To all the people who pushed Hillary on us even though she is less electable

[Cheese Sandwich]

I wish you wouldn't have done that.

You're to blame if Trump wins.

[Herman4747]

1. ME TOO!!!

Even if she does win in November, which is in serious doubt, her "coat-tail effect" in bringing new Democrats into Congress would be notably smaller than Bernie's would have been.

[LiberalFighter]

2. The voters would disagree with you.

You can't say listen to the voters and then turn around and say ignore them.

[Cheese Sandwich]

5. The media is a neoliberal propaganda machine

Last edited Mon May 23, 2016, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Can't blame the voters necessarily. Anyone would be wrong if they watched Fox News or MSNBC for their infos.


Edit: I know many Hillary supporters are very well informed and also have good intentions. Some are not though and you certainly won't get good info from Fox or MSNBC.

[anigbrowl]

62. Translation: voters are idiots who can't think for themselves

I support Hillary and the only TV news I see is on PBS a few times a week. I made my decision based on stated policies, debate performance, the public record and so on. Shocker, I know.

[Cheese Sandwich]

67. people need access to real information to make informed decisions

You won't get it from Fox News and you won't get it from MSNBC either.

PBS is somewhat better. And I know many Hillary supporters are very well informed and also have good intentions. I didn't intend that as a blanket statement of all Clinton supporters. In fact I may edit the previous comment to say that. Thanks.

[anigbrowl]

70. There's this thing called the internet...

Anyone who's relying on Fox News or any other network/cable behemoth channel for political news is choosing to be poorly informed - and many people do make such a deliberate choice, because they just don't enjoy thinking about politics and would rather turn to news sources that validate their existing views - just like far right people like sources like Breitbart and forums like Free Republic, and far left people like sources like TruthOut and so on. You can lead horses to water, but you can't make them drink.

My personal rule of thumb is that the quality of news articles varies in inverse proportion to the number of adjectives in the news story. The more characterizations there are, the more propagandistic and less informative the article. Sadly many people on all parts of the political spectrum like validation more than they like information.

[George II]

117. So, what "real information" did you use to arrive at your decision on a candidate?

[Android3.14]

204. That was a bad hide. Why would progressives hide the horrors of a war she promoted?

This is the biggest reason I cannot vote for her. Her "leadership" leads us our country into immoral wars. Rather than defend the decision, HRC supporters only attempt to hide it.

[insta8er]

186. Clearly you know how to use a PC (to some extend). There is a wealth of information that doesn't

get dished out 30 sec segments at a time. Facts, numbers and video's...too bad you chose not to do the research into your candidate that a large part of us here have done.

[rhett o rick]

21. Another lie put out by the Clinton campaign. Many eligible voters didn't vote

so you can't speak for them. Many were disenfranchised one way or the other. The millions put in the Prisons For Profits by the Clinton policies and laws can't vote and are not represented. Millions have come forward to support Sanders that somehow don't show up in this corrupted election system that favors the Corporate Wing of our party.

Why would a Democrat side with the Corporate Wing of our Party and turn their backs on those struggling among us. Rhetorical question. They, for some reason, love to side with the rich and powerful, afraid to fight for the poor. Shame on them

[snowy owl]

27. It does get down to voter suppression. Closed primaries suppress votes. More of the same.

[Arneoker]

111. And caucus states!

Oops! A lot of those voted for Bernie. Never mind!

[Bettie]

123. I live in a caucus state

I hate it and wish it would change, so do most of the people I know.

I hated it when my candidates won and when they lost.

[oberliner]

207. Hillary won most of the open primaries

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia all had open primaries and Hillary won all of those states.

[reformist2]

165. Nobody in the history of politics has ever been shoved down our throats like HRC.

They pulled every trick they know to make it look like she "won". I'm not buying it.

The proof is in her "rallies", which nobody goes to.

[Jackilope]

191. One big illusion, the Democratic Third Way

1. Pretend you are a Democrat. The masks slip sometimes and reveal that Corporatist face, but enough bluff and faux moral outrage and the herd will be fooled back.

2. Get an outrageous opponent that is sooooooooo bad and sooooooooo offending that you look better by contrast. Use fear to motivate those who viewed the corporatist face behind the fallen mask that the opponent is more dangerous than you.

3. Divide. Buy trolls and minions that spread deception that any other Dem running against you and their followers are racist, violent, sexist .... whatever it takes.

4. Buy off the "journalists"/media, politicians, assure Wall St. and banks it's business as usual. Give illusion of enthusiastic support despite your paying handsomely for it.

5. Remember it isn't who votes for you, it's who counts those votes. Establishment candidates do well on the electronic machines. Eliminate any exit polling on later contests.

[Arneoker]

198. Yes, even though she lost the delegate race in Washington State

She won the primary! That proves the race is rigged in her favor! Somehow! Oh yes, rallies!

[reformist2]

201. Who knew that was even happening. Did the computers vote for her (yet again)?

[PATRICK]

203. The opposite way of looking at it

is equally unflattering. Avoiding not having an expensive contest and looking for the safe bet to deliver the goods for the people. Trying to avoid the spoiler they spoiled the whole process.

[bkkyosemite]

29. Unless those voters were really for Senator Sanders and flipped in 60 seconds.

[pinebox]

39. The voters in a bubble? Open the primaries and let people REALLY vote

and let's see how that plays out then.

[pangaia]

53. The voters didn't select her as a candidate.

Lloyd Blankfein, et al did.

[Peace Patriot]

82. The voters? Does that include the 40+% of the electorate who are Independents and who...

...by and large, loathe Clinton, half the Democratic Party who support Sanders, and all those disgruntled otherbodies who, all combined, give Sanders DEMOLISHING numbers against Trump in ALL polls?

[leftofcool]

133. Oh yes, we all know how much they just loathe Hilary and will stay home and not vote

Which is all bullshit. People here said the same thing about Obama. Guess what, they came out and voted and Obama won. Get over it!

[Peace Patriot]

139. Clinton's trustworthy and likability numbers are dismal.

Obama was a new, fresh face, who had voted against the Iraq War and had pledged to bring the troops home. He had no "baggage." Clinton has many boxcars full and her triumphal train is out of coal.

[Herman4747]

153. This may be news to you, but Hillary ain't no Obama...

...for example, there are no videos of Obama lying for 13 minutes straight.

[riversedge]

3. Just like Sanders--you blame others.

[Cheese Sandwich]

10. If Trump wins it's your fault for pushing the weaker candidate.

deal

[riversedge]

14. LOL. No, I do not accept your made up claim. Here is a better reason for Sanders losing....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/22/1529678/-Bernie-lost-the-primaries-because-he-failed-to-see-the-importance-of-social-issues

Bernie lost the primaries because he failed to see the importance of social issues.


By Danie06
Sunday May 22, 2016 · 2:24 PM CST


My diary is partly a reaction to this diary: www.dailykos.com/…

claiming social conservatives (you know: older women) support Clinton and that therefore Sanders is losing the primaries. For the other part this was a diary long in the making so to speak.

For some time Sanders’ supporters have claimed they represent the true progressives (from which comes the accusation they act like purists). Clinton supporters are usually denounced as establishment shills, or centrist democrats.

Yet when you look at the demography of who supports who a very different picture emerges.

Sanders support is mostly strong in one demographic group: young white males. Clinton however has the strongest support among women, older people, black voters and Hispanic voters.

In short: women and minorities overwhelmingly support Clinton.

Why is that? Why would for example black voters or women support Clinton over Sanders?

The answer lies imo in the fact that Sanders is a progressive when it comes to economic issues (class struggle, the 1%, campaign finance reform etc) but is tone-deaf when it comes to social issues.

Social issues like structural racism, reproductive health issues (abortion), women’s rights, gun victims rights, gun control etc.

In a way a lot of this can be explained by his socialist background. For socialists, social issues pertaining to race and sex have always had to take a backseat to economic issues.

I’m old enough to have experienced a lot of this first hand when in the seventies the feminist movement expected to gain support from white socialist males, but instead we were told to take a backseat: “first we’ll solve economic issues and then we’ll talk about gender inequality and/ or racism”.

Sanders is no stranger to this picture. Although no one should doubt that he supports women’s rights or gay rights (his record shows this), he’s never made these issues the core of his message. The core of his message is about economic inequality, the 1% and wall street.

When confronted with questions regarding abortion, he dismissed these by stating that Planned Parenthood is establishment......................

[snowy owl]

30. Funny. He is most often compared to Warren who is very good on social issues.

Do you dislike him because he is not a woman? Or do you dislike Warren as well?

[Else You Are Mad]

60. The mental gymnastics

That the Hillary supporters have to go through to discredit and attack Bernie for not being liberal enough is mind blowing.

[kaleckim]

105. Amazing

that Hillary freaking Clinton, someone that used outright racist language in the past, called poor women on welfare deadbeats, and whose husband backed "welfare reform" (which she supported), prison privatization and harsh sentencing laws, gets to claim to be better than Sanders. Just amazing. He didn't discount freaking social issues, he just thinks that maybe after decades of stagnating wages, deindustrialization, an explosion in inequality and private debt, that it is time to actually prioritize economic issues and to battle the corporate interests backing your corrupt candidate. By the way, how exactly do you deal with structural racism if economics and class isn't front and center? Maybe you know more than King and the Civil Rights movement, since they put economics and class at the center of their struggle.

[Scootaloo]

56. Actually it'll be Hillary Clinton's fault

It's the candidate's job to secure their votes. A candidate who can't do that is a candidate who loses. And yes, it is hte candidate's job to jump the hurdles the opposition throws in front of them.

The voters just choose at the end of the day. It's the candidate's role to convince them who to choose.

[Arneoker]

199. So who is the weaker candidate, as opposed to an analysis that doesn't just rely on Spring polls?

BTW, what do people think about the Ross Perot presidency?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

[harun]

127. Nominate Mrs. Golden Slacks at your own peril

[leftofcool]

134. We already have.

[harun]

140. You will change your tune if she is indicted before the convention.

[yourpaljoey]

4. It ain't over yet

Hill should be forced to drop out by the FBI.
Sanders might be forced to run third party
if they replace Hill with Blow Dry Jo.
This party has just started.

[murielm99]

138. Forced out by the FBI?

OOOH! I guess that is part of their job description? Forcing candidates out of office? Just like the bernistas here who say HRC is on the verge of being indicted by the FBI? Indicting people is part of their job description, too? (The FBI does not indict people).



Sanders will not be running as a third party candidate. Too many states have sore loser laws, so that would not work.

Who the hell is Blow Dry Jo? Can you speak in plain English?

Too many BS supporters lack understanding of basic civics. They should have learned that stuff in eighth grade. And Google is your friend.

[Arkansas Granny]

6. Bernie wouldn't be electable after the right wing got through vetting him.

Too Easy: How Republicans Would Tear Apart an Unvetted Bernie Sanders in the General Election

Trevor LaFauci May 19, 2016

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/19/this-ends-now-the-bernie-sanders-opposition-research-the-media-refuses-to-release

[ThePhilosopher04]

19. Enough with the "vetting" bullshit. Bernie's been called every name in the book for nearly 40 years

and all through this election cycle. He can handle anything Trump throws at him.

[pinebox]

41. Brock blog right there, FYI

[leftofcool]

135. Links to any site where Bernie has been called names for 40 years.

[oberliner]

208. Going into this election almost no one had even heard of him

Whereas almost everyone had heard of Clinton.

[grasswire]

57. who the hell is Trevor LaFauci?

sounds like a made up name. Really. Like Pepe Lepieux.

[Else You Are Mad]

59. The story that Hillary has been 'vetted' is BS.

The vetting of Hillary has resulted in her having the lowest trustability and highest negative ratings of any Democratic candidate of all time. She hasn't gone to jail, but the fact that the average, non-politically aware voter distrusts Hillary is a result of the 'vetting' process of the right wing. And, what is even more frightening, after the MSM repeats, ad nauseum, all the right wing smear that Trump says about Hillary, be prepared for her favorability and trustworthy numbers to go even lower.

Just because she has millions of democratic votes in the primary does not equate to GE votes.

[Arkansas Granny]

66. And you don't think the same would happen to Bernie if the right wing vetted him?

Most of the smears against Hillary have been out there for years and have pretty much lost their shock value to the average voter. The info they would use against Bernie is "new" to most voters and could have a very serious impact.

[Else You Are Mad]

68. I didn't say that.

What I said was that the vetting has irreparably damaged Hillary's chances with the low information voters. Of course Sanders will be attacked, but he wouldn't be going into the GE with the handicap of being the least liked Democratic candidate of all time. Sure, his favorables will take a hit -- but, Hillary's will as well and she is already in the negatives.

Where Hillary is now is tantamount to a team in the superbowl starting off before kick off down by 40 points where Sanders would be starting off with 20 points.

Which candidate can take more hits?

[HillareeeHillaraah]

206. Meanwhile outside the bubble....

Most Admired Woman in World, Record 20th Time Gallup, December 2015


http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans again name Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama the woman and man living anywhere in the world they admire most. Both win by wide margins over the next-closest finishers.


And then there's this international poll...

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are-the-most-admired-people-in-the-world--xJ9bGsWhje


Bill Gates and Angelina Jolie are the most admired man and woman in the world in 2015, according a new poll, with Barack Obama, Xi Jinping, Malala Yousafzai and Hillary Clinton polling closely behind them.

She'll do fine in the general. Just fine.

[AgingAmerican]

72. Flinging poop isn't vetting

[ablamj]

97. So Hillary

hasn't vetted him? Damn she really is incompetent!

[wildeyed]

175. She did.

At least enough to beat him.

[seabeyond]

7. Voters voted for Clinton, she won, nothing to do with you. Quit denigrating voters.

[rhett o rick]

23. She leads in this corrupt election system that favors the Corporate Wing of our Party.

We've exposed the lies and cheating by the rich and filthy rich that some want to side with while turning their backs on those struggling. Mammon: The greedy pursuit of wealth.

[seabeyond]

26. It isn't a corrupt election. It is sanders and supporters being poor loser with false accusations.

[rhett o rick]

36. First of all our election system is corrupted as known around the world. Elections have been known

to have been stolen in 2000 and 2004 but the Rich and Power that now back Clinton. Why wouldn't they cheat? They've gotten away with it time and again. All of the shenanigans so far in this process have favored Clinton, duh, I wonder why.

What amazes me still, is why do Democrats side with the wealthy oligarchy? Why turn their backs on the poor and homeless? Do they really think the wealthy have supported Clinton just to see her help the poor? Really? Or do they so admire the Wealthy 1% they don't care about the poor?

[seabeyond]

42. Yes, the Republicans. Clinton, Obama, DOJ have been addressing for years, without a peep from Sander

[rhett o rick]

71. Wow, you will make up just about anything to disparage Sen Sanders.

Clinton, Obama and the DOJ have done nothing since 2000 when the oligarchs stole the election for Bush. Obama is a big disappointment. The election process has gotten worse. The Democratic primary system is rigged for the establishment. The president (establishment) chooses an establishment sycophant to run the DNC and the DNC buys the allegiance of the Super-Delegates with campaign donation preferences.

Sooner or later the Wealthy and Powerful that you revere so deeply will tumble down. Their hubris and arrogance typical of those with large Wealth, will be their downfall. In the meantime, the Clinton fans should enjoy their perceived comfort siding with the Wealthy Fat Cats.

There are 2.5 million homeless children and I hate to break it to you, Goldman-Sachs and other Wealthy Fat Cats don't care.

There are two sides to this class war, why would people calling themselves Democrats side with the oligarchy over the lower 99%? It's a rhetorical question, it's the idolization of the Wealthy.

In any case, I am sick of the gloating and arrogance here. Bob-Bye

[seabeyond]

94. Have they fixed absolutely everything? No. They have not. They have been throwing DOJ at these

states adn the new laws as they develop. It is a hard road. Some you win, some you don't. Then the state throws out another.

No. They have not fuckin fixed it all. One is going after it in teh DOJ>

But, they have taken down some of the state laws.

We have the same thing with abortion.

This is why Supreme court is so important.

But hey... Sanders supporters. You see no difference so why the fuck worry about the Supreme court, right?

[seabeyond]

95. AND... If you are fair, or if you are informed. You know this.

[Matt_R]

102. who would SoS Clinton appoint to the Supreme Court...

to continue the progressive movement?

[Matt_R]

104. Let me make this an easier question...

Who would SoS Clinton appoint to the Supreme Court that is not conservative?

[Rockyj]

98. Here Here! Very Well Said!

[rhett o rick]

99. I am sick of their arrogance. She is number 64 on my ignore list. nm

[anigbrowl]

65. There there Rhett

I realize that a diet made up largely of hyperbole with hardly any facts is likely to lead to mental constipation. You'll feel better soon.

[reformist2]

192. It's totally corrupt. Practically every state had some degree of election fraud.

[seabeyond]

193. No it isn't/

[Bobbie Jo]

8. What a load.

Run a better candidate next time.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

9. Waaaaaahhhhhh!!!

[Cheese Sandwich]

12. hahaha

LOL

[rhett o rick]

24. That's the Clinton side whining for Sanders to quit in the 8th inning. LOL.

[riversedge]

15. I have a nephew who just turned one last week and I swear--that pic is

an exact dupe of how his face looks just before he really lets out a big cry.

[BootinUp]

11. What are your qualifications in political punditry anyways?

[Cheese Sandwich]

13. 2 time grammy wARD winnder Best orignal recipe

[Ned_Devine]

128. For one, Cheese Sandwich doesn't say "anyways"

[ThePhilosopher04]

16. 100%

[NCTraveler]

17. Your vote is what will put Clinton over the top!!!

[leftynyc]

18. Like your candidate

Push the blame someplace else. How predictable from someone who considers someone getting more votes being "PUSHED" on you. So freeking pathetic.

[JoePhilly]

20. +1

[rhett o rick]

32. Getting more votes in this corrupt election process, seen as the worst of all modern

countries is nothing to boast about. The People will prevail over the Corporate Fat Cats that some think it's cool to side with.

I guess some are getting anxious to get on with the corporate plundering brought to us by Goldman-Sachs/Clinton Administration.

[leftynyc]

33. Yawn

I guess the losers need to vent. Not interested. Carry on.

[rhett o rick]

37. Go ahead and gloat. The hubris and arrogance will be the downfall of the Corporate Wing

of our Party. They may have more resources to push Clinton into the WH, but we have People power and will continue to fight.

In the meantime I am tired of the gloating. Bob-Bye

[leftynyc]

40. Gloat?

You have a ridiculous definition of gloating. But do keep using juvenile emoticons. They're so convincing.

[Duval]

46. It is the Democratic Party who is losing voters.

Yawn all you want to. It isn't going to help, anyway, and just shows your disinterest in what is really going on.

[leftynyc]

50. I'm interested in making sure donnie

doesn't win the election. You're still fighting the primaries which are essentially over.

[Jester Messiah]

54. Then you failed by putting up the weaker candidate for the general.

If you really cared about putting Trump away, you'd have supported Sanders.

[leftynyc]

55. I didn't put either one of them "up"

for the nomination. I made a choice between the two Democrats on the ballot. And I believe donnie would have eviscerated Sanders in a general. He polls higher because neither Hillary or donnie bothered to lay a glove on him.

[uponit7771]

48. +1, they're whining is consummate too... Sanders camp ADMITTEDLY ignored the "southern states" and

... they're mad as hell

[leftynyc]

51. But THAT is also not their fault

They blame everyone but themselves. It's pathetic.

[uponit7771]

52. I think it should be studied or something, they're QUICK to blame the system or unicorns or

... some other shit but its never Sanders fault.

[zappaman]

22. "Us"?

[Schema Thing]

25. Exactly this. If Trump wins, it's 100% on Hillary and her supporters.

Last edited Mon May 23, 2016, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)

And their cynical view of politics as only viable w/ a status quo, extremely-connected-to-the-money-channels insider who flirts (heavily, and in prolonged fashion) with "conservatives".

[1StrongBlackMan]

83. And the BoBers, especially those who for months have promoted "concerned" RW talking points ...

for months, will be blameless, right?

[Schema Thing]

86. Yeah, I mean they always said they wouldn't vote for Hillary.

And frankly, you've seen her negatives, and even more frankly, you know exactly why they exist.


As well, you've seen the mood of the country for a year now.


She'll probably win in spite of the downsides. So... I guess that's good. But I'm not sure, because, reasonable guy that I am, while I shudder at the thought of Trump, I also know it's a really bad thing to lock into Oligarchy as THE American form of government.

I'll probably be pissed the rest of my natural life at those of you who saw this situation and went "sure, let's be cheerleaders for Oligarchy! Trickle Down works! sorta... like remember the 90s?"


smh

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. I've been meaning to ask ...

I also know it's a really bad thing to lock into Oligarchy as THE American form of government.

At what point, since the birth of this nation, has "Oligarchy" not been locked into THE American form of government?

I'll probably be pissed the rest of my natural life at those of you who saw this situation and went "sure, let's be cheerleaders for Oligarchy! Trickle Down works! sorta... like remember the 90s?"

Of course ... No one on this site, or that you would otherwise be pissed at, has ever uttered those words. But, hey ... if it helps keep your outrage on, have at it ... pre-emptively.

[Schema Thing]

91. Y'know, you aren't helping the world be a better place.

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. LOL. And you are? ...

And, that with you not knowing anything about me in the real world or my real life activities?

How special, you are!

[HillareeeHillaraah]

210. Um...pardon me...

But I don't know much of anything about you....still, I've read many of your posts and I think you certainly make DU a better place.

And DU is kinda the "real world" ~

[1StrongBlackMan]

212. Well ... Thank you.

[harun]

126. +1

[Peacetrain]

28. The same way you went after O'Malley non stop

back turned to you...

[jcgoldie]

31. how is it

The "less electable" candidate is the one winning the actual election by a wide margin?

[-none]

73. You keep being told, but you keep refusing to acknowledge the obvious, for some obvious reason.

Wide spread Election fraud. Voter disenfranchisement.
Cutting the number of voting machines from 200 something to 60 in Arizona. The Hillary camp went along with it, to their advantage and did nothing. They knew before hand.
Nevada, where they changed the rules mid stream, just before the convention opened.

[jcgoldie]

75. pretty sure election irregularities dont even scratch the surface of

2.5 million votes. Try again.

[elleng]

34. The 'pushers' aren't to blame, Cheese,

but rather those who have accepted the 'push.'

[snowy owl]

35. This country voted George W. Bush. They could easily vote Trump over Clinton.

If there is a saving graces, it might be Latinos and blacks. I doubt he'll get them. Ironically, the same people that would do so much better under a Sanders' admiistration. Will they make that much of a difference?

[mythology]

38. Whining is rather useless

The only good barometer of electibility is winning an election. In the 2016 Democratic primary that's Clinton.

[LanternWaste]

43. As a half-witted idiot, I too blame Democrats when Republicans win.

As a half-witted idiot, I too blame Democrats when Republicans win.

[EndElectoral]

44. Long way to go, but the trend in polling does not look good.

[Duval]

45. K&R! nt

[Gothmog]

47. The polls being cited by Sanders on electablity are meaningless and sad

I am amused by the silly claims that Sanders is more electable based on some general election polls when Sanders has not been vetted. Sanders has been ignored by the media because no one has ever believed that he had a chance of being the nominee. The polls being cited by Sanders are not meaningful because Sanders has not been vetted and the Democrats would be insane to nominate an unvetted candidate like Sanders 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.

[Herman4747]

152. How precisely was Obama "more vetted" when he won in 2008???

WELL???

[Gothmog]

179. Are you serious? Obama was the frontrunner for most of the race and the press treated him seriously

Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee and so no one ran negative ads against him and the press did not vet him. Sanders is a very weak general election candidate who would fall apart when vetted

For example, few people are paying attention to the story about the college in Vermont bankrupted by Sanders' wife or the fact that Sanders has only released one years worth of tax returns. The press does not care because no one believes that Sanders will be the nominee

[Herman4747]

181. Obama was never "vetted" He still won.

And releasing one year's worth of tax returns PALES IN COMPARISON TO BEING PAID OFF BY GOLDMAN SACHS, THE PROMISES MADE BEING KEPT SECRET.

[Gothmog]

190. Sanders' reliance on silly polls is unwarranted due to a lack of vetting

Obama was vetted because he was the front runner. No one including people who like Sanders think that he has been fully vetted or that he is really electable http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/24/bernie-sanders-is-crushing-donald-trump-head-to-head-and-it-doesn-t-mean-a-thing.html

But I don’t know a single person whose opinions I really value, and I include here Sanders supporters I know, who takes these polls seriously. There’s one simple reason Sanders polls better against Trump than Clinton does, which is that no one (yet) knows anything negative about him. He’s gotten the freest ride a top-tier presidential candidate has ever gotten. The freest, bar none.

While he’s all but called Clinton a harlot, she’s barely said a word about him, at least since the very early days of the contest. And while Republicans have occasionally jibed at him, like Lindsey Graham’s actually quite funny remark that Sanders “went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon and I don’t think he ever came back,” in far more serious ways, Republican groups have worked to help Sanders weaken Clinton.

That would change on a dime if he became the nominee. I don’t think they’d even have to go into his radical past, although they surely would. Michelle Goldberg of Slate has written good pieces on this. He took some very hard-left and plainly anti-American positions. True, they might not matter to anyone under 45, but more than half of all voters are over 45. And then, big-P politics aside, there’s all that farkakte nonsense he wrote in The Vermont Freeman in the early ’70s about how we should let children touch each others’ genitals and such. Fine, it was 40-plus years ago but it’s out there, and it’s out there.

But if I were a conservative making anti-Sanders ads, I’d stick to taxes. An analysis earlier this year from the Tax Policy Center found that his proposals would raise taxes in the so-called middle quintile (40-60 percent) by $4,700 a year. A median household is around $53,000. Most such households pay an effective tax rate of around 11 percent, or $5,800. From $5,800 to $10,500 constitutes a 45 percent increase.

Sanders will respond that your average family will save that much in deductibles and co-payments, since there would be no more private health insurance. And in a way, he’d have a point—the average out-of-pocket expenses for a family health insurance plan in 2015 were around $4,900. But that is an average that combines families with one really sick person needing lots of care with families where they all just go see the doctor once a year, who spend far less. They’d lose out under socialized health, which Republicans would be sure to make clear.

But all the above suggests a rational discourse, and we know there’ll be no such thing during a campaign. It’ll just be: largest tax increase in American history (which will be true), and take away your doctor (which also might be true in a lot of cases). There’s a first time for everything I guess, but I don’t think anyone has ever won a presidential election proposing a 45 percent tax increase on people of modest incomes. And the increases would be a lot higher on the upper-middle-class households that tend to decide U.S. elections.

Bah, you say. Bernie can handle all these things. Plus, he’s going to get all those white working-class votes that Clinton will never get. It’s true, he will get some of those. But every yin has a yang. How is Sanders going to do with black and Latino voters? They won’t vote for Trump, obviously, but surely some percentage will just stay home. This will matter in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, maybe Michigan—all states were a depressed turnout from unenthused voters of color might make the difference. The media find discussing this a lot less interesting than they do nattering on about the white working class, but it’s real, and Trump is smart enough to get out there and say, “Remember, black people, Bernie said your votes weren’t legitimate.”

General election polls don’t reflect anything meaningful until nominees are chosen and running mates selected—that is, July. They especially don’t reflect anything meaningful when respondents know very little about one of the candidates they’re being asked about. Superdelegates know this, and it’s one reason why they’re not going to change. I don’t blame Sanders for touting these polls; any politician would. But everyone subjected to hearing him do so is entitled to be in on the joke.

Sanders has not been vetted and would be a horrible general election candidate

[Herman4747]

194. Not horrible at all in my opinion.

Your beloved candidate has a 55% disapproval rating, because she is as deceitful as hell. Just because you don't care how duplicitous she is, DOES NOT MEAN THAT OTHERS WON'T CARE. She's the one doing worse against Trump in the polls, not Bernie.

"Taxes are what we pay we pay for a civilized society." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Are you truly arrogant enough to think "Unlike me, these other people can't figure out that Bernie's plans would likely raise taxes!"? Tax rates in this country have been notably higher, like under FDR and Eisenhower, both of who were re-elected (FDR re-elected 3 times).

This may surprise you, but Americans like honesty in their politicians, particularly in their presidents. This is why Honest Abe & George Washington are so highly regarded. Hillary is a constant liar. This is a major reason why she is the worst Democratic candidate for president in the past 50 years.

[Gothmog]

195. I live in the real world

Sanders would be a horrible general election candidate. There is so much that could be used against him that it is not funny. Again, Sanders is being treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign but the GOP would not be so kind 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.

[Herman4747]

215. Consider the relentless attacks against FDR

Then consider the fact he was re-elected three times.

I daresay you over-estimate the effects of the media.



Better to go with the -20 than the plus 7, right?

[msongs]

49. you're not voting for hillary. we get that. have a nice day nt

[randome]

58. No one pushed anything on you. God, what drama.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[anigbrowl]

61. 'less electable' == 'I prefer someone else'

I reject your premise for lack of evidence. But I'm sure you think you're never wrong about these things, so even if she's walking around as PTUS this time next year you'll be grumbling that Bernie would have had a bigger mandate or something.

[MineralMan]

63. So, has your state held its primary event yet this year?

Did you participate if it's already happened? How did the candidates do where you are?

If not, are you planning to vote? If so, then your vote will be counted, as it will in November, if you bother to vote.

Hillary ran in the primaries, and is still running. So far, she's winning both the popular vote and the pledged delegate count. She will have the majority of both when the convention opens, and will be the nominee for the general election.

What will you do then? Will you refuse to vote out of frustration? If so, then you're to blame if Trump wins, not me or others who went to the polls and voted for the Democratic nominee. Don't blame those people. They voted.

This is pretty pitiful, really. You've been posting anti-Clinton thread starters since you got here. A lot of your posts have been hidden by DU juries. And yet, I saw another post with the photo of the Clintons, standing with the Trumps at a wedding. You've posted that several times on DU to start a thread. Why? Do you think that's going to influence anyone to vote for Bernie Sanders? It won't. It was just a photo at a wedding.

You're not helping your preferred candidate, nor hurting Hillary Clinton with your posts. Only DUers see them. Look at the number of views for your original posts. That's the maximum number of people who have seen them, and many of those views came from people who visited the thread more than once.

I think it's pitiful and sad, frankly, that you continue to do this.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. +1 ...

This is pretty pitiful, really. You've been posting anti-Clinton thread starters since you got here. A lot of your posts have been hidden by DU juries. And yet, I saw another post with the photo of the Clintons, standing with the Trumps at a wedding. You've posted that several times on DU to start a thread. Why? Do you think that's going to influence anyone to vote for Bernie Sanders? It won't. It was just a photo at a wedding.

As the days have passed, I became more and more convinced, that was/is not his/her reason for posting on DU.

[TheKentuckian]

121. Here the dumbass I wasted shoe leather on stated it was her job to deliver Kentucky for Clinton

so who knows what votes counted.

[LibDemAlways]

64. There are a number of culprits here. The

media blackout of Bernie, especially early on. The media skewing Clinton's delegate totals by including the super delegates before they cast a single vote at the convention. DWS deliberately scheduling few debates and making sure they were on dates when viewership would be low. The primary season schedule itself which frontloads many of the Southern states. Media reports that have outright lied about the actions of Bernie's supporters.

A number of factors have put Bernie at a disadvantage, and yet, he continues to do well. I think a California win for Bernie would be humiliating for Clinton going into the convention. She's a weak candidate with more baggage than the Duggar family on a world tour, but the DNC has used every means at its disposal to boost her candidacy. In a year in which establishment politicans are out of favor, the Dems are determined to nominate the ultimate insider. We'll see how that plays out in November.

[-none]

74. Do you ever get the feeling, when posting the truth about Hillary in response to a Hillary supporter

That what you are actually doing is adding more wear and tear to your keyboard to no avail?
It's like they have been programed to ignore the blindingly obvious about their chosen candidate.
The FBI investigation that could conceivably land Hillary in prison? Just an friendly inquiry.
All those flipped voter rolls? The person flipped should have known to check before showing up to vote. Never mind they have been registered and voting Democratic/Liberal for decades without any problem.
And the list keep growing.

[LibDemAlways]

88. Telling Hillary supporters that their candidate is not well liked and

is weak-- in other words stating the obvious -- is like telling a diehard Republican that Bush and Cheney went to war based on lies they knew were lies. They don't want to hear it. Truth doesn't matter. They believe only what they want to believe.

[JoePhilly]

69. So votes now = "pushing" ... ok.

[still_one]

103. That's right Joe. More people voted for Hillary than Sanders, and some folks have a problem

with that.

[UMTerp01]

76. ...

[sheshe2]

81. Lol~

Love her. Stealing.

[still_one]

107. kick & rec. Expression, priceless!!!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

77. Yes! Damn you....ummm....ummmmm......

.....Democrats.

[beachbumbob]

78. You mean the majority of democratic voters and super delegates?

Depending on sanders class and of his supporters...we will seeing our first woman president...

[LibDemAlways]

90. The gender of the next President makes no

difference to me, and I'm a woman. I always vote based on the candidate's character and positions on the issues. That's why I'm voting Bernie on June 7. If Hillary ends up being the nominee, she'll have to earn my vote. It isn't a given, though I definitely will not vote Trump.

[kaleckim]

108. The majority of Democratic voters

that actually were able to vote did back the worse candidate, in large part because of electability (which, if you remember, was the reason she won so many early primaries, it was also BS propaganda). You closed your party, in many states at least, to independents, people that may have thought your party was worth joining, and if that didn't happen she'd be toast. You all decided to support a slightly more moderate Thatcher, and we're supposed to be giddy at the prospect of her being president.

[dana_b]

79. .....

Man... You know how to shakeup a bee hive, cheese. 😝

[jamese777]

80. Primary Voters Are Making Their Choices

Primary Election Popular Vote As Of 5/20/16

Hillary Clinton: 13,192,713 (55.5%)
Bernie Sanders: 10,158,889 (42.7%)
Donald Trump: 11,266,041

Clinton over Sanders: 3,033,824
Clinton over Trump: 1,926,672
Trump over Sanders: 1,057,152

[litlbilly]

85. There is one thing, IMHO, that the Hill people dont understand, if it was Elizabeth Warren running,

Bernie would not have, and 99.9 % of us would be backing Elizabeth 100%. Just my opinion but I would bet its true. That should put to rest the bernibro mysogonistic (sp) meme.

[SidDithers]

87. "all the people who pushed Hillary"...

You mean voters?

Sid

[Beacool]

92. To all the people who pushed Sanders on us, I'm glad that hillary prevailed.

[Lizzie Poppet]

214. Well, that's cool...the center-right gets to have it's say, too.

Even when it's saying silly things...

[Enthusiast]

96. Kicked and recommended!

[Matt_R]

100. Bookmarked for later.

[still_one]

101. Nobody pushed Hillary on anyone. That is what elections are about. More people voted for Hillary

than Sanders. Can't handle the truth, huh

[LenaBaby61]

106. June 14th ....

Can't come soon enough for me

Hurry up June 14th.

[Arkansas Granny]

109. If you're going to blame anyone, how about all those thoussnds

who showed up at Bernie's rallies, but couldn't bother to show up at the polls? Enthusiasm is good, but you need to follow through in order to get things accomplished.

Registering to vote and learning the rules isn't too hard. Millions of Hillary's supporters figured it out. They also didn't cry foul every time things didn't go their way.

[Arneoker]

110. You're to blame if you don't read and consider this

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html

[MisterP]

116. Sanders has been hit by both the GOP and, from behind, by Clinton

he's part of a movement that's been lambasted for OVER A CENTURY and turned into such a complete run-away-quick smear that by 1987 even Reagan was being called a Commie

[Arneoker]

200. Clinton has been treating him with kid gloves

Or at least a lot more civilly than say, Trump has been treating her, or that the rest of the Republican clown parade treated him. That's the way it works in the primaries, candidates are more careful not to alienate voters they need later, so they don't go all out.

How many of the themes in this article are out there to any serious degree? A question or two in one debate about the praise of the Castros and Sandinistas, and Hillary responding.

No, Bernie has not been attacked for over a century. This is more than a label that works for anyone from Tony Blair to Raul Castro. Well the "democratic" part doesn't work for Castro.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

209. Without some kind of a key

Your post is just squiggly lines and dots....just saying ~

[Sancho]

112. To all the people who cost Bernie the primary by acting like asses...

we'll never know if Bernie really could have been a good President. Why???

Because his fan base used all their time and energy as attack dogs; bashing and trashing good candidates like Hillary - instead of using their time teaching young people how to register and vote in complicated primaries.

Because his staff (and Weaver) spent their efforts to steal data and repeating RW memes; instead of developing realistic proposals and detailed policies that could be actually implemented.

Because his revolutionaries yelled and rallied and had tantrums instead of going door to door and talking rationally with hard-core Democrats about why Bernie would make a good candidate.

Because Blemmings attacked the DNC and long-standing Democrats instead of raising money for the undercard and supporting new hopefuls.

Because Bernistas praised Bernie when he went to conservative Bible colleges and the Vatican instead of the black churches and migrant camps where the true progressive core are struggling every day.

Because the Bern-or-Bust crowd started wars on the internet (including DU) that simply resulted in all the major progressive outlets (Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Rachael Maddow, etc.) condemning their behavior.

Sorry Cheese Sandwich - any loss to the GOP in this next election falls squarely on the Bernie strategy of tearing down others!! It's not a progressive value to "revolt" by killing off everyone who doesn't agree with you. That's the Stalin version of revolution. Real liberals win over people with ideas and hard work.

Your logic and actions prove to me that you are not a real progressive.

[Gothmog]

115. Great post

[Bobbie Jo]

118. Truth.

In its entirety.

Well said and spot on!

[Sheepshank]

119. well...that pretty much said it all.....

we shall see if any will actually Understand, how harmful they have been to Bernie's movement, or if the excuse (or diversionary blame) carpet will be rolled out instead.

[forjusticethunders]

136. If vanity "leftist" wannabes were into ideas and hard work

We would have had socialism in this country decades ago.

[Beausoir]

146. Truth! n/t

[brer cat]

157. Bravo!!

Nailed it, Sancho.

[zappaman]

177. Perfection.

[KitSileya]

196. This post deserves a rec, but since that's not possible, a kick is what I'll give it :) NT

[Haveadream]

211. Beautifully said

We can only hope with time and experience, those who truly want change will see that they must embrace and support would-be allies rather than condemning those who don't immediately fall in line. Lasting and productive change that lasts takes time. The biggest mistake Bernie and supporters made was continually attacking, ignoring or maligning those who would otherwise have supported him. Creating divisions and antipathy between people who face the same and often worse challenges ultimately doomed his coalition to failure. We are all connected and unfortunately too many have forgotten that.

Thanks for a great post.

[grossproffit]

216. +infinite

[mcar]

219. This +1000

So well said!

[Squinch]

220. Awesome! I would disagree on one point: Sanders's little elves certainly trashed his campaign, but

Sanders himself was a bad candidate from the get go.

He has his purpose: he is very good at pointing at places for improvement, and we should attend to that. But he, as a candidate, would have been a disaster, and he, as a President would have gotten nothing done.

[B Calm]

113. After landing that Koch endorsement, you'd think that would have opened their eyes.

Instead they kept right on going pushing her on us.

[Sheepshank]

120. Can you link to the that endorsement?

pressing a false meme is called a lie. It another thing Bernie supporters tend to do. Find a snippet of infor and twist it just enough to turn it into a lie.

Oh and if you find that endorsement, I will be sure to respond.

[B Calm]

141. What cave did you climb out of?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/charles-koch-hillary-clinton-2016/

[Sheepshank]

142. Rude, insulting and wrong. What a dummy

the cave you referred to must have just just spat you out, because you must have missed all the threads that put that false talking point to rest. That was not an endorsement.

I repeat do you have a link to an endorsement?

[B Calm]

143. May not be a full throated endorsement, but he did say he prefers Hillary over Trump!

Deny it and go back in your cave!

[Sheepshank]

144. tish tosh...just a little walk back. Good. That's what you get for buying into RW bravado

of course the Kochs are not going to endorse Hillary.

I prefer Huntsman over Bernie...doesn't mean it's an endorsement or that Huntsman will get my vote. See how that doens't count as an endrorsement?

So...did you find a real endorsement or are you going to keep repeating the lie. You do realize you were telling a lie, right?

[B Calm]

145. Tish Tosh. . . Keep denying it.

[Sheepshank]

147. you need to prove that you didn't lie. where is the endorsement?

[B Calm]

148. Yawn. . . You sound like a broken record.

[Sheepshank]

149. and you have yet to admit that you attempted to promote a lie.

[B Calm]

150. and you have to admit Koch prefers Hillary over Trump!

[Sheepshank]

151. read post 144 all the way through and see if you can catch the nuance. If not I'll draw a diagram.

or use less subtle language.

Even a wart hog should be more liked that Trump. It's really not that hard to do.

[B Calm]

158. Even Hillary Clinton herself called it an endorsement.

Hillary Clinton ✔‎@HillaryClinton
Not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote. https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/723996749010862080 …
3:05 PM - 24 Apr 2016

[Sheepshank]

159. It was not an endorsement

...she was hoping, clarifying and stating that Koch's statement should turn into any sort of an endorsement, because she would reject it.

IT WAS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT. Got it?

[B Calm]

160. Then tell Hillary, she was not interested in what she called an endorsement from Koch!

[Sheepshank]

161. if you read Koch's words as an endorsement, then all I can say is go back to school.

I'm not telling Hillary anything of the sort. It's clear it wasn't an endorsement, you want so badly to have it be the truth, but in the end even Hillary's rejection of the Koch's nullifies your very first post in this thread. Thanks for making my job so easy.

[B Calm]

163. We can keep kicking this thread back to the top!

Continue on!

[Sheepshank]

164. and your credibility with continue to dive...I'm ok with that. n/t

[B Calm]

167. and I'm not worried about that. Koch bros love Hillary!

[Sheepshank]

168. I hope they donate millions and millions

so that She can win, implement climate change protocals, and put a dent in their raping and pillaging the planet.

But that's just me. I like to use fools against themselves. Your post #158 helped out in that regard very much. thanks.

[B Calm]

169. They probably already have.

[Sheepshank]

171. ah...making up shit again. The desperate tack of a Bernie supporter. n/t

[B Calm]

172. Just answering the shit you posted!

[Sheepshank]

173. ...you started the lies, and keep piling it on. It's truly pitiful.

[B Calm]

174. It wasn't a lie, but you can take a break, I have to run outside for a few minutes.

[Sheepshank]

176. yes...it was...you lied about the endorsement. Stay outside as long as you wish

I'll be taking a break myself for some important graduation stuff.

actually I won't be back...this sub thread is going in circles and is entering the world of the ridiculous.

[B Calm]

180. I'm back now. From the above link I gave you Charles Koch had nothing but kind words for

Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Billionaire businessman Charles Koch said Sunday that “it’s possible” another Clinton in the White House could be better than having a republican president.

Now imagine if Charles Koch said that about Bernie, you my friend would be in a dithers.

[Sheepshank]

182. even a broke clock is right twice a day..Kochs were correct about Hillary being better than Trump

it's still not an endorsement

As for Bernie snuggling up to the Republicans. He was the one, with the very loud and enthusiastic support of BS supporters, that said he would be courting Trump supporters and would likely get very many cross overs.

[B Calm]

183. LOL Hillary supporters crack me up!

[Sheepshank]

188. yes, so now let me crawl back in my cave, as you mentioned earlier. thanks.

[B Calm]

189. See ya, watch out for bats.

[Sheepshank]

162. you yourself just pointed out that this non endrosement was rejected by Hillary

your post #158

Hillary Clinton ✔‎@HillaryClinton
Not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote. https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/723996749010862080 …
3:05 PM - 24 Apr 201

[B Calm]

166. I know she rejected what she called an endorsement.

[NurseJackie]

114. Oh no ... we're to blame. :-P

Ha!

[IndyV0te]

122. Oligarchy

Clinton IS the oligarchy (i.e. status quo). So is Romney, Cruz, Bush, ad infinitum.

It is amazing to me that people actually want more of the corruption, war-mongering, elitism, Wall Street bailout-ism that Clinton (1), Bush and Obama WILLINGLY perpetuated.

Obama the "peace president", the "most transparent administration ever". Only people with absolutely no brains whatsoever still believe this horse crap.

Sanders and Trump are simply capitalizing on the latest "anti-establishment" theme. Question is: Will the demo/repub oligarchy allow the "common vote" to be heard?

[nolabels]

124. Look on the bright side cheese, fifty+ years have passed since the establishment..........

was complicit with snuffing out JFk and we are finally starting to figure out how it works.

Maybe in a century or two we will have a real progressive for the people

[Nonhlanhla]

125. Do you mean the voters?

It seems to me that Hillary has won with a significant margin. Because people VOTED for her in larger numbers than for Bernie.

[brush]

129. Huh . . . less electable but still beat Sanders in elections. How does that compute?

Explain please.

[Cheese Sandwich]

130. i meant in the general

[brush]

137. Conjecture. Not worth much if you can't get to the general.

[Vogon_Glory]

132. Projecting Much?

Projecting much?

I've seen too many Sanders supporters throw hissy fits and threaten to stay home in the fall because Bernie didn't win the primary battle.

I might have been happier if the Democratic Party had a better candidate, but I think that a President Hillary Clinton is far preferable to having the Donald in the West Wing.

I think a lot of Sanders supporters need to grow up. We have already had the horrible experience of 8 years of Dubya. We have seen too many examples of Rethug government in the Red States and gerrymandering and voter restrictions that promise to make Democratic resurgence so in those places orders of magnitude harder. What the Rethugs in Congress want to do is even worse.

So of course the Sanders fan club wants to stay home in November, not vote, and polish their little tin halos.

If I were in Bernie's camp, I'd vote for Clinton and start planing for 2020 or 2024.

Put on your big girl panties and grow up.

PS put aside reading Breitbart and Drudge.

[nc4bo]

154. Happy to be Rec #115. Don't fruiting blame Sanders or his supporters

For your liabilities.

[MyNameGoesHere]

155. I wish you wouldn't post moronic

Shit, but you did. What can we do about it? Nothing. Here's wishing
you get better soon.

[Cobalt Violet]

156. +1000

We've know for months this would happen just as we know now that they'll blame Bernie if she loses in November. They'll accept 0 responsibility for choosing an out of touch, unlikable, under investigation, status quo candidate.

[wildeyed]

170. There, there.... Try to breathe.

It's called "democracy". Everyone has their say, then we vote. The candidate with the most votes wins. Not sure how you can argue that the candidate with FEWER votes is more electable, but whatever....

[RandySF]

178. I'll probably have forgotten this OP

By the time Hillary takes the Oath of Office.

[brooklynite]

184. Do you have evidence that Hillary is "less electable" besides the "corporate polls" you don't trust?

[insta8er]

185. They will blame us for their mistakes. Just wait and see.

[B Calm]

187. They already are!

Visit ask the administrators forum.

[Califonz]

197. I see only 20 of 156 posts in this thread?

I have Overactive Ignore List Syndrome.

Only Bernie can beat Trump.

[PATRICK]

202. Statistically yes.

The emotional element will blame anyone else. That means you as well I might guess. One might blame the party leadership for the pre-deal non primary they foisted off on the voters and then had to push the system hard to block an insurgency kind of lamely. That would actually make the most sense. Spreads it away from Hillary too.

[DrDan]

205. are you referring to the majority of Dem primary voters?

sorry that your guy is seen as less qualified

[betsuni]

213. How does a cheese sandwich post so often every day without opposable thumbs?

Why so many recs for three sentences from a cheese sandwich? To all the people who pushed processed cheese on us even though it is less delectable, I wish you wouldn't have done that. You're to blame if lactose intolerance wins.

[zappaman]

217. Even cheese has an expiration date. n/t

[Baobab]

218. Hillary's biggest mistake was hiding the real reason for this horrible disaster

A scheme to force the entire world to privatize public services like health care and education if they wanted to trade with the US.

just last year, india held a debate on this that we never had here.

There were riots over their decision to stop helping many poor students from low caste families pay for college.