If you're voting for Hillary because you think she can win the GE, you're part of the problem.

[Bonobo]

Why? Because it is precisely your lack of courage and conviction that ensures that we will only get politicians with lukewarm commitment to Progressive issues.

The "common wisdom" that a "Socialist" cannot win is mostly the result of the kind of self-defeating thinking that is behind the "pragmatic woodchuck" approach.

I am very very proud to be supporting Bernie Sanders. On Election Day, he will get my vote.

Flame away.

[JI7]

1. so why not just vote for the socialist party candidate if you really feel that way

[Bonobo]

2. Why would you think I would do that?

Did I say I was a Socialist?

[JI7]

5. your the one who brought up the thing about whether a socialist can win and making it into something

about convictions.

[Bonobo]

7. I think you just got confused. nt

[roaminronin]

30. Uhhhhh

Cause Bernie has a long history of pushing progressive initiatives in Congress and a proven commitment to the American people?
If that's that dirty word " Socialist", let's get some more!

[OhZone]

47. Good point. Just vote for the socialist candidate if you think he can win so easily. n/t

[Maineman]

133. He cannot win easily. He needs people of conviction to vote for him.

[randys1]

76. OK, that is a good zinger. You know what I want to know? Real simple, I wanna see national

polls in May and June telling me which of our candidates remaining standing, poll better against the terrorists and that is who I will want to be our nominee.

period

[Historic NY]

81. It will be all over on Super Tuesday in March.

[sabrina 1]

136. We SO need Socialist Dem policies in this country. Right Wing policies, I take it you are

happy with the Heritage Foundation policies we've been subjected to for the past several decades, imo, have destroyed this country.

Why is socialist a bad word to you? That's what they call Obama, btw, though I would not agree completely with that.

[lovemydog]

3. I won't flame you Bonobo because I agree

with what you're saying. In the primaries I always vote for who I'd most like to see as President. I don't try to second-guess myself as to who may or may not be the better candidate to win in the general election. I vote my conscience. Though I'd still say I'm undecided (and will be up until I vote) I'm now leaning toward voting for Sanders. My position moved toward Sanders after watching the first debate.

[BainsBane]

4. Yes, it truly is sad I lack the convinction

to support immunity for gun corporations and to blame the mentally ill for gun violence (despite CDC data showing they are less violent than the general population). If only I had courage, I would stand with my true convictions to support $800 Billion in corporate welfare for Lockheed-Martin for the deadly boondoggle that is the F-35. Or I'd support authorizing the Minutemen to patrol the borders. If I had true conviction, I would be swayed by claims about not "having" or "taking money" from Super Pacs--claims that depend on voters no knowing campaign finance law. Or I would pretending Citizens United could be miraculously overturned by a presidential election or that the congress alone could bring about public financing of elections. If only if I had convictions, I'd denounce drone strikes as a war crime when overseen by the sitting president but then turn around and excuse them as perfectly acceptable when supported by someone who I've decided can do no wrong, whose personal political success takes precedence over any policy or issue. If only I had the courage of my convictions

I have to say I find it amazing how many manage to avoid any discussion of policy. You could say, hey did you know Bernie is proposing x, y, and z? This is how he is going to implement these great reforms. Yet none of that interests people here nearly as much as expressing contempt for voters who don't do as they are told.

[Bonobo]

6. If you feel I was talking to you, perhaps you need to think about it more.

Was my OP talking about you, BB?

Are you voting for Hillary because you think only she can win?

If not, the OP was not directed at you.

***By the way, BainsBane, with you I practice something called "analog ignore". That means you are not on my ignore list, but I ignore everything you say.

[in_cog_ni_to]

14. "analog ignore"

Love that. That's exactly how I deal with *the group*. Ignore everything they say, mostly. The post you're referring to is the perfect example of why - it's filled with the usual distortions and lies and they just keep repeating them over and over and over - like we're Pavlov's dogs.

[Thor_MN]

28. "If you're voting for Hillary because you think she can win the GE,"

"Are you voting for Hillary because you think only she can win? "

You moved the goalposts....

And you responded to someone who you claim to ignore everything said by that poster.

Your grasp on absolutes seems a little shaky.

So which goalpost do you really mean? Voting for the person leading the national polls because only that person can win or voting for the person leading the nation polls because that person can win?

I suggest that your position in your OP does not really make much sense, as what the national polls on the GE DO is give a sense of the person most likely to win the GE.

Since you changed your definition when challenged, and it's probably too late to edit the OP, maybe self deleting and starting over with another post with your modified position is an option.

[JTFrog]

45. If you truly ignored her,

I guess we wouldn't be reading this right now.

You try so hard to be insulting don't you? Bless your heart.

[The_Commonist]

48. BWWAHAAAHAAAAAAHAAAA!!!! That's what to call it!!

I saw the snarky post title first, then I saw the poster's name. Then I saw a few keywords in the post and it became clear that I was going to ignore the post. Then I saw what you wrote here!

A good chunk of my DU experience is "analog ignore." I won't use the ignore function, because I feel like that is cheating somehow. I'm not part of an in-crowd, and I'm not a target of an in-crowd, so it's easy for me to fly under the radar. But now that you have given it a name, I realize that I "analog ignore" that poster and a number of the other "usual suspects."

[cui bono]

100. Not any more!

You are hereby targeted as a member of the in-crowd and their target. You are now a "usual suspect" on "analog ignore". I'm jotting it down in my little notebook so I won't forget.

You will not fly under the radar. That is not the DU way!!!!!!!

[MineralMan]

56. Apparently not *everything*

Oh, well.

[BainsBane]

79. Yet there you are

responding to me, despite "analog ignore."

I reject the assumption that there is something inherently more principled in supporting one candidate over another. All have strengths and weaknesses, all have made bad decisions and good ones. I'm voting for the person I believe the best qualified and most competent, as well as the person who is strongest on the issues I care most about: gun violence and women's rights.

As another poster noted, if winning an election isn't a concern, there are Socialist Worker Party and Communist Party candidates on the ballot, as there have been in every election.

[gearhead12]

8. Let me understand you , you are against this? are you for real

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act





The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products are held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime

[BainsBane]

83. I'm against all of those things I listed

(whereas Sanders has supported them) which is among the reasons I dispute the assumption there is something inherently more principled in voting for Sanders rather than Clinton or another candidate.

[gearhead12]

85. The Senate Votes That Divided Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0









In fact, from January 2007 to January 2009, Mrs. Clinton, representing New York, voted with Mr. Sanders about as often as she did with the like-minded Democrats Ron Wyden of Oregon and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland.

In many of the cases in which she differed with Mr. Sanders, who represents Vermont and is also running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton went with the crowd. She voted with an overwhelming majority of her colleagues, including Republicans. Her positions on the votes that differed from Mr. Sanders represented policy differences, but they may have also reflected political calculations by Mrs. Clinton, who was preparing for a presidential run in 2008

[cprise]

101. If all bills/causes were of equal importance, this might mean something

There are a handful of structural problems, and too many -- like banks that must be split up -- will not be addressed by Clinton. And still sabre-rattling and relying on Bush Republicans for policy decisions, I might add.

She is stuck in 2004.

[tecelote]

11. And so, who gets your vote?

And, for my own education, which candidate will stop the drones?

[eridani]

39. The Iraq war is gun violence on steroids, Clinton not only voted for it, but

--made strong public statements urging other representatives to do so as well.

[randys1]

77. Wait wait wait, where did he support minutemen assholes on the border?

[BainsBane]

78. This vote

http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_2006-224.htm

If you google Bernie Sanders + Minutemen you'll turn up coverage on it. I could link to them but the last person who did had the post hidden for providing inconvenient information. Same with the F-35 actually.

[randys1]

80. Would love to hear his reasoning for this

Somebody HELP!

This is frustrating, how can this be?

Can someone who is allowed in the Bernie forum please ask them about this for me.

[BainsBane]

82. That I haven't read

but I do know he doesn't support the typical Democratic policy position on immigration. Remember in the debate that he talked about voting against an Immigration Reform bill because it allowed a guest worker program for unskilled workers? He points to Mexican immigration as a cause of unemployment.

"I'm very dubious about the need to bring foreign unskilled labor into this country," he said in 2013. "What I do not support is, under the guise of immigrant reform, a process pushed by large corporations which results in more unemployment and lower wages for American workers."
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation

Here are some additional votes on immigration: http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Bernie_Sanders_Immigration.htm

[frylock]

88. The F-35 that Hillary explicitly stated she would provide to Israel..

in the speech she gave before the Brookings Institute?

[frylock]

89. You won't hear one word about gun control from Hillary in the GE.

[Lazy Daisy]

110. If you don't agree

If you're not one that agrees with his policies, likes his ideas or his voting record the OP isn't directed at you.

[Lunabell]

9. I have a facebook friend who believes this.

He is definitely a liberal, but is afraid that Bernie can't win the general. I keep reminding him of the candidate Barack Hussein Obama who was elected twice.

[OhZone]

49. Obama is much more middle of the road. n/t

[Lunabell]

70. The point is:

They said he was unelectable.

[jwirr]

108. And who was called a socialist the whole time his is in office.

[uponit7771]

10. So people who've decided NOT to be a Bern Victim (tm) have little courage?! Also, it's not "common .

...wisdom" anything it was scientific polling (since when did progressives start dismissing science?!!? hmmmm) that state America's not ready for a socialist not rumor or some shit.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/poll-voters-socialist-atheist-catholic-119273

[Bonobo]

13. Yes.

It is cowardly indeed to vote based on a poll of how others may vote.

Yes.

It is cowardly to vote based on fear.

[uponit7771]

31. What about on policy, like... I don't like Sanders gun or immigration stance? tia

[Dawgs]

71. Not relevant in this thread. n/t

[NCTraveler]

29. You have been called a coward by an Internet Warrior.

I'm not sure yet but I think they really believe what they type.

[uponit7771]

32. Yeap, like Ben Carson said here recently.. "its what I believe"... not reality

[RichVRichV]

126. That poll could be the definition of glass half full, glass half empty.

You point that 50% of the country would refuse to vote for a socialist according to the poll. But what I find much more interesting is that nearly half are already willing. This is with half a century of the red scare and demonizing the word, half the country would still be amenable to voting for a socialist. The simple fact is Bernie is the first main stream person speaking on the behalf of socialism in a very very long time. It has had no advocates and many detractors. And yet about half the country is already willing to accept it.


The simple fact of polling is that they are a snapshot of what exists at a specific point in time, not what will exist into the future (we can only estimate that based upon evidence). And people are very fickle on what they will never agree to. People were against civil rights until they were for it. People were against gay marriage until they were for it. People were against legalizing marijuana until they were for it. And in most cases a wide swinging change of opinion came in a hurry once critical mass was reached.

[MyNameGoesHere]

12. Lack of conviction?

Your guy can't even run as a socialist. He has to water it down with some lightweight definition of a socialist. Talk about no conviction. Too bad he couldn't stay true to who he says he is I might have supported him.

[Stevepol]

16. I don't believe you have the words quite right.

Bernie has said that he's a "Democratic Socialist" from the very beginning. A DEMOCRATIC Socialist is not a communist or socialist (where the state takes overall charge of everything). You may call a "Democratic Socialist" a "lightweight socialist," but it's what Bernie claims to be. He's not re-defining anything. There are many political parties that would fall into the same category in Europe called by different names, "Social Democrat" etc. In my opinion, the name fairly represents what FDR was and what he would almost certainly not deny being if he were alive today.

[MyNameGoesHere]

21. Yes he is and many more are re-defining.

socialism in any form cannot coexist with capitalism. When you change the meaning of it it is no longer socialism. It is acceptable capitalism. Socialism in any form is not compatible with capitalism and I would appreciate if folks would stop stealing and twisting the meaning. You are a capitalist. I am not. Maybe you are a nice capitalist. Even though that is laughable.

[retrowire]

23. it's black or white!

nothing is changeable! this or that! I only think in absolutes!

.... that's what I get from reading your posts. :/

[frylock]

90. 1001011110101011010100101000001110101!

1010001110100101? 1001011101?!!

[MyNameGoesHere]

121. I am sorry for your

reading deficiency then. I just wish folks would stop saying I am a socialist when they are just guilty capitalist.

[tex-wyo-dem]

103. You're wrong...

In the Nordic countries, which identify themselves as Democratic Socialists, capitalism exists side-by-side with their social governments. Where the hell do you think Volvo, Nokia, Ericsson and IKEA, to name a few, come from?

[onecaliberal]

132. And your candidate can't take a position until it's been poll tested to death.

She never met a position she wasn't willing to ditch for politics. She will say anything to get in, she owes lots of favors to her corporate owners. You don't really think all those corps donating to her don't expect anything in return.

[madokie]

15. I'll be voting for whoever wins the nomination

but in the Primary I WILL be voting for Bernie Sanders.
I do not trust Hillary, let me say that again, I do not trust Hillary Clinton. Hillary is in the tank with the rich and corporation so why would I want her leading my government. I don't

[DrBulldog]

17. Vote for Bernie because he is the ONLY candidate that gives us a chance . . .

. . . to win back part or all of Congress. Then Bernie can actually go to work for the middle class.

Why? Because he is ALREADY supported by 65% of the 75,000,000 millennials in this country! And they are excited to vote!

Voting for Hillary would be a fruitless exercise. Congress would remain entirely Republican and she would be nothing but a figurehead. What in hell good is that?

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. +1000000

[hootinholler]

26. She would be worse than a figurehead

She would be ground zero for that republican congress.

[A Simple Game]

37. She wouldn't be a figurehead, she would lose to whoever the Republican candidate is.

She is poison to the Republicans so no crossover vote and she causes the unaffiliated and young to yawn so no turnout.

Bernie on the other hand will get crossover and excite the unaffiliated and youth to get out and vote for him.

[brooklynite]

40. ...and this is why I'll stick with Clinton

Because my analysis of her electability and our prospects of winning the House is based on hard data crunching, not broad platitudes without a shred of evidence behind them.

[redstateblues]

57. All the down ballot socialists will be

swept into office on Bernie's coattails. Wait a minute- How many down ballot socialists are there?

[MissDeeds]

112. Excellent post

Bernie will continue to work for the middle class and Hillary will continue to work for Wall Street, continue to be a war hawk, and continue to be surrounded by scandal.

[trumad]

18. Yawn

[Bonobo]

19. Drats. I made Truman sleepy.

Ruins about .05 seconds of my life.

[zappaman]

66. Aw, what's the matter? Is the He-Man Woman Hater's Club putting you to sleep?

Yeah, they are pretty boring...
Consistent though!

[trumad]

68. These Ops bore the shit out of me.

[zappaman]

73. +1

[Bonobo]

164. I dedicate this to you.

[zappaman]

165. Thanks! That's a good one!

This is one of my many faves of the first Zappa record I bought new when it was released...

[captainarizona]

20. I have heard this twice before 1964 and 1972

When I was a goldwater supporter as a young teenager in 1964 ( I was young and didn't know any better) and again in 1972 when I was for McGovern and didn't care as I hated nixon over kent state shooting comments. In 1968 I was for McCarthy as I had finally wised up. I will be voting for Bernie in primary ;but holding my nose and voting for Hillary in general election. I understand what happens when we loose presidential election. see: nixon reagan bushes.

[freedom fighter jh]

25. You may not have to hold your nose.

Not if Bernie wins the primary. Your vote will help.

[retrowire]

22. i one hundred percent agree

My old essay is still relevant today and I have yet to see the bigger reason for wanting Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251431753

[NCTraveler]

27. Glad that isn't the reason I will be voting for her.

Even if it was its not an act of cowardice.

[yuiyoshida]

33. Bonobo san!!

sugoii!! Idaina sentakushi! watashi mo!!!

[Art_from_Ark]

155. Ganbatte Bernie!

[yuiyoshida]

158. Honto desuyo!

Ganbate Bernie sama!

[moobu2]

34. No, the fact that Hillary Clinton can win the GE

is just icing on the cake.

[restorefreedom]

38. the myth that hrc can win a ge

could cost the dems the wh

she can't win, waaay too much baggage and zero crossover appeal.

[Maineman]

134. Good points: Too much baggage and zero cross over appeal.

[restorefreedom]

139. not what most want in a general election, for sure. nt

[Scuba]

35. K&R

[Enthusiast]

36. Kicked and recommended!

No flames from this quarter.

[treestar]

41. It is not because I am a coward and lack conviction

It's because my vote is one of many - I am voting with the rest of the voters. I need to get the most liberal consensus with them that I can.

[JoePhilly]

42. High Priest of Liberalism Bonobo has spoken.

Don't get a nose bleed up on that high horse.

[DanTex]

43. Which part of shows "lack of courage" exactly?

There are two parts to my thinking:
1) I don't think Bernie can win the GE.
2) I don't want a Republican in the White House, so I'm voting for a candidate who can.

(1) is simply an opinion about the political state of America. You might disagree, but this is my honest assessment. I don't see how simply trying to view the world honestly has anything to do with lack of courage or being part of any problem.

(2) is the rational thing to do for anyone who believes (1). Voting for Bernie when I think he can't win isn't courageous, it's foolhardy. If I thought he could win, I'd probably vote for him. But I don't.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

[NurseJackie]

95. Great reply …

… clearly written and well worded.

[JTFrog]

44. If you are constantly bashing Democratic candidates, you are part of the problem.

The Republican party is the REAL problem.

But don't let that get in the way of your little rants.

[frylock]

91. Of course, just holding Democratic candidates accountable for past words or actions..

is considered to be bashing by some folks.

[JTFrog]

115. Well I'm not some folks.

I have no problem with constructive criticism. But the OP doesn't play that way when it comes to Hillary. He has posted some incredibly vile crap.

[TheKentuckian]

140. It is impossible to actually oppose the TeaPubliKlans with the Turd Way running and representing

the party.

It is ridiculous to pretend that "warm purple sauce", "bipartisanship", "meeting in the middle", and assimilation of their world view and non demographic policy prescriptions is beating the Republicans when what we really get is a conditional surrender that moves us to 80%ish agreement with a bunch of fucking lunatics.

[JTFrog]

145. It might be impossible for you...

but I'm gonna keep on voting for Democrats in face of the alternative.

Your hyperbole is what is ridiculous.

[Sunlei]

46. So, what will you do if Mr. Sanders doesn't win the primary?

What would Bernie Sanders do?

[OhZone]

51. If? There is no IF. He won't win. n/t

[Sunlei]

53. He may win, or maybe Sanders and Clinton will team-up as VP & President.

This kind of 'all or nothing OP' is only divisive, harmful for the D party. Something Senator Sanders and Mrs. Clinton both would never, ever promote.

Feeds right into Republican hands.

[OhZone]

61. I love Bernie. Maybe I'm wrong.

And maybe the polls are wrong. And maybe Nate Silvers is wrong. And maybe predictwise is wrong.

We'll see. But I doubt it.

Hey, this isn't my first rodeo.

I bet she chooses someone like Julian Castro.

[jwirr]

111. When people begin to consider the issues seriously and we

end up with candidates who are so different on the issues as Bernie and Hillary are then it is quite natural that we are going to be divided in the primary.

And when the issues are referring to the direction in which our nation is going to take (corporate vs people) then it is only natural that we are going to disagree. As I have said many times this election is different - this one will determine the direction we go. We owe it to ourselves and our children to fight for what we want.

I am not going to apologize for being a Bernie support with all my heart.

[Dawgs]

72. Copy and pasted from 2007. n/t

[OhZone]

75. Nope, sorry. He's very different from Obama. n/t

[frylock]

93. He is. He's polling better, has more money, and draws larger crowds than Obama did.

[MineralMan]

58. He'll continue to represent Vermont in the Senate.

That's what he'll do, and he's been doing a great job of it.

[Sunlei]

59. He has been great for Vermont. I especially love that Obamacare insurance can use ANY

Doctor/hospital/specialist in the state. That should be National.

[OhZone]

50. I'm voting for Hillary because -

I agree with her on many issues. Because I think she can run a more effective campaign. Because I think she can be more effective with congress. Because I like her record. And because Team Clinton is very good with the economy. So many of my friends and family did so well in the 90s. I was only a teen, but I saw how the economy boomed under them, and how the GOP destroys the economy. And maybe I'm just not a 100% socialist.


BTW - Not everyone here is a socialist all the way, Bonobo.

[leveymg]

52. HRC is -10 among Independents, the biggest bloc of votes. If you're a good Dem, don't nominate her.

If you're a Wall Streeter or neocon, or just part of the Clinton machine, go right ahead. Hillary is your candidate.

[frylock]

94. Independents and the unaffiliated simply don't exist in the world of Clinton supporter.

[leveymg]

106. Yes they do - the career Clintonites are aware. But they're locked in.

It's the lower information Clinton supporters who simply don't know or haven't thought it through. To them, to follow is the thing, and it doesn't much matter to them if that leads over the cliff.

[MineralMan]

54. No flames, but people decide on a primary candidate

to support for many reasons. Some of those reasons are strategic in nature, rather than policy-related. Pragmatism is a valid reason to vote for a specific candidate. I think everyone should vote in the primary elections or caucuses for whomever they think is the best choice, for whatever reason. If pragmatism is the reason, it's as valid as other reasons.

[Agschmid]

60. Yup.

[Gothmog]

55. If that is the case, explain how Sanders is viable in a general election?

I like Sanders personally and agree with many of his positions. According to that silly online poll/quiz, Sanders is closer to my positions than Hillary Clinton but I am not convinced that Sanders can win in a general election. I have asked repeatedly for an explanation as to how Sanders will be viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars and I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation. If Sanders wants to appeal to the base of the Democratic party he needs to show that he is viable. Heck, Sanders own campaign manager's article on the strategy states that he does not think that Sanders will be the nominee and that he will be happy if Sanders is deemed to be a serious candidate along the lines of Jesse Jackson in 1984 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/12/bernie-sanders-s-strategist-this-is-how-we-win.html
if you read the last three paragraphs of this article, Sanders campaign manager does not outline a path to the nomination but a path to be a "serious" candidate.

If all goes according to plan, Sanders will have won enough delegates by mid-March to be a serious contender for the nomination. That would signal a shift for Sanders; it would be time to court the establishment. “Then we have to offer fundamental assurances to party leaders who say he’s a socialist. He’s been in the Congress 25 years and his program is not to replace the current system with socialism, it’s to revive the middle class.”

Sanders’s outsider campaign has been likened to Jesse Jackson’s insurgent campaign in 1988—it wasn’t until the Wisconsin primary in April that Michael Dukakis defeated Jackson. But Devine thinks the more apt analogy to today’s politics is 1984 when the combination of Gary Hart’s insurgency and Jackson’s coalition of minority voters together almost beat Walter Mondale. “Jackson never received support from the institutional party, but he demanded respect. If we register, as Jesse Jackson did, millions of people, that would be a huge lift for the party in Senate races.” And for whichever Democrat reaches the magic number of delegates next year to secure the nomination.

The idea that Sanders is good for the Democratic Party is a hard lesson for Clinton to appreciate in the heat of battle. But he’s got voters fired up and ready to go, and Democrats need that energy.

The apparent goal of this campaign is not for Sanders to be the nominee but to be considered a serious candidate who might almost beat Hillary Clinton.

I was amused that this article was discussed as being positive for Sanders http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=667157 I read the entire article including the last three paragraphs. It appears that thee best that Sanders' campaign manager is hoping for is to duplicate Jessee Jackson's 1984 feat of getting close to keeping Mondale from the being the nominee. My problem is that I like most Clinton supporters like Sanders and already respect him on a personal level. I am not sure what more Sanders will get by being a serious contender.

This article is silent on what Sanders intend to do in a general election contest in that it appears that Sanders campaign manager does not expect that Sanders will be the nominee.

Again, support the candidate of your choice and I will support the candidate who I think is most viable. I have a great deal of personal respect for Sanders and I have no problem with giving Sanders a great deal of respect at the Democratic National Convention for being a serious contender.

[Sunlei]

62. I want Sanders and Clinton to team-up as VP & President.

I would like them to announce that the primary voters/number of votes will determine who of them will be President/VP position.

Both of them have already stated several times, "let the voters decide". This type of early team-up would stop the destructive divisive actions, that only harm the party.

[antigop]

99. add +1 to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter. nt

[Gothmog]

129. Many Democratic voters will not take Sanders seriously until they are convinced that he is viable

The lack of viability will hamper Sanders' ability to attempt to broaden his base

[antigop]

130. add +1 to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter. nt

[Gothmog]

141. With explanations like the above, it is no wonder why most Democrats are hesitant to support Sanders

[antigop]

143. Self-explanatory -- except to those who benefit from the status quo or who haven't been

burned yet.

[antigop]

144. DNC Chair DWS admits Bernie can win

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017300103

Say "Hi" to Debbie if you see her and tell her thanks for that moment of candor!

[Gothmog]

152. No she did not

She wad being nice. If you really believe that Sanders is viable then answer my question set forth above. Many democrats do not think that Sanders is ciable and the refusal to answer my auestio does inspire confidence

[antigop]

154. Say "Hi" to Debbie when you see her and tell her thanks for that moment of candor! nt

[NurseJackie]

63. Why bother?

Flame away.

A redundant invitation. It's already pretty obvious that's what you want … why should anyone bother?

What difference would it make?

[Sheepshank]

64. what a load.....

I am not the problem, Bernie supporters are.

I have plenty of courage...I wade into DU every day and risk the swarming and alerting.

I have plenty of conviction....I have not changed my mind that Hillary best can handle the issues that are very important to me.

I don't think the majority of the USA is ready to concede that a Socialist can best govern this nation.

I'm very proud to be supporting Hillary R Clinton in her bid to become the next President of the United States.

Flame away

[Xyzse]

65. No need to flame.

Seriously though, I don't really think this is helping much.

To me any of the Democratic Primary contenders are good. I am happy with each one of them in various degrees.

Yes, I have my preference, but I find that it hardly really matters at this point. I consider the local races far more important.

I will vote for whomever wins the Democratic Primary. That is all I really need to say in that sense. Everything else to me is noise, detracts from the message of the candidate, and ultimately entrenches the position of the supporters of other candidates that they may just not vote for whomever wins the primaries. I think that would be a tragedy.

[MohRokTah]

67. I do not see this "problem" you speak of. eom

[randome]

69. Has any Presidential candidate ever won as the result of a write-in vote?

Sure, it would be best if everyone voted the same and held your beliefs but...not going to happen.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tarc]

74. Regarding "Flame away"

Flame away.

Not really worth it, to be honest. I do not believe that this mindset typifies the Sanders supporters.

[Uncle Joe]

84. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bonobo.

[bkkyosemite]

86. I'm so tired of reading that Bernie Sanders

cannot win, he is not electable, afraid he can't win the primary or the GE.......well if you keep thinking that self defeating way that is what will happen.

Bernie Sanders is going to win, if not the primary then....write him in.

" Furthermore, in some states, the
ballot may include a place to “write in” the names of
candidates who were neither nominated by the parties
nor qualified by petition. Such candidates may be
described as “self-nominated,” and they win election
to public office from time to time"

http://photos.state.gov/libraries/amgov/30145/publications-english/USA_Elections_InBrief.pdf

[bobbobbins01]

87. If you're voting for Hillary, you're part of the problem.

Full stop.

[closeupready]

92. Jury voted 0-7 to leave topic intact, despite an alert.

On Tue Oct 20, 2015, 11:25 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

If you're voting for Hillary because you think she can win the GE, you're part of the problem.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251704201

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

meta flame bait, calling DUers out as lacking courage in aconvision and a problem. Just no.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 20, 2015, 11:39 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Leave it alone, hell, I almost Rec'd it LoL.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "Meta-" concerns are not a jury's call; it's for the administrators and hosts. Voting to leave.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm an agnostici n these primary wars, but those deeply invested in them keep showing how things their skin is. This post is very, very mild. Please, folks, stop looking to be offended
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with the poster and see nothing that is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cui bono]

102. What an idiotic alert. Clearly targeting someone, desperately.

[emsimon33]

96. You are correct! She can't win the GE

She will bring out the Republicans and far-right in droves and a lot of potential Democrats will just stay home as she is little more meh to them.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

97. Flames cannot Bern me! #FeelTheBern

[mahina]

98. Word.

[Agnosticsherbet]

104. Bullshit. People who don't vote who have no courage

Or conviction.

[antigop]

105. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz says Bernie Can Win Presidency

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017300103

[azmom]

107. It's a vote based on fear of the opposition.

It would be a better world if people could control their fear impulse. It's the only avenue for true change.

[neverforget]

109. IF she's nominated AND loses the General....liberals, progressives and Bernie supporters will

get blamed.

[40RatRod]

113. I would respond but when I do...

...someone either bans me or locks my thread. I don't think it is safe to say what you think on DU. And I still think my comments were more than appropriate. There are really a lot of my way or the highway folks on this site.

[Persondem]

114. How about owning up to the FACT that this country is NOT ready to vote for a Socialist

Clinton people didn't make this up.

"A new Gallup presidential election survey found that out of 11 categories of candidates, Americans found a socialist to be the least electable."

Even only 59% of Democrats would vote for a Socialist for president. No way a candidate wins a GE if he/she is drawing from such a limited voting pool.

To put it another way, more Republicans (61%) would vote for a gay/lesbian person for president than Democrats would vote for a Socialist (59%). That is the cold, hard light of truth trying to burn its way into your brain. Unfortunately it has a few feet of sand to get through first.

Link here.

[Bonobo]

117. You shouldn't vote based on such a poll. Period.

No one would have predicted a black president with the middle name "Hussein".

Good thing we didn't vote based on the common wisdom of the time.

[Persondem]

119. I am not voting on the basis of one stinkin' poll. Try not to be so condescending.

Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England

The attack ads write themselves. GOP/Super PAC ads would rip him apart and use his own words against him. They won't even have to make anything up like they did with Kerry.

Sanders can't get more that 30% of his own (sort of) party to support him. Non-starter.

It's nice that he is involved and is highlighting some important causes, but he will never be president of the USA.

I realized that all by myself well before that poll ever came out.

And this from 2008.... That shows that 89% of the country was ok with having an AA as president. That is way ahead of where Sanders is now.

If you honestly assessed yourself, thinking in general about an African-American president of the United States, is that something you'd be entirely comfortable with, somewhat comfortable, somewhat uncomfortable or entirely uncomfortable with?"
8/12-17/08

Entirely Comfortable 72%
Somewhat Comfortable 17%
Somewhat Uncomfortable 5%
Entirely Uncomfortable 3%
Unsure 4%

[Bonobo]

120. "Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"

I'll just leave that there. Thanks for revealing yourself.

[Persondem]

122. What about that is not true? ..... Truth?! YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!

"Reveal yourself" - What kind of passive aggressive crap is that?

I'll have you know that I am fully clothed, and obviously have a better sense of humor than you do.

It's all still true though. Here it is one time for every inch your head is buried in the sand.

Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"
Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"
Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"
Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"
Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"
Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"
Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"
Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"
Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"
Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"
Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"
Sanders is an old, crazy looking, conscientious objecting, tax raising, Socialist from New England"

That should do it.

[Bonobo]

124. Indeed. Quoting Tom Cruise movies from the 90's is the very height of humor!

Your wit is sharp indeed.

[Agschmid]

146. Your post is crap.

Sanders is a qualified candidate for president, he stands for many ideals which the whole party can support and would do good things as president.

I agree that I don't feel he is electable in the GE, but your description of him is hyperbole and doesn't represent the facts.

If he is the candidate in the GE I will do everything I can to get him elected.

What a post fail.

[Persondem]

149. hyperbole my ass. Everything I stated is true. Prove me wrong.

Rebuttal fail.


Oh, in case you hadn't noticed, I have stated on multiple occasions that I will campaign for, and vote for Sanders in the GE should such a miracle occur.

[Doctor_J]

147. you don't think the attack ads against Hillary will write themselves?

Wow. Living in dreamland are we?

[Persondem]

148. Oh, there will be attack ads, but they will be much more nuanced and take much more

explaining.

A bumper sticker with pics of Mao, Marx and Bernie with a red slash through his face is all you need.

[thesquanderer]

157. Some different numbers from 2008

See post #172 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251634501

Kep in mind that your figures, from August 2008, were a whole lot closer to the 2008 election compared to how close we now are to the 2016 election. Ten months can make a big difference... as you can also see from that post. So "way ahead of where Sanders is now" is not especially relevant.

[Persondem]

159. I am not sure what different numbers from 2008 you are talking about

I followed the link in your post, then followed the link in that post. I think that post uses the same poll that I used.

I'll grant you that we are farther off from the GE than we are now, but I think it would be difficult for Sanders (or Socialists in general) to make up 30% points even in 10 months. (so as to be even with Obama)

[thesquanderer]

160. Here's what's different

If you followed the link I provided, what you should have seen is this article...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-poll-ready-for-a-black-president/

from June 2008 which said "Sixty-eight percent of Americans say the country is ready - up 6 points from March and 14 points from January." That means that as of January 2008 (still closer to the 2008 election than we now are to the 2016 election), 46% of Americans were still not sure the country was ready for a black president!

I'd also like to add that, as badly as socialism polls, I don't think those negative feelings are as deeply ingrained in people as are their feelings about race, because it is much less a part of their day to day lives. In that sense, I think it might have beem tougher for Obama to change people's minds about color than it would be for someone to change people's minds about socialism... especially considering that the kind of socialism BS is talking about is not the communits/marxist Soviet Union style socialism that most people are probably thinking of, but the Democratic socialism of the Scandanavian countries that people are less familar with. IOW, given a chance, BS can explain that he isn't the kind of socialist most people are thinking about when they say they would not vote for a socialist. OTOH, Obama actually was black.

Please also see post #1 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/118729095

[Persondem]

161. Ah, I realize what I missed ... I did not see the post #172 part

I will check out the correct link and reply a bit later tonight.

Thank you for the details. Until then ....

[Persondem]

162. It is definately a tricky issue. I do not think Socialism and Race compare all that well though.

There are far less nuances with race and once you are over it, so to speak, then that's it. Socialism suffers from it's link to Communism as in "it's a slippery slope ..." sort of thing. Reds (and socialism) were the enemy for a couple of generations while AA were the victims of oppression. Socialism takes some explaining and thought and interest to understand while Race is just what it is, no explanations necessary. (Issues concerning Race are very deep and nuanced, but Race itself is pretty straightforward.). So some not so subtle differences between the two.

I get what you are saying though, that if acceptance of a Black man as president can improve that much in a year then so might acceptance of a Socialist. Possibly. Another consideration though is that Obama was/is a great candidate appearing at the right time. The polls asking that in 2008 were really about him just as polls this year are really asking about Sanders. Obama was damn near the perfect candidate for the time while Sanders, passionate and smart and on target with his ideas as he is, is more of a character actor trying to be a leading man.. He is just not right for the role; his time just has not come yet.

Imagine in 15-20 years a candidate like Trudeau in Canada with Obama's flair for speaking and inspiring picking up Bernie's torch. Then things might go better.

[thesquanderer]

166. Things may be starting to move quicker than you think

see http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251717274

[silvershadow]

116. No flaming here. The party is at a crossroads. I'm in whichever camp is further to the left.

Flame away.

[Bernblu]

118. The irony is that Hillary may very well be the weaker GE candidate

Bernie's biggest problem is winning over the primary voters who like him and his issues but are afraid to vote for him because they don't think he can win. Ironically, Bernie would do better than Hillary in the GE. She does not generate enthusiasm and is the establishment candidate in a change election.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

123. +1 n/t

[Hepburn]

142. While Dems -- many of us -- are willing to accept Hillary in the GE...

...that is not a for sure as to the rest of the voters. IMO, Hillary will not win the GE -- she is just too very well liked as far as the rest of the nation is concerned.

[brooklynite]

151. I'd really like someone to explain "Bernie would do better than Hillary in the GE"...

...without resorting to ridiculous platitudes like: "Sanders has 75 millions millennials ready to vote for him". (a line I was fed earlier today).

[thesquanderer]

156. As requested, here's why I think "Bernie would do better than Hillary in the GE"

See post #139 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251697741

edit: and besides everything mentioned there, for one more, also see this new post, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251712025

[SoapBox]

125. Total K & R!

[dem in texas]

127. Supreme Court

The most important thing facing us after the 2016 election is Supreme Court appointments. It is imperative that a Democrat be elected president because some of the Judges will leave the bench after the election because of age or health reasons. I did not vote for Hillary in 2012 because of her vote to go to war in Iraq. But now, I am taking a practical look at it and she has the best chance to win in the general election. There are so many important things that will be up for the Supremes, more restrictions on abortions (or abolishment if we have a Repub as pres), Gerrymandering of districts, voters rights, campaign finance, the list can go on and all have an impact on us. This is election is not the time to stand on principles, but the time to be practical and help the Democrats win.

[Renew Deal]

128. The Sanjaya strategy

[MFM008]

131. Sanders

will never win the purple votes. As much as I would like every American to be a socialist, its not going to happen. Canada is a good example of whats going to happen in the democrat primary/elections. Moderate wins, socialists get hammered, conservatives sent into the desert for 40 years.

[McCamy Taylor]

135. Supporting Clinton on DU right now takes courage and conviction.

[Agschmid]

150. Yup.

[ecstatic]

137. I'm voting for the nominee. Whoever it is. However,

I don't think that Bernie can deliver on any of the promises he's making. It's just not realistic without a civil war of some kind. If the impossible happens and Bernie becomes the nominee and somehow wins the GE, I'll probably peek in just to chuckle at his most ardent "supporters" ripping him a new one (probably before he's even sworn in).

The point is, I think the split here is realists vs idealists, not a calculation of who can win.

[Duckfan]

138. First everyone was saying he could, now their saying he can't.

I agree with the OP on the point of "self-defeating" attitudes many people have here. Like Bernie has said many times. It's not about Bernie, or Hillary. It's about ALL OF US. We're in this together. And if we all stand together we will have huge smiles on our face when its over.

Remember the movie Network when (forgot his name) said "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." A classic line in movie lore. I thought from what I've seen here in the past few weeks are a group of people who are truly PO'd at the corporate top-down political structure we've been dealing with for many years. So seriously. Are you really PO'd, or are you too tired to fight for what you believe?

Kinda sad if you ask me. Some want to stand up and fight. Others want to go with the direction the wind is blowing.

If this doesn't turn out good for us come Nov. I'm going to start drinking again--just to ease the pain as much as possible.

[brooklynite]

153. Choosing to fight is dependent on risk and reward...

I can absorb the risk of a Republican winning (I might even come out ahead); can you? Personally, I'd rather not inflict the Republicans on my friends and family.

[Dem2]

163. Many millions of horrible cowards prefer a Democrat in the WH.

How awful.