for my candidate, and weather the personal attacks.
I think it's ironic to find that confidence expressed in the Hillary camp is generating so much of a sad in the Sanders camp. Here I am wondering whose feelings I'm supposed to be mindful of... the folks here who dismissed the votes of blacks as 'low information?'
...the candidate who left the south for a northern state on a losing election night and insinuated that northern voters were smarter and would choose to vote for him, instead?
...the people here (and at PDA today, I just read) who referred to voters in those states as part of the 'confederacy?'
...posters who cast themselves as patriots and opponents as royalists?
...the folks who forecast biblical doom because their candidate is trailing?
Who here needs my hug?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)As to the rest, I don't find much agreement with you, but thanks for the response.