Hillary Clinton is going to lose: She doesn’t even see the frustrated progressive wave

[L0oniX]

that will nominate Bernie Sanders. Clinton's positioning on TPP is way too cute. When it passes with Dems' implicit support, grass roots will explode.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/22/hillary_clinton_is_going_to_lose_she_doesnt_even_see_the_frustrated_progressive_wave_that_will_nominate_bernie_sanders/



Hillary Clinton went to New York’s Roosevelt Island earlier this month to relaunch her campaign for president. Her first kickoff fell flat, perhaps because she herself didn’t attend, opting instead to send a video greeting card in which people she still insists on calling ‘everyday Americans’ shared their life plans. (To go to school! Plant a garden! Get married!) She came on at the end to say she had plans of her own that include being president, and that she does it all for us.

She delivered a 45-minute speech that told us little more than that three-minute video. She still won’t say where she’d peg the minimum wage or if she’d ever rein in the surveillance state or get us out of Iraq. Most amazing is how she finesses the Trans Pacific Partnership that President Obama so covets. It’s the biggest deal in the history of commerce; its investor tribunals would substitute corporate for democratic will here and around the world — and Clinton hasn’t said boo about it. Some ask how she gets away with it. I’m not so sure she does.

Politicians have always ducked tough issues, but today’s Democrats are the worst. When the TPP came before the House, enough Democrats played it cute to leave the outcome in doubt till the very end. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi didn’t tip her hand until just before the vote. Many who voted no never said exactly why. Some want to curb currency manipulation. Some oppose the fast track process, others the secret tribunals or the intellectual property rules that actually restrain competition. If the caucus as a whole has a bottom line, no one knows what it is.

<snip>No one plays the game better than Hillary Clinton, the Harry Houdini of syntax. The question is whether it’s a winning game, and if so for whom. It isn’t a winning game for progressives. We only win when debate is specific, honest and brave. The TPP debate is like those we have every day over government. The more abstract the terms, the harder it is for us to win. If we find ourselves debating ‘government’ or ‘bureaucracy,’ we lose. If we talk Medicare or Social Security, we win. We even win on foreign aid but only when armed with the facts.

more at link & see the video at the bottom of the page

[The Second Stone]

1. More Salon clickbait

Clinton will win the nomination, although Sanders will make a very good showing. Clinton will mop up and destroy anyone in the Republican field except perhaps Pataki, who might make a read contest. The rest are clowns.

[Divernan]

24. The writer was White House counsel to Bill Clinton.

Bill Curry was White House counselor to President Clinton and a two-time Democratic nominee for governor of Connecticut. He is at work on a book on President Obama and the politics of populism.

[wyldwolf]

36. A consolation appointment after losing a governor's race in CT.

he left the White House in '96 and lost the same race again.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. He also called for the defeat of the entire Democratic party./NT

[wyldwolf]

44. WOW! I guess we see his agenda with the OP's article.

[L0oniX]

55. .

[sabrina 1]

170. Well now that the messenger has been 'exposed' is there anything in the article you agree or

disagree with? I certainly agree with his take on the stand Hillary is taking on the TPP. Or not taking. So he is certainly not saying anything that isn't obvious to anyone watching this campaign. And since nearly every Labor Group and Liberal organization is against the TPP, if she is for it, which seems to be the case, she is not representing the people she claims to want to 'champion'.

But you didn't say what you disagreed with?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

197. +1 n/t

[truedelphi]

200. Thanks Sabrina 1.

And in any case, if Hillary does win, the whole nation loses. We cannot afford to keep doing the same thing over and over.

[bvar22]

237. The Whole Nation does Not lose if Hillary is elected.

Wall Street and the Global Corporations score a BIG WIN.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

300. My broke ass will win if HRC wins because at least I know my Medi Cal will be secure.

Well, I live in the bluest of states so it will likely be safe anyway...

I do care a lot about my poorer brethren in red states who will lose their Medicaid if the Repugnicants win the presidency and without the threat of a presidential veto the Republican Congress turns it into a bloc grant program.

[raouldukelives]

314. Oh yes, we get the best democracy they can buy.

Which is why we end up with ignorant, racist politicians in the south well funded by Walmart and Aetna and the rest of the Wall St elite who don't care if we die in the street, in a Church or forgotten in a cell.

I've heard it said behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Behind every great fortune today, it would seem the crimes are too numerous for one to even keep track.

[rbnyc]

241. Have I told you lately...

..that I love you?

[Ed Suspicious]

301. +1 Great question.

[rhett o rick]

251. Wow! Do you have anything of substance to say about the OP or just ad hominem attacks?

An answer isn't needed.

[wyldwolf]

254. A writer with a proven agenda against the Democratic party favors Bernie Sanders. SURPRISE!!!

[rhett o rick]

285. Everyone has an agenda. Even you. Why do you choose the side of the Oligarchs?

Afraid to take a chance and fight for freedom and liberty?

[wyldwolf]

292. but we're talking about one particular writer.

Afraid to take a chance and fight for freedom and liberty?

[Ed Suspicious]

303. I thought we were talking about one article? Ideas are bigger than the person who writes them.

Let's hear your critique on the substance.

[wyldwolf]

307. The entire focus of this subthread is the writer

[Divernan]

49. OMG! Do give us a direct quote with a link! THIS IS HUGH!

That is an extraordinary charge to bring without including a quote with a link! Why do you do that?

[L0oniX]

56. Don't wait too long for that.

[wyldwolf]

59. "Let's abandon the Democrats"

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/23/lets_abandon_loser_democrats_stop_blaming_fox_news_and_hoping_elizabeth_warren_saves_us/

[madfloridian]

145. and form a strong progressive movement instead (that's his message)

Some think we can form one within the Democratic Party.

[wyldwolf]

181. which is still a mission to destroy the Democratic party

Regardless of his reasoning, that IS his purpose.

[madfloridian]

187. Wait...you say Bernie's purpose is to "destroy the Democratic party"?? You really said that?

[wyldwolf]

204. No, we're discussing the author of the piece quoted in the OP

[rhett o rick]

252. Why don't you discuss the brother of the author of the piece? I hear he had a

two wives. And "hey look over there, I think I saw Sasquatch."

[wyldwolf]

255. because he didn't write the piece.

[rhett o rick]

284. Why are you afraid to discuss "the piece" but attack the author? Isn't that

the definition of ad hominem?

Clinton has the backing of the billionaires. I can see why you favor her.

[wyldwolf]

293. I'm not afraid to discuss the piece. I choose not to.

[Ed Suspicious]

304. There you have it.

[nikto]

270. Hopefully, the goal is to destroy the CORPORATISM in the Democratic Party.

Destruction of some things, is good.

[Ed Suspicious]

305. +1

[cui bono]

236. If that's what it takes to get it back then fine.

The Dem Party today is the Republican Party of yesterday. That is not okay with liberals and progressives.

[rbnyc]

242. +1

This is a kind of civil war. We are looking to change party leadership and change the direction of the party. We are part of a rebellion.

[Caretha]

257. No

It's a mission to destroy the Republicans that have been swarming to the Democratic party since Reagan. So who are you?

A Republican Democrat that joined because of Reagan or Bush II?

[wyldwolf]

258. Yes

"Let's abandon the Democratic Party."

You support that?

|
V

[Caretha]

261. I support

abandoning the Democratic party if it is the "Light Arm" of the Republican party.

Who are you?

[wyldwolf]

264. Is the Democratic party the "Light Arm" of the Republican party?

[MrMickeysMom]

288. You seem to answer questions with questions...

No wonder many here are questioning exactly how you feel and who you are…

[wyldwolf]

291. you seem to avoid the question

No wonder many here are questioning exactly how you feel and who you are…

Hey, check this out:

Wyldwolf: Statistics and Information

Account status: Active
Member since: 2002
Number of posts, all time: 39,143

You know what that means? It means I couldn't really care that 'many people' on a message forum are wondering who I am. THAT statement by you feeds into this really weird idea puritopians have - that if you disagree with them, them reasons MUST be nefarious and for profit.

[MrMickeysMom]

325. ...

My goodness, I have no idea what people in general feel, but the ones in the thread sure were questioning you. It's good to be questioned once in a while.

"… that if you disagree with them, them reasons MUST be nefarious and for profit…" statement of yours is one hell of a statement. Whatever it meant, may the force be with you, since number of posts seem to rate in your world. Like my byline below states… I'm so glad you decided to post!"

[wyldwolf]

326. Who gives a rat's ass if people 'question who I am?'

Like my byline below states...

[MrMickeysMom]

327. Nobody said they gave a "rat's ass", so why are you beating this into the ground?

Are you trying to add to that fantastic number of posts?

Bravo!

[wyldwolf]

330. That isn't what I said. Why is it an issue to you that someone wonders who I am?

[MrMickeysMom]

331. Enough of this ridiculous and meaningless conversation...

You don't know what you or I said, or if anyone else cares. I've stopped playing today's game of nothing and shrugging shoulders.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[wyldwolf]

332. How sweet you put me on your ignore list

You'll be back.

[Ed Suspicious]

306. Bernie Sanders refuses to be the light arm of the Republican party.

[L0oniX]

334. The oligarchy has already destroyed much of it. People don't give a fuck about the 1% taking over.

[wyldwolf]

335. And 'progressives' want to destroy the rest?

[L0oniX]

336. ~

[wyldwolf]

337. Only following the writings of the esteemed author in the OP.

[L0oniX]

338. `

And 'progressives' want to destroy the rest?

[wyldwolf]

339. '|'

Yup, seems to be the case.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Res ipsa loquitur

Let’s abandon the Democrats: Stop blaming Fox News and stop hoping Elizabeth Warren will save us

http://tinyurl.com/nc32w3j

Is that HUGH! enough for you?

BTW, I deeply resent your assault on my integrity.

[Divernan]

75. He calls for a more populist democratic party

And here's the deal, integrity means you don't hurl unfounded, i.e, undocumented, uncited, charges - this is not a Friday night poker game here - we are seriously debating the future of the Democratic party. Anyone asking you to provide a direct quote on a link is NOT, I repeat NOT assaulting your integrity.

It's a very long, detailed, nuanced article, but I didn't see the phrase Let's Abandon the Democrats anywhere except in the headline - which as you may or may not know, but any journo can tell you - the headlines are written by editors, not reporters/columnists. He does level major criticisms against party leaders - not at all the same as calling for the defeat of "the entire Democratic party."

The Democrats’ conduct since the midterm debacle is as sad and sorry as the campaign that caused it. The party’s leaders are a big problem. A bigger one is the closed system of high-dollar fundraising, reductionist polling and vapid messaging in which it is seemingly trapped. Some say a more populist Democratic Party will soon emerge. It won’t happen as long as these leaders and this system are in place.
Democrats think they need more money, better ads and a bigger computer. They gripe about Republican wedge issues, but have their own; immigration for Latinos, choice for women, student loans for students. What they need is a blueprint for solving problems that matter to everyone. Since the 19th century, progressive movements have created the blueprints and the public groundswells needed to enact them. Can progressives build such a movement in this century?

They can do it but they’ll have to take a time-out from electoral politics. They must declare their independence from the Democratic Party, its ineffectual politics and its current, clueless leaders. In the fall liberal pundits chastised Democrats who “ran from Obama.” Democrats lost because they couldn’t run from themselves. What they really needed to do was assure voters they saw the flaws in Obama’s program and had a plan to fix it. They didn’t have a plan because progressives never gave them one.

[wyldwolf]

103. So if I advise someone to 'abandon' something, that really means 'change it.'

Right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

144. When you abandon your spouse or children you are changing them, for the worse./NT

[bvar22]

340. Abandonning something that does NOT work (like "Free Trade"),

is a GOOD thing.
That is how people learn & grow.
Then there are those who just stay stuck in the mud all their lives.

[OilemFirchen]

206. He lost two elections to an ethically-challenged Republican.

In Connecticut.

Now he's doling out election advise.

Interesting career choice.

[rbnyc]

245. so what?

Ever think about leaving a job where you're treated like shit?

They way I see it is there are four positions you can take:

1. My party, right or wrong.

2. The the right-lerching and establishment-supporting direction of the party is ok with me.

3. Party leadership does not represent my values so I am going to contribute to another effort that does.

4. I want to stay connected to the ever-evolving Democratic Party, so I'm going to work to influence it from within.

Both 3 and 4 seem reasonable to me and I understand wavering between them.

My point of view: We need a political revolution. We are coming for the ruling class wherever they may be, even at the head of our own party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

248. I once left a job and I called my boss a "fucking idiot" on the way out the door...

But I didn't stay there and carp about what a lousy job it was...


If folks don't like my party they are free to change it and if they fail and want to leave then they should.

[Caretha]

260. This is what it is all about

"A political revolution". There are those who don't want one. They want to remain the "Republican Lite of the Democratic party" and get rid of real Democrats.

I think they will loose, or at least for the good of the country, I hope they do.

[MrMickeysMom]

328. ^^^ Yeee-UP!^^^

[onenote]

42. And Dick Morris was an advisor to Bill Clinton

Being a former advisor to Bill Clinton doesn't make you omniscient.

[Aerows]

208. You have got to be kidding me -

Dick Morris, the toe sucker, wrong about everything, Dick Morris was an adviser to Bill Clinton!?

I did not know that!

EDIT: Holy shit, you are right!

[Fuddnik]

262. And Hillary is the one who brought him in, along with Mark Penn.

Hillary and Morris were friends from Arkansas.

Source: "Confidence Men", by Ron Suskind

And

"The Clinton Wars" by Sidney Blumenthal

[lewebley3]

69. Lot of people were counsel to Bil Clinton! This guy has thing against Hillary

[OKNancy]

78. maybe so... but he has been anti-Clinton for a long time. Every article is anti-Clinton

but I'm bookmarking this for .. maybe March. After super Tuesday, Bernie will be toast

ETA: further research - Curry is a Naderite

[Fuddnik]

263. OMG!!!!! A Naderite!

I know I'll love the guy!

[Fearless]

281. Ad hominem attacks don't prove anything.

[still_one]

31. I doubt Pataki would garner much favor to secure the republican nomination based on his stance on

gays and other social issues, even though on most issues he is hard core right wing.

Look at Romney. The other day he suggested that South Carolina take down the confederate flag off its state building, and was trashed big time by the conservative in his party.

I also think that no matter who our nominee is, it is going to be very tough fight.

[randys1]

153. I missed that thing with Romney, but of course they attacked him for saying that.

The vast majority of the republican and teaparty are vicious racists.

Romney is also a racist but not an overt racist, he is more about the green than the black and white.

[still_one]

159. That kind of was my point, the republicans are pretty much the tea party, and why I don't think

Pataki, could even win the republican nomination because of his stance on certain social issues.

I agree with most of your assessment of Romney, except I think he is more of an elitest than an outright racist, which might be the same thing you were saying

[randys1]

162. He is a racist because he accepts white privilege, as I do, as all white Americans do.

When we actively work to take that white privilege coat off, the one we wear 24/7 without even knowing it, we can then not be a part of the problem and a part of the solution, myself included.

not lecturing you, just been away for a few days and I have this driving need to say shit

[Cha]

70. Pataki's a clown.

[sabrina 1]

205. Bernie is going to win the nomination and the GE. Since he is already destroying Republicans both

in money raised, the response from the people who are coming out to just to hear him SPEAKING FOR THEM, there is no question he will wipe the floor with any one of them, or all at one time if they want to, though they ALL ARE HIDING from him at this point, refusing his challenge to debate him publicly.

The times have changed over the past number of years. Inside the DC bubble they haven't noticed.

But the people have and Bernie is the right person to represent that change from the tired, old, failed neo-liberal policies that have so failed the majority of Americans.

Bernie attacks Republicans head on.

Hillary says she is looking forward to 'working with them'. Haven't we seen this somewhere before already, an attempt to work with some of the most reactionary, Corporate tools in the living memories of most Americans? And what was the result of these attempts to 'work with' these clowns?

Yes, Bernie Sanders is going to win this election, because he is the only Candidate who actually represents and always has, the PEOPLE over the Corporations.

[redstateblues]

230. A Socialist would be unelectable in the GE

I like him, but Bernie should have never tagged himself with that moniker. Outside of his home state, It is toxic in American politics.

[Ghost Dog]

249. There's room there to debate the true meaning, in this day and age,

of 'socialism' and to ask who these days is practising something more akin to 'national socialism' (ie fascist nazism).

[sabrina 1]

253. Wrong, in these times, it is the word Capitalist that is the bad word. See that's what I mean,

following the lead of the old Cold War 'warriors' is a losing proposition in a world where the majority of voters have no memory of that historical era. It's like saying referring to the Civil War political arena to a 16 yr old and expecting them to react the way people from a hundred years might have.

CAPITALIST is now a very bad word. Socialist to the current generation means 'the guy who is standing up for the People AGAINST the corrupt Capitalist system'.

[nikto]

271. There are those of us who have more faith in Americans' ability to evolve, than you clearly have

It's about time America had a real, live Socialist-Democrat candidate,
who has the guts to explain straight-up and with clarity, exactly WHAT his policies actually are,
and what they would mean to average Americans.

America has been entirely deprived of that experience over the last 40+ years.

Humans have a natural tendency to demonize what they are never exposed to and have no
actual experience of (case-in-point: The easily-accomplished demonization of Moslems over the past 15 years in the US,
based largely on their sense of "foreign-ness" to most Americans).

You seem to have no confidence that most Americans can overcome their state of well-conditioned,
thoroughly-propagandized word-prejudice regarding the word, socialism.

I predict, for millions of Americans, it will be akin to fearfully experimenting with smoking marijuana,
after decades of wall-to-wall propaganda about cannabis being totally bad for you, destroying your brain, and making you a psycho-killer, etc etc.
When they experience the "high" and realize it is entirely pleasurable, benign and even therapeutic in some cases,
they will realize they have been lied to all this time by their leaders, and will (finally) respond accordingly.

[Jester Messiah]

272. Bullshit. The contest gets easier for Bernie in the general.

Between a guy who talks sense and whatever religious blatherer the Republicans put up, it'll be a walk in the park. Americans know which side isn't for bigotry, isn't for fucking the poor, and isn't for fascism. They'll vote accordingly.

[yurbud]

224. which is all irrelevant to progressive frustration with corporate Democrats

Like Obama, she will talk a good game during primaries, then ignore the base in favor of Wall Street once in office.

[rbnyc]

247. This

..is the "thing" we have against Hilary.

[PatrynXX]

235. thats not a given anymore

I'm sure the Republicans want her to win but it depends on how angry the real left is about the fake dems out there (hillary is one of them)

[brooklynite]

2. I don't see it either...

Bernie may do well in Iowa (very liberal) and NH (close to Vermont). Still waiting for an explanation of how he campaigns successfully in larger States and for Super Tuesday.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. And by "larger States" ...

you mean states with less than a 90% white population. (See ... I don't have to be so delicate, I am already called divisive for pointing out that his economic primacy message fall flat for most of the non-white Democratic base.)

[Fawke Em]

108. Why?

Why would his economic message fall flat with voters of color? Seems to be that blacks and Latinos are even further to the downside of the income divide because they traditionally make even less than white people.

This is a serious question and not flame-bait.

I'm really trying to understand how economic inequality (or reversing it) doesn't play well with POC (and women for that matter - and I'm female). It looks like those groups would be MORE in favor of his message since they're already making less than their white male counterparts.

[Recursion]

114. Go read the AA forum here

It might make more sense after that.

[Comrade Grumpy]

117. Good question. Poster seems to presume POC aren't interested in economic justice.

[1StrongBlackMan]

132. No ...

That is your interpretation you took away from the many, many threads social versus economic justice threads that you participated in ... despite, being told each and every time, that is NOT what I, and the vast majority of PoC have told you.

Please don't act all brand new on this topic.

[Comrade Grumpy]

226. Your words: "his economic primacy message fall flat for most of the non-white Democratic base"

Sounds like you're saying the non-white Democratic base doesn't much care about economics. Or maybe it's a matter of emphasis. Why wouldn't POC care about economic justice?

I really don't get this whole attempt to create a division between economic justice and social justice. They go hand in hand.

[1StrongBlackMan]

244. There you good ...

It IS a matter of emphasis ... while PoC care very much about economic justice, we (or a majority of us) do not share the illusion/delusion that "economic justice brings social justice" or that "social justice follows economic justice."

I really don't get this whole attempt to create a division between economic justice and social justice. They go hand in hand.

No.They.Don't! PoC (and LGBT and Women and other "others&quot know very well that you can have one without the other (i.e., the concepts are separate, and separable) and we have told you so ... over and over again. Your "not getting it", I'm starting to believe is willful.

[Ghost Dog]

250. Correct. Both, of course are desirable.

Social Justice most of all.

[Caretha]

267. You are right

but there those who would obfuscate for some unknown reason. Just look at how much justice rich black sports stars have in contrast to other middle/lower class blacks do....

but pay no attention to that because we have our own black DU expert telling us that white is black & black is white and money makes no difference.

[1StrongBlackMan]

129. The short answer is ...

Last edited Mon Jun 22, 2015, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

solving the economic inequality problem will not touch on the issues that affect us most closely ... AND, our economic inequality is intra-class and race-based (ETA: and, therefore, unaffected by economic primacy strategies). In both cases, giving everyone more money (relative to the 1%) will not effect either condition.

[Fawke Em]

142. So how has Hillary addressed this any differently? eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

148. I don't know; but, this isn't about HRC, as ...

while she IS speaking to a populist agenda, she IS NOT pushing economic primacy as a cure all.

[dreamnightwind]

212. Bernie is also not pushing economic primacy as a cure-all

And since you jumped into this thread by responding to a statement about Bernie not being able to do well in large states and super Tuesday (which you misinterpreted as being a race-based statement) the discussion was about the primary, where his obvious opponent is Hillary, so it was absolutely about Bernie doing well in his primary race with Hillary.

I'm amazed you think Hillary will be better for people of color than Bernie, I find that extremely unlikely.

[1StrongBlackMan]

219. Really? ...

Bernie is also not pushing economic primacy as a cure-all

Really, well there are plenty of commentators, who are agnostic regarding Bernie's candidacy, who would beg to differ. http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/06/03/matters-bernie-sanders-doesnt-talk-race-gender/

And since you jumped into this thread by responding to a statement about Bernie not being able to do well in large states and super Tuesday (which you misinterpreted as being a race-based statement) the discussion was about the primary, where his obvious opponent is Hillary, so it was absolutely about Bernie doing well in his primary race with Hillary.

I have misinterpreted nothing ... I have stated that Bernie's "progressive wave" is highly correlated to the demographics of the place he has spoken. There is empirical data that proves this.

I'm amazed you think Hillary will be better for people of color than Bernie, I find that extremely unlikely.

There you go answering the question of your own head, again ... I have not said HRC will be better for people of color. I have said that economic primacy is not a message that resonates with PoC.

[dreamnightwind]

220. Wow, you absolutely misinterpreted the post you responded to

the poster even corrected you, clarifying his/her intent as being about whether Bernie had the campaign means/infrastructure to compete in the larger states, a fair point that we will see about. You went off about it being that Bernie can't win in a state that isn't 90% white, not at all what it was about but you went there. I'm not going to go back and parse every word or reread the posts, not worth my time, you were just wrong and it's amazing you don't seem to realize it.

And Bernie supported Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition in the 80's, is that racial enough for you? Hillary is betetr for POC? Laughable.

[1StrongBlackMan]

240. Did you miss my response to that poster ...

Where I said, "Okay. I stand corrected"? You know ... the post that immediately preceded your "Thanks for clarifying" that prevented you from entering a food fight?

But that said, I did not misinterpret what was written ... I added to what was written (and that poster didn't want to go there ... which I understand).

And Bernie supported Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition in the 80's, is that racial enough for you? Hillary is betetr for POC? Laughable.

Neither of which has been questioned.

[kenfrequed]

169. She hasn't.

She has made speeches just as Bernie has on these issues. But she has not offered up much in the way of substantive policy. So, if they are completely equal in their respect for civil rights and both have excellent records legislatively in this department then I think we can move on to economics.

[randys1]

157. I wonder how many will read this post and understand what it means.

If they read it, and understand the language, then the conversation should change.
If the conversation doesnt change, then they really dont care.

[AgingAmerican]

172. It's not about 'more money'

It's about shifting power back into the hands of the people. Whichever group controls the economy, the 1% or the 99%, holds the power.

When the Oligarchy control the economy, they buy politicians. When they own politicians, they can buy elections. When they buy politicians, things like civil and voter rights are eroded so they can maintain their grip on power. They do so via things like poll taxes and stripping voter rights from key Democratic constituents, like African Americans. We are seeing this happening how. When they have the money, our civil rights are eroded period. The only way to get those rights back is to shift power back into the hands of the people.

There is no country on earth without economic justice that has strong civil rights. Not a single one. The United States is no exception. That is because money = power.

Try as you may, you cannot separate the two issues. They go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive. They are not diametrically opposed. They cannot be decoupled.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

178. Dylann Roof didn't check the net worth of the African Americans he slaughtered in Charleston.

It goes back to the old saw when Malcolm X asked what do some white people call a black man with A PhD when he leaves the room.


I don't have to give the answer...

[brooklynite]

161. No -- I mean States with large populations spread over a large area...

...where driving to rallies takes time and don't cover a significant share of voters. As a consequence, the retail politicking and speeches that might work in NH won't get you through a State like Florida (and the multiple TV markets make advertising expensive), and Super Tuesday has 11 States in play, including big ones (geographically speaking) like Texas.

[1StrongBlackMan]

165. Okay. I stand corrected.

[dreamnightwind]

209. Thanks for clarifying

Kept me from joining the food fight.

I agree that Hillary has a massive electoral machine that Bernie will not have the time nor the money to match. Despite the greater enthusiasm (my opinion, not any demonstrable fact) for Bernie from his supporters, he is still very much the underdog and defeating Hillary will be much more difficult for him than defeating any of the Republicans.

I'm hoping enough people join Bernie's campaign to overcome the obstacles he faces. Not counting on it, but definitely hoping, and helping. So far so good.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

228. He's doing well around here

[Autumn]

3. These powerful people seem to crawl into a bubble

where they are insulated from their actions and ignorance of the frustration and pain the poor, the elderly and working class deal with on a daily basis. They live in fear that they won't be able to hold onto what little they do have, and their worries are well founded. Oh the lip service these " democratic leaders" toss out is great but their actions and their history fall flat.

[Bonobo]

4. Not sure she will lose to Bernie.

But I am terribly afraid she will lose in the GE because she is a lousy candidate, a train wreck in slow motion, to be honest.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. She offers the best chance of all the possible choices.

She offers the best chance of all the possible choices. That's all that can be asked of her...She is not being compared to some Kantian ideal. She is being compared to her Democratic challengers, all of whom have assets and liabilities. That's what the polls, the odds makers, and electoral history suggests.

[roguevalley]

6. she's the lesser crap of all evils. what a choice.

[lewebley3]

48. Hillary is a great choice: She is the most quailfied person to run for President!

Nothing Evil about Hillary!

[L0oniX]

58. "quailfied" = the most money from the oligarchy.

[Sheepshank]

86. She is the most electable...period.

She has the popular vote, her 40+ years of social equality messaging and efforts are not uselesss, not based no Oligarchy crappola that is the only argument repeated ad nauseum here by Bernie supporters. She has always been for equal rights, equal pay, for health care for all, for immigration, and has added free college education, and gun regulation and raising minimum wage. You would wipe all of those things away because it doesn't fit your narrative.

[L0oniX]

87. .

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. In the real world...

In the real world real people don't run around with their hair on fire braying about corporatists, Third Wayers, banksters, the 1%-99% divide and such. You do know who does that? Disaffected intellectuals and folks who fancy themselves as duch.


Real people are more worried about their jobs, their health care, and their civil rights.

[Sheepshank]

101. That's exactly what Bernie does

rant and rave with the same talking points that finally acheive nothing....and given politics and how they work here, will never acheive anything should he get so lucky as to get into the WH. He has absolutley no workable plan, and no way to gain cooperation from either House. His programs just will not fly....not with the public and not with Congress and not with the Senate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

171. I have to disagree ...

and given politics and how they work here, will never acheive anything should he get so lucky as to get into the WH. He has absolutley no workable plan, and no way to gain cooperation from either House.

All we need is for {Insert unlikely event, or series of unlikely events, here} to happen, and everything will sail through Congress!

What no one seems able to convincing argue is ... How, in the current political environment, he will be more effective in swaying Congressional figures, as President; than he was, when he was their peer.

[LiberalLovinLug]

177. "their jobs, their health care, and their civil rights"

And those are directly and indirectly affected by policies surrounding "orporatists, Third Wayers, banksters, the 1%-99% divide and such".

What has been missing is a candidate to verbalize that link in layman's language. Hillary sure won't do it. And Obama, who had the chops to eloquently and intelligently educate the public, refused to and instead is all-in the other way. And you won't hear it on the MSM.

If people never hear about those links, and the MSM continues to portray the ones fighting those inequalities as a few dread-locked hippies and the Hollywood liberals, the more uninformed public will always think the way you describe.

Bernie has a way to cut through the BS and tell it like it is. And connect both of your paragraphs.

[redstateblues]

231. Bernie is unelectable in the GE- I wish it weren't so

Think McGovern- Dukakis

[frylock]

276. Kerry

[Jester Messiah]

273. Sounds like more dogmatic blathering from the "it's her turn" crowd. [nt]

[AgingAmerican]

289. She was the most electable...period, in 08 too

nt

[Sheepshank]

318. Bernie is no Obama

not by a long shot.

Hillary is up against Bernie and not Obama, you are comparing apples to oranges. And you are wrong to do so. You probably realize this and this is why you make such non supported statements.

[stonecutter357]

183. .

[L0oniX]

210. ,

[stonecutter357]

268. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026883917

[lewebley3]

319. Hillay and Dem's don't have much money against the GOP

Hillary doesn't own a company, the Koch do, they just have
to write a single check to the person they want to be President.

Hillary is qualified because her experience and hard work!

Hillary has chump change in comparison to the GOP!

[1939]

109. Selecting the least worse alternative

is called choosing the "cream of the crap".

[captnearl]

23. show me republican electoral path to White House

I cannot see a republican path to White House with any of our democratic as our nominee

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Barack Obama

Barack Obama won Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia and their 80 Electoral College votes by five percent or less...That's not an unclimbable mountain for the Republicants.

[jeff47]

74. Now you only need 10 more states. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. Romney beat Obama in the Electoral College 332-206

If you flip the states I cited to the Republicans Romney wins 286-252 which looks close to the margin Gore lost by and eerily close to the margin Kerry lost by.

[jeff47]

104. Sure, if you ignore the trends in those states, as well as every other state.

Hence the "10 more" comment. "Flipping" one state on a map isn't the same as flipping it in real life. You're going to need more changes.

PA's been turning bluer and bluer over the last ~10 years. They got some Republicans in during wave elections, but those Republicans under-performed Republicans elsewhere.

VA is in a similar boat. Democrats keep winning statewide elections. Republicans used to be much more competitive. Republicans can win in a 'wave', as in PA, but also underperform.

OH's really the only toss-up in your list. If you can get people to vote their economic interests, the Democrat wins. If you get people to vote only on social issues, the Democrat loses. Clinton's currently focusing on social issues, and not economic issues, while Sanders is doing the opposite.

The FL Democratic party has been working overtime to keep non-centrists off the general election ballot. And losing. Clinton's much closer to the candidates that have been failing in Florida, so it's unlikely she'd win FL either.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

116. I have said, as nauseum and ad infitum that I believe the Blue Wall theory...

I have said, ad nauseum and ad infinitum that I believe the Blue Wall theory is real however like all walls it can be scaled... I don't believe even it's fiercest advocates would dispute that.


I lived in FL from 70-012. I was in Buddy McKay's Ocala mansion when he lost his Senate race to Connie Mack by approximately .O5%.


Your analysis of Florida politics does not comport with reality... How could it when the only Democrat elected to statewide office is a center left Democrat, Bill Nelson, the last three Democratic senators elected from Florida in the past forty years has been center left Democrats; Bob Graham, Lawton Chiles, and Bill Nelson, and the last three Democratic governors elected in Florida in the past forty years have been center left Democrats; Rubin Askew, Bob Graham, and Lawton Chiles.

BTW, Center left Patrick Murphy is doing better in trial heats against presumptive Republican challengers than Alan Grayson.

If the Dems carry FL it will be like candidates like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, the only Democrats to carry the state in the last thirty five years.

[jeff47]

119. You seem to think I'm saying someone else can win FL.

I'm not. I'm saying FL is going to be very difficult for any Democrat to win. We also don't need FL to win the election.

Your argument of flipping FL to make the Republican win implies that Clinton would win FL. I don't see how. FL Democrats aren't doing well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. FL is going to be tough for any Democrat

FL is going to be tough for any Democrat but demography and history suggests it's not out of reach, even with Bush or Rubio on the ticket.

If it is won , imho, it will be won by a main stream center left Democrat in the mode of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Nelson, Bob Graham, and Lawton Chiles, who are the only Democrats to carry the whole state in the past forty or so years.

[Jester Messiah]

274. So can you afford to risk the liberal wing staying home, then? [nt]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

278. They can stay home

Polling indicates that 92% of Democrats will vote for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee. Barack Obama was elected and re-elected with 89% and 90% of the Democratic vote but I am sure they will be here to pester us until Hillary formally secures the nomination and Skinner makes criticism of the nominee verboten...


I will still be here posting even if I will be posting to myself.

[ladjf]

61. The American People might be propagandized enough to elect JEB. nt

[pansypoo53219]

85. CNN.com certainly is trying to make john bush acceptable! stupid makes the gnewz look better.

[1939]

111. 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004 NT

[Scuba]

25. I strongly disagree.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-support-2016-republican-presidential-candidate-poll.html

Do you know who is more popular than even the most popular 2016 Republicans? Sen. Bernie Sanders. In the same poll, Sanders was supported by 15% of Democrats for their party’s nomination. Sen. Sanders trailed Hillary Clinton 57%-15%, but his fifteen percent made him the second most popular presidential candidate in the country.

The media treats Republicans like Carly Fiorina (2%), Ted Cruz (6%), and Rand Paul (7%) like they are serious candidates, but Bernie Sanders has two to seven times more support than these three Republicans. Why does the media treat Sen. Sanders like he is token opposition to former Sec. of State Clinton instead of as the legitimately popular stand alone figure that he is?

Indeed, why do the media - and some DU members - consider Sanders anything but a winner?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. By that metric HRC leads her closest Republican challenger by 42 points...

[Scuba]

32. The point is, Bernie can win and has a much better track record on the issues than Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. That assertion is belied by the evidence at this time but I concede we need a lot more data

The point is, Bernie can win and has a much better track record on the issues than Hillary.

That assertion is belied by the evidence at this time but I concede we need a lot more data:

Clinton leads the entire GOP field in hypothetical general election match ups but it's all
by pretty modest margins- her advantages range from 3 to 7 points. The Republicans who
fare best against Clinton are Ben Carson and Marco Rubio, each of whom trail by 3
points at 46/43. Rubio is the only candidate on either side of the aisle who has a positive
favorability rating with the overall electorate- 37% of voters see him favorably to 36%
with a negative opinion.
Clinton leads Jeb Bush and Chris Christie each by 4 at 45/41, Scott Walker by 4 as well
at 46/42, has a 5 point advantage over Mike Huckabee at 47/42, is up 6 on Carly Fiorina
and Ted Cruz at 46/40 and 48/42 respectively, and has a 7 point edge over Rand Paul at
47/40. Clinton's 3 to 7 point lead range is comparable to our April poll when she led by 3
to 9 points, but down from February when we found her leading the GOP hopefuls by 7
to 10 points.


Clinton continues to be a far superior general election candidate to any of the other
Democratic hopefuls. Scott Walker would lead Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders each
by 8 at 39/31 and 40/32 respectively, Jim Webb by 11 at 39/28, and Lincoln Chafee by
12 at 39/27.


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_61615.pdf

[questionseverything]

166. national pols do not matter

presidential elections are state by state


i also get a kick out of how 471 dems are polled nationwide and i am suppose to think everything is decided

from your link

Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,129 voters nationally, including 492 Republican primary voters
and 471 Democratic primary voters, between June 11th and 14th. The margin of error for the
overall survey is +/-2.9%, for the Republicans it’s +/-4.4%, and for the Democrats it’s +/-4.5%.
80% of participants responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have
landlines conducted the survey over the internet.

[lewebley3]

50. Bernie has no accomplishments, He just talks a good game!

[L0oniX]

62. He has not spiraled down through a hail of bullets yet.

http://trainwreckpolitics.com/2008/03/21/hillary-clinton-caught-lying-about-her-experience-in-bosnia/

I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as [former Army secretary] Togo [West] said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went.

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

[jwirr]

63. And that is exactly what the people want - a change - not politics as usual. There is not one

single candidate other than Bernie who offers us that. So far Hillary has not come up with anything she was not saying in 2008.

[lewebley3]

68. Everyone knows Hillary, the American peoples support for her is strong

Hillary proven to work hard at leading the Dem party. She
right on the issues,

Hillary is someone Americans can trust with their safety
she has been a part of two successful Administrations


Bernie, and no accomplishments, except talking a good game on the issues.

[L0oniX]

90. .

[MineralMan]

213. The tinfoil hat smiley in no way substitutes for an actual reply.

Truly it does not. When you use it for most posts in a thread, actually, it looks like spam to me.

Write something. Make a point. Don't just punt with a smiley.

[L0oniX]

222. I don't give a crap about what you think or say.

[MineralMan]

246. Thanks for letting me know.

I'll keep that in mind, for sure...

[jwirr]

122. We will see.

[LondonReign2]

127. is it correct to assume English is not your native language?

[hifiguy]

188. Yesterday that one was telling me that Bernie pals around with bankers.

:xrazy:

[L0oniX]

223. LMFAO

[lewebley3]

322. Petty insults reflect on you: Its Show you are losing your argument

Your attack on me personally, shows a frustration of your thought!

Stay with the issues, then you can be taken seriously!

[LondonReign2]

329. Actually, it was a question

[lewebley3]

323. Bernie has never changed anything and he has been in the Senate for years!

Never been in political fight: Never been test outside of 600,000 people
of Vermont.

[Dustlawyer]

54. I don't pretend to know what motivates some Democrats to support Hillary.

Some see her as enevitable again and want to be on the winning side, some truly believe Hillary, some want a woman as President now, whether or not she is the right person for the job, and some just don't think Bernie can make it and give up before trying. I am sure there are many more individual reasons, whatever.
All we need to do is help Bernie get the exposure to get his message accross and provide people power to help him win the Primary. We will need massive numbers of committed people to put pressure on other elected officials to make the big changes needed to save our country. If we can educate others to what Bernie plans to do we can accomplish everything we set out for! Let Hillary be Hillary and do her thing. The Hillary supporters here are committed to her and will not be swayed by her close ties to all of the richest, most powerful people in the world, much less by what Bernie says and does. Focus on Bernie and getting him elected and let the chips fall where they may!

[Blus4u]

96. Excellent post, Counselor

Always like to here what you have to say - true voice of reason.

Peace

[mythology]

147. That is obviously silly

There are around 20 people running for the Republican nomination and 3 or 4 for the Democratic nomination.

It's ludicrous to compare raw percentage.

[Cosmocat]

11. As opposed to the republican clown car?

She isn't as bad as some people want to make her out to be, but yeah, she is warmed over.

That said, whoever the Rs put ups is not going to be a world beater.

Either a far right loon, Jeb, who is bizarrely bad as a candidate to this point, or their safest bet Walker, who could MAYBE do no damage, but has limited affirmative appeal and no foreign policy chops for that matchup.

[Ed Suspicious]

14. She's not running against the clown car. In the general she'll be running against a person

who is skilled at getting elected. Scott Walker, if he gets his party's nomination, is a very dangerous candidate. I know this first hand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. What makes Walker so special?

He's a governor from a small homogeneous midwestern state. He does nothing to mitigate Republican losses among African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and glbtq persons. Mitt Romney won the same share of the white vote as Ronald Reagan did in his 1980 landslide and "was pumping his own gas the week after the election."

Plus he has bad posture, a pot belly, a lazy eye, and a bald spot...He ain't going to woo people with his charisma.

[Marr]

110. Exactly the same thing that makes Hillary Clinton a legitimate political force:

Mountains of money from 1%ers.

Walker would motivate the Republican right in a big way, while Hillary would have the opposite effect with her own party's left-- and the Republican right, for that matter. They'd line up to vote for a slice of cheese if it was running against Hillary Clinton.

Also, I'd say Romney was actually much more of a mirror image of Hillary Clinton; very popular with the party leadership and big money donors, but actively opposed by much of the rest of the party for everything from his religion to not being far-right enough.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

130. The difference is there is a proven path to the presidency for Hillary Clinton

The difference is there is a proven path to the presidency for Hillary Clinton. She just has to recreate Barack Obama's Coalition Of the Ascendant; young people, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, glbtq persons and whites who identify themselves as center or left of it.

Scott Walker has to hope he gets a larger share of the white vote than any Republican candidate since Ronald Reagan...That's a huge mountain, even if he is pooping and peeing dirty Koch money, for a charismatically challenged candidate with a pot belly, bad posture, a prominent bald spot and a lazy eye.

[Bonobo]

16. Fortunately, yes, the clown car is a real freak show.

Still, so what? Republicans are freaks and the freakier the better for them.

Putting Hillary in will drive them to the polls.

It's like a coliseum battle. All blood and spectacle.

And the winners have money on both sides.

The only losers will be us. Again.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Hubris is a cruel master...

One of those clowns can beat Hillary but the polls, history, and the odds makers suggest Hillary is the favorite by a 3-2 margin. Those odds aren't overwhelming but I rather have her hand than theirs...


BTW, we are going to get Bush lll or Rubio... I rather run against Bush lll because if it become a referendum on the Clinton and Bush presidencies we win.

[Cosmocat]

296. The other thing about Jeb

Agree in on your overall assessment.

As an aside with Jeb ...

While W was a flaming moron, he had a much stronger presence than Jeb.

He had a lot more self confidence.

Jeb is geekier looking and has been bizarrely bad as a candidate to this point.

W, they just played to what he was and prettied it up.

A guy you would like to have a beer with.

Jeb, they are going to have to try to sell more traditionally, as a competent guy, not sure he pull that off on the national stage given how unsure and gaffe prone he has been.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

297. That's the irony...

They are trying to sell Bush lll as the smart one when he isn't and he doesn't have the personality to sell himself as the guy you would like to have a beer with...However, flaws and all I still believe him or Rubio are their strongest general election candidates.

[Cosmocat]

299. Name counts for a LOT

And, he probably gets Florida, which is big in presidential math ...

I would add Walker in. He could keep his head down and maybe be able to fake his way in.

Rubio ... IDK, mixed bag. Has that young appeal and can at at times pull off appearing competent. I think his constitution is pretty weak, and suspect he will have a lot of moments where he folds in the light. But, he is the most dangerous one, probably.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

302. Walker doesn't expand the base and his charismatically challenged self makes Bush lll ...

Walker doesn't expand the base and his charismatically challenged self makes Bush lll look like a rock star.


I lived in Fl from 70-012. Maybe it's wishful thinking but I believe FL is a push whether Bush lll or Rubio are on the ticket. It's probanly too early to discuss swing states like FL which were decided by a point or so or less...I'm more comfortable in calling a swing state like VA or OH.

[Cosmocat]

316. So

You think Bush or Rubio aren't for sure winners in Florida regardless of the dem opponent?

Seriously asking ...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

317. It is hard for me to discard my biases but I believe FL is a push.

Demographically, it's right in HRC's wheelhouse...

I am aware that Bush lll and Rubio have/should have obvious strength among Latinos but I am not seeing it yet.

[Indepatriot]

52. I'm with you. As a "retail" politician she's awful. She's about a sincere as a banker, and her 08'

run was sloppy and full of drama/leaks/bill/etc.... While I would support her in the GE, I believe she would lose. The whole Bill's Baggage deal might not bother some folks, but I personally don't care for any of it, and I'm sure there are millions like me. But worse than that is the lack of integrity. She and Bill are as Insider D.C. as they come, and I do believe America has had a belly full of that. I know that I sure the hell have. I do believe that Sanders can and will win the White House. But it only happens if WE make it happen. We will have nothing but treachery from the DLC/MSM/GOP/etc....but millions of volunteers can win this fight.

[Marr]

92. I'm with you on that.

I'm not sure Sanders can beat her in the primary, but I actually think he would have a better shot in the general election that Hillary Clinton would.

[randys1]

160. Is trainwreck the new rightwing talking point, last week it was arrogant.?

I dont want to see rightwing talking point attack phrases about Hillary on DU, not sure about anybody else.

[randome]

7. And any day now, OWS will conquer the world and Snowden will return a conquering hero.

I'm on record for saying I'd prefer Sanders to Clinton for President but this article is simply wishful thinking. There is such a thing as reality.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[jalan48]

8. Hillary will probably win the nomination and become President.

Then the non-stop propaganda will begin to convince Americans that Hillary is a radical 'leftist' thus preparing the way for even more conservative Democrats and Republicans in the future. It's a strategy that both the Democratic and Republican parties have been effectively employing since the 1980's.

[LondonReign2]

19. ^This, exactly

I am a big supporter of Bernie but realize that he has a huge uphill battle to fight. Hillary, at this point, is the odds on favorite due to structural advantages, and all a Hillary Clinton Presidency will do is move the party and the country ever further rightward.

[Scuba]

27. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[Stuckinthebush]

66. Bingo

I see these threads and just roll my eyes.

[2banon]

97. jalan48, your post is Spot On. But I wish it weren't so..

I wish it were off by a million miles.

Still, I'm gonna continue to march on for Bernie, just in case that slight sliver of a chance the tide will finally turn our way.

[jalan48]

112. I agree with you and will continue to do the same.

I think it was Camus who said we give our life meaning through our actions (sorry, this may be a poor paraphrase). I really believe people are slowly waking up and ultimately the greedy bastards will be driven back into their holes for awhile. The struggle never ends apparently.

[RiverLover]

179. Extremely well said. A simple truth in a simple post, with profound implications.

Its so sad to see. We have our eyes wide open. Most just see the propaganda, what both sides want them to see, with eyes wide shut.

[jalan48]

217. Thank you River-well said yourself.

I wish our political system allowed citizens to be truly represented. If it did we would have dozens of Sanders and Warrens. With those numbers change could happen. As it is they almost serve as pressure relief valves for the political system. They allow the left to be represented but have no real power.

[2banon]

233. Indeed. Still, a really weird concept to me to see other Dems blinded by it all.

it's like: who are these people anyway?!

How come they don't know this already? How come they don't see this?!

How many times must this same ole story be repeated in their life time before they get it?

[PowerToThePeople]

294. When does the U.N. start

When does the U.N. start accepting political refugees from the USA?

[MannyGoldstein]

9. The author was a White House advisor to Clinton.

Surprising.

[L0oniX]

10. You noticed that too huh.

[frylock]

13. Judas

[Fumesucker]

21. Was a patsy

[Betty Karlson]

22. A wave of frustration, said the article quoted in the OP.

It would be nice if that frustration could be acknowledged by more than one candidate.

Advisors usually have a sharp nose for such waves.

[samsingh]

12. losing nomination to bernie okay - if that's what the people want - losing in general

election NOT OK.

i support Hillary.

[L0oniX]

40. Bernie can and will eat any repuke candidate for breakfast.

[Robbins]

65. This is what i don't understand

If bernie can take on hillary and beat her why do people think he can't beat a republican.

Hillary is having trouble with bernie who people dismiss as fringe candiate what makes people think with her high negatives she can beat the republicans.

Polls can change.

[L0oniX]

67. He is ready to debate the clowns. It's the DNC that is opposed to that. I got to wonder why.

My guess is that the public will see him win debates and that will put the pressure on Hillary. Would she be able to win debates with all the clowns? Maybe but I am sure Bernie would.

[Robbins]

71. Bernie in debates

will be clear on issues.she won't be.

With republicans he has facts on his side.

[hifiguy]

189. And he speaks in readily understandable declarative sentences.

Not politicalese. He cuts through the BS with a chainsaw. Even the dimmer bulbs can figure that much out.

[yeoman6987]

88. What trouble is Hillary having with Bernie?

I don't see any. Yes he had a good showing in Denver. Clinton did in NYC which had to be cut off at 5500 due to safety reasons. Sanders in ok in one state but still double digits behind Hillary. I don't get this at all. Hillary will be the next president of the United States. Yes if Walker and Rubio are the ticket, it might be a bit more challenging but she will win.

[Robbins]

93. Ha

next president in her dreams.

This was suspose to be cornation yet he is getting huge cwords and you and hillary supporters dismiss him as fringe candiate.

now clinton supporters are trying to dimiss iowa and NH.

Many people are tired of corporate dems.and this includes people who have been voting democratic for years.

[yeoman6987]

100. Time will tell. I am confident I will win.

[MannyGoldstein]

107. Safety reasons?

Do you happen to have a link?

[Divernan]

136. Stuff & nonsense! HRC's whole overflow area was empty on Roosevelt Island

It was all set up. They even had huge screens set up for the overflow to watch/listen to her. But there was no one there! HAH!

[Marr]

115. It's an open admission that so-called 'Centrist Democrats' will not vote if

they don't get a conservative Dem candidate. It's odd because the people who say it also tend to make a deal out of loyalty oaths and pledges from the left to 'vote for the nominee, no matter who it is'.

Whenever someone demands a promise like that, I assume they'll be the first to break it if the tables are turned.

[samsingh]

185. what's an open admission? are you just making things up?

[Marr]

199. Well, if you say that Bernie Sanders cannot win nationally even if he wins the primary...

...who exactly are you saying will not vote for him? Liberals? Obviously, it would be self-described 'moderates' or 'centrists'.

[samsingh]

310. i did not say that - i said i would vote for whoever was the democratic nominee

even though i support Hillary.

you guys are just making shit up.

[Marr]

311. It was implied in your post #12. If that isn't what you meant, you should learn to

speak more clearly.

[samsingh]

313. or you could learn to read better or ask for clarification

[Agschmid]

266. Yup.

[samsingh]

184. actually, i didn't say anything about whether he can or can't beat Hillary

i'm saying that whoever, wins the nomination will get my complete support - but i currently support Hillary.

[frylock]

277. PUMAv2?

[jeff47]

81. Ok, show how the Republican gets 270 electoral votes against Sanders

And back it up with data like recent election results.

Fact is the Republicans have "insaned" themselves into a very narrow pocket for winning national elections. To survive the Republican nomination puts you far out of the mainstream for the general election.

As a result, the only way Republicans could possibly win is via a massive turnout advantage. They need to win the rural/urban divide that causes "swing" states to swing.

Clinton would be fantastic for that. The Republican base hates all Democrats, but they've been told for 30 years that Clinton is Satan incarnate. Clinton on the general election ballot will be fantastic for Republican turnout.

As a result, Clinton is more of a danger than the two other "main" Democratic candidates. But no matter who the Democratic candidate is, they will have to lose the election more than the Republicans winning the election.

[HooptieWagon]

113. A Clinton nomination will keep over half Florida Dems at home on Election Day.

She won't carry Florida in the GE.

[jeff47]

118. On the plus side, we don't need FL to win. (nt)

[HooptieWagon]

126. 9 of past 10 presidential race winners have won Florida.

Good luck with your plan.

[jeff47]

207. And?

There's a specific way you win the presidency: Get 270 electoral votes. The Democratic candidate can do that without Florida. In fact, Florida is harder than other routes to 270.

[L0oniX]

137. Hmmm ...yep ...Hillary didn't need Florida the last time around either.

[OilemFirchen]

211. You seem reasonably intelligent.

Why would you proffer this ridiculous notion that Clinton will mobilize the right and its attendant supposition that Sanders won't?

BTW, Clinton can win Ohio (and potentially, albeit remotely, elevate Strickland to the Senate). Sanders cannot.

Does that answer your question?

[jeff47]

214. Hrm...if only I had actually mentioned that in the post you replied to...

I guess I'll just quote myself.

As a result, the only way Republicans could possibly win is via a massive turnout advantage. They need to win the rural/urban divide that causes "swing" states to swing.

Clinton would be fantastic for that. The Republican base hates all Democrats, but they've been told for 30 years that Clinton is Satan incarnate. Clinton on the general election ballot will be fantastic for Republican turnout.

What, specifically, was difficult to understand about that?

As for Sanders (or any other Democratic candidate), the Republican base already believes that all Democrats are socialist, communist muslims. Even Lieberman is a socialist, communist muslim. It took 30 years for them to make Clinton this toxic to their base. They don't have time to make any other candidate as toxic to their base.

BTW, Clinton can win Ohio (and potentially, albeit remotely, elevate Strickland to the Senate). Sanders cannot.

Does that answer your question?

Nope. First, you'd have to back that claim up with some data. Second, you've still got 252 electoral votes to go.

[OilemFirchen]

218. You didn't answer my question.

Why would Republicans not mobilize to vote against Sanders? You do understand why the modern Republican Party votes in the manner they do, don't you? Do you think that they'll stay home 'cause it's a 74-year-old Socialist Jew, but at least it's not Hillary?

Please.

As far as Ohio is concerned, the demographics do not favor Sanders. Clinton is seen as more centrist than Sanders. It's been stated on numerous occasions (usually derisively) that she'll pull in some Republican women and, moreso, a considerable slice of the centrist Independents. Sanders cannot - in fact his supporters take pride in that. Clinton will pull as many Ohio liberals as Sanders. Where do the rest go?

[Cosmocat]

295. You think they won't gin up hatred for Bernie?

I supported Barrack Obama in part for this very reason.

They had ginned themselves up to hate Hill so much, and BO was a likeable and very level headed guy.

I told everyone part of why I was supporting him was because the republicans might not be as big jackasss to him.

I was wrong.

If you think they won't find a way to gin up some bullshit on Bernie you aren't living in reality.

Does not matter WHO the democrat is, Gore, Dean, Kerry, Obama ...

[Beacool]

123. DU is its own world.

Its members seem to live in a parallel reality where Sanders is an actual viable candidate for the general election. If Sanders were to be the nominee, we might as well just hand the keys of the WH to the Republicans. There's a vast difference between supporting someone who one prefers and having the objectivity to realize that that person has a chance in hell of winning the presidency.

[LondonReign2]

133. .

[hifiguy]

190. I see what you did there,

[StoneCarver]

279. I know this skinny black guy from Chicago...

He didn't even finish his first term in the US Senate, and he beat Hillary. It worked out pretty well for him. He knows, because he won TWICE. People are waking up, and they are tired. They want their democracy back.
Stonecarver

[Cosmocat]

15. The people in the "progressive wave"

are tending to have a more enhanced sense of it than what likely actually exists.

I know there is a lot of energy with Bernie, and that is fun.

But, as much as I would like to see the country start to move away from intense stupidity, I don't see it.

This country is just as distracted and self adsorbed today as it was a month ago.

It could be, but as much as people WANT it to be, there is no "wave" right now.

Some good energy in some progressives, some piqued interest with rock solid progressives's isn't a "wave."

[randome]

26. Well said. I wish it was different, too.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. These same folks were predicting an imminent defeat of Rahm by Chuy

After the run-off was forced, Rahm not only won easily, he even outperformed the polls.

The fact is that progressive activists always inflate the popularity of their own views among voters.

Not only will Bernie not win the nomination, he won't win a single state caucus or primary.

[Indydem]

80. It is an echo chamber.

They associate with only other progressives. They talk to only other progressives. Their opinions are thus reinforced that, obviously, everyone is a progressive.

There are about a million progressives in America, and they aren't going to get Bernie elected to the White House.

[Fumesucker]

17. Catch a wave!

Oooh ahh oooh ahh

[Marr]

18. +1

[imthevicar]

20. Just spoke to a Vet who

Hasn't voted in years, he told me He's registered again just to vote for Sanders!

[Thinkingabout]

30. Do you seriously think Bernie is going to be the winner?

[Autumn]

34. I do, I seriously believe it. People like what he has to say and people are tired of

politicians as usual.

[L0oniX]

38. So you think we Bernie supporters are not serious? Good luck with that.

[restorefreedom]

39. i think it is very possible.bernie has tapped into

the angst of the people who are sick of being trampled by the interests of the 0.01%. hillary represents the 0.01%. she is a corporate centrist, and while she may be good on women's issues, she has no credibility on matters of income inequality or so called free trade. plus she is a major hawk who voted for the iraq war. the 99% are pissed and sick of it. those are good odds for bernie.

sanders 2016

[hifiguy]

95. 100% correct.

There are millions of people who are fed up and have reached The Popeye Point - I've had all I can stands and I can't stands no more - and want something else: the truth. And Bernie brings that all day every day.

[restorefreedom]

193. i like the popeye point

i had originally thought "i'm mad as hell, and i'm not going to take it anymore!" ala howard beale, but i like popeye. he is nicer and more popular...he would be a great bernie spokesman!


🌻

[hifiguy]

194. Like Bernie, he yam what he yam

and that's all he yam.

[restorefreedom]

198. that.s right.. bernie is the genuine article n/t

[azmom]

43. Hell yeah, he's going to win.

[yurbud]

57. the Whigs probably said similar things on their way out

Corporate Democrats are a cancer on a party that still has potential to put average Americans' interests ahead of the very wealthy.

That we don't have at least one major party doing that now is a stain on our democracy.

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

41. What a great picture of Bernie. He is so darned cute

and he has a beautiful mind and heart that counts for a bit too.

[L0oniX]

53. Compare to this one...

[Divernan]

45. Loved the "Hillary Clinton, the Harry Houdini of syntax" description

She learned from the master: It depends what the meaning of "is" is.

Clinton was being questioned about a previous statement made by his attorney, Robert Bennett, that stated that there “is” no sexual relationship between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinksky.

Clinton defended his attorney's statement as being correct because at the time there was no relationship.

He said, “"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means 'is and never has been' that's one thing - if it means 'there is none', that was a completely true statement."

[whatthehey]

174. Why do people - especially supposed Democrats - who bring that up

Never ever acknowledge he was 100% unquestionably right, both linguistically and factually.

If I'm asked "is your age 27"? am I being manipulative, showing sleight of hand snd dishonest if I say "no" when it used to be my age at some point in the past?

[WillyT]

47. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[fbc]

60. Bernie is awesome!!!!!

[Historic NY]

72. Interesting how people don't understand the Democratic Party political process...

in order to win you need delegates & then super-delegates.

A total of 4,047 Democratic delegates, 794 are superdelegates, which are usually Democratic members of Congress, governors, former Presidents, and other party leaders. To win one needs a simple majority. Right now 3253 are pledged but they don't have to support or show a preference toward one or another. Many are long time Democrats in position of the hierarchical structure of the party.

[Le Taz Hot]

131. You are correct.

I think Sanders can do it but he'll need an OVERWHELMING juggernaut of groundswell support from a cross-section of the American people. The primaries are rigged in SO many ways, one of which you mention -- the Delegates and Super Delegates are all party insiders who vote the way The Party orders them to vote. The threat of widespread desertion from participation in the Democratic Party and a refusal to vote for the Chosen One in the General Election MIGHT be enough for at least some of those delegates to do the right thing. Many of the Super Delegates are current office holders who can be reminded that they, too, can be primaried. We're not powerless but it will be an enormous uphill battle.

[whatthehey]

176. Nonsense; the delegates are elected by the most grassroots means possible

and far far outnumber the superdelegates who are in no position to override or change any delegate decision with <20% of the vote. Delegates are elected by local party members at conventions, without billionaires, CU or media bias to worry about at all. They are chosen by the REAL base, people who show up and do the grunt work.

[Le Taz Hot]

195. Well, no, it's not "nonsense."

I'm pretty sure both I and the poster above me understand how delegates and super delegates are selected. This is it. Way back in the Olden Days The Party USED to wait until the voters had spoken to determine the Democratic candidate. That is no longer the case. The Party has already selected their candidate and that candidate is Hillary Clinton. The Democratic Party Machine is in place, it's formidable, it's controlled by billionaires and it is able to enact machinations most of which you guys haven't even thought of yet. You underestimate their power at your own peril. Remember what they did to Dean. That wasn't Republicans that pulled that shit, it was the Democrats (Kerry, Gebhardt and Edwards with the help of the DNC to be exact). The chosen candidate at that time was Kerry who proceeded to lose to the Worst. President. Ever. I know. I watched it from the inside. Please, don't be naïve. We must be ready for the most vile, unprincipled dirty tricks every bit as nasty as anything the Republicans can pull off and that includes buying off delegates via the convention process.

[OilemFirchen]

216. Something doesn't make sense.

Why, in your previous post, did you state that "I think Sanders can do it" when you assert above that &quot t)he Party has already selected their candidate and that candidate is Hillary Clinton"?

[Le Taz Hot]

238. I meant that Bernie can do it with the help of an ENORMOUS,

and I mean history-making grassroots efforts that will be so overwhelming that the Party Bosses won't be able to shove Hillary through without there being a humongous backlash. I think it can be done, but we have to be aware of what The Party is capable of and be ready for it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

73. She's paid to not see it.

[raindaddy]

77. Hillary's recitation of the lyrics to Paul McCartney's Yesterday is the perfect metaphor....

for her campaign. No one is fooled anymore by clever attempts at skirting the economic issues that are destroying the middle class because the necessary changes clash with long time allies that pay for elections. They're also not fooled by sudden transformations from new Democrat to populist Democrat including lying about change...

Hillary's running yesterday's campaign, we've been there, done that and can't afford to do it again. Hopefully if some voters still can't see through this Bernie will help them along.

[Grilled Charlie]

163. Hillary is soooo 20th century

From her vague stances on issues that matter to her crowd pandering (ridiculous jokes and one liners) This is the 21st century. We need 21st century politicians. Ironically the best 21st century politician is an old fart but who cares. He means business and his message resonates with every one

[raindaddy]

168. Yep, it's a tale of two candidates...

One has a history of voting against unnecessary war, anti-labor trade, confronting Wall Street, refusal to accept super PAC funds and is sincere in his support of the poor and middle class..

The other would've fit nicely in the Republican party prior to them getting rid of their moderates...

[2banon]

82. "Hillary Clinton, the Harry Houdini of syntax." KnR!

[Kingofalldems]

83. Sanders nomination would be a 1972 redux.

The media will destroy him. Fox news will make him into another Stalin.

Cold hard reality.

[Robbins]

102. let's see

Obama was never suspose to win i know you hillary supporters want to ignore that.

Back in 2004 democrats nominated the more electable dem over one we agreed with how did that work out.

Hillary is obama only further right.

Time for democrats to fight for what we believe in and not settle for a DINO who sides with republicans.

[Kingofalldems]

154. Do what you must.

I like Sanders too but see the reality.

[azureblue]

84. Maybe, maybe not, maybe both?

Either one will win the presidency and that is what matters most - keeping power out of GOP / RW hands.

My dream is, no matter which one wins the nomination, the other would run as VP. I can see this much - if they were a pair of running mates, that would be unstoppable, up to the day when they leave office 8 years away. I can also see, from their record of teamwork, how well they would work together.

Sanders / Clinton or Clinton / Sanders - either would work for me.

[question everything]

89. Keep wishing good for the soul (nt)

[L0oniX]

91. Let me know how that wishing works out for you when Hillary looses ...again.

[question everything]

324. Oh don't be so uptight. Getting loose, too, is good for the soul

As for Bernie losing (a short spelling lesson here, free of charge), have you seen the recent poll?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026883872

[L0oniX]

333. ~

[Demeter]

98. Take Nancy Reagan's Advice: Just Say No

No to dynasty, no to corporate hacks, no to bought and paid for politicians.

[McCamy Taylor]

99. Oh boy. I see another McGovern in our future.

[L0oniX]

106. Miss Cleo lies a lot ...don't trust her.

[redstateblues]

232. or Dukakis

[Spitfire of ATJ]

105. "A bigger problem for Clinton may be that we know what she thinks.'

Bingo.

[Beacool]

120. Well, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

This country will not elect as president a man in his mid 70s who many think is a Socialist and who wasn't even a Democrat until he ran for president. It'll be hard enough to win the WH for a third time in a row as it is.

[Robbins]

125. And they aren't electing another corporate dem

who supports trade deals which are ruining working class
who works to destroy unions while trying to get them to support her
who supports militazian of police and mass incarnations of blacks
who supports endless war in middle east
who supports patriot act and NSA spying on americans
who is crokked and in pocket of wall street,banks,and corporations.

She has huge negatives and is going to win with liberals having enough of DINO'S like her,her husband,and Obama yeah right.

[Beacool]

128. Says a minority within the Democratic party.

Do Sanders supporters honestly think that he can win a general election?????? Which country are you all living in? It'll be hard enough to elect any Democrat to the WH in 2016 after holding the presidency for two consecutive terms, let alone someone who the majority of Americans view as very liberal.

[Robbins]

134. I don't care about winning white house with her

her as liberal is just delsional.she is further right than Obama.

After Obama i have had it with corporate dems who side withr epublicans on polcie matters,economy,trade deals,and endless war.

her as liberal? Ha.Biggest joke i have ever heard calling her a liberal.She is no liberal.she is corporist.

I am not wasting my vote anymore on those like her,obama,and bill Clinton.

[Beacool]

135. OK, then I guess that you'll be OK with a Republican president.

What we wish for in life and what we get are sometimes two different things altogether. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, whether it'll be Hillary or someone else. Although, IMO, Sanders has almost zero chance of winning the general election.

[Robbins]

143. She won't be any different than a republican

so i wouldn't care who won in race between her and republican

She is for corporations,banks,and wall street over unions and working class people with trade deals.

She won't lift finger to stand up for social safety net.

I don't support those who are against me as disabled american

she supports more endless war in middle east.where do you suppose the money will come from.Not by going after her friends on wall street.those on social safety net.

She is fine with militazian of police and mass incarnation of black people in our justice justice.And she will be like Obama when young black men or teenages are killed by police and do and say nothing.

The clinton wellfare bill hurt single mothers and deregulation of wall street and banks started under bill clinton.she will be more of the same.

She supports the patroit act,torture,and nsa spying on americans.She made it clear during debates against obama she would be willing to use enhanched intergation which never works.

I voted democrat from 1992 to 2014 and I am not going to vote for corporate Dems anymore.

[Beacool]

152. To say that she's no different than a Republican is where this conversation went off the rails.

That's a ridiculous and untrue statement. There's nothing left to discuss.

I'll only leave you one parting thought, SCOTUS.....

[Robbins]

155. It's reality

when dems are ones supporting trade deals that kill unions,that create internatioal tribunials that can overade us law and when bill clinton defends corporations going overseas we are in bizaro world.

Obama is working with Mcconnel,Bohener,and ryan and blasted elizabeth warren.and hillary is further to right than he is.

[hifiguy]

192. The frogs will be boiled by HRC as surely as they would be by a repuke

at least in terms of economic policy and the continuing march of the corporofascist MIC state to War Forever, Wherever. And when you are reduced to economic slavery, other rights are just pretty words on paper, because you won't be able to afford or use them.

Fact are what they are.

[BeanMusical]

141. +1000

[Populist_Prole]

180. Bullshit

"Do Sanders supporters honestly think that he can win a general election??????"

Yes

"Which country are you all living in?"

The United States of Korporate Amerika

"It'll be hard enough to elect any Democrat to the WH in 2016 after holding the presidency for two consecutive terms, let alone someone who the majority of Americans view as very liberal."

Says a shill for the "centrist" status quo.

[Divernan]

151. Since you brought up age, Bernie looks to be much healthier than HRC

and doesn't have the negative health history she has. And she would be 69+ in Nov. 2016. So that particular snipe goes nowhere.

[Beacool]

156. Who looks better is a matter of opinion.

She's a woman, women tend to live longer, and her mother was in her 90s when she passed away. Sanders will be 75 years old by election day. Sanders could be perceived as just another old white guy seeking the presidency. Hillary would be the first woman president if elected, and that alone brings its own level of excitement.

[Android3.14]

121. I, and my cat, tend to agree

Of all the Democratic candidates, the Republicans harbor an irrational and insurmountable hatred of Ms. Clinton, and far too many in her own party are, at best, tepid in their support. A significant portion are downright hostile.

The Republicans are so crazy, you could run my spayed cat against any of them and win. Any of the Democratic candidates would be able to beat these knuckleheads.

Unfortunately, compared with Hilary's campaign, running the race with my cat would cost less to win, my cat shows better support for Democratic values, and my cat is more believable.

[randome]

139. Oh yeah? Tell us how your cat is going to handle a call on the hot line at 2am?

SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY HANDS!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

158. Your value laden analysis is belied by the empirical evidence

Of all the Democratic candidates, the Republicans harbor an irrational and insurmountable hatred of Ms. Clinton, and far too many in her own party are, at best, tepid in their support. A significant portion are downright hostile.

The Republicans are so crazy, you could run my spayed cat against any of them and win. Any of the Democratic candidates would be able to beat these knuckleheads.

Clinton leads the entire GOP field in hypothetical general election match ups but it's all
by pretty modest margins- her advantages range from 3 to 7 points. The Republicans who
fare best against Clinton are Ben Carson and Marco Rubio, each of whom trail by 3
points at 46/43. Rubio is the only candidate on either side of the aisle who has a positive
favorability rating with the overall electorate- 37% of voters see him favorably to 36%
with a negative opinion.
Clinton leads Jeb Bush and Chris Christie each by 4 at 45/41, Scott Walker by 4 as well
at 46/42, has a 5 point advantage over Mike Huckabee at 47/42, is up 6 on Carly Fiorina
and Ted Cruz at 46/40 and 48/42 respectively, and has a 7 point edge over Rand Paul at
47/40. Clinton's 3 to 7 point lead range is comparable to our April poll when she led by 3
to 9 points, but down from February when we found her leading the GOP hopefuls by 7
to 10 points.
Clinton continues to be a far superior general election candidate to any of the other
Democratic hopefuls. Scott Walker would lead Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders each
by 8 at 39/31 and 40/32 respectively, Jim Webb by 11 at 39/28, and Lincoln Chafee by
12 at 39/27.



http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_61615.pdf

[Robbins]

164. Your using polls a year and a half before election to say what outcome will be?

1988-Dukakis was ahead of bush at one point
1992-Perot led both clinton and bush
1996-Clinton and dole were tied in 1995
2000-Bush had double diget lead yet he had to steal election
2004-Bush was crushing in 2003 and yet he ended up just barely winning and may have stole election
2008-Hillary was inevitial nominee at one point and was losing to mccaina nd Saint rudy
2012-Obama was viewed in serious trouble a year before

[DemocratSinceBirth]

167. Would you agree that even early polls are superior to value laden analysis

Would you agree that even early polls are superior to value laden analysis that relies on nothing more than a person's biases to draw conclusions?

[hifiguy]

191. As was pointed out here yesterday

at this point in 1975 virtually no one outside of Georgia had the slightest idea who Jimmy Carter was.

[brooklynite]

215. Your cat is not 35 years old...

[Rex]

138. Well all the people that are for HRC seem to disagree with you! What is this a political forum?

Or something?

[randome]

140. The second thing.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[mmonk]

146. Many will not see it because they follow the script.

They will only know when they are in trouble and then the dynamics will change.

[HassleCat]

149. I feel that way, but...

I've been a democratic socialist since 1980, and I certainly feel the "progressive frustration," but I doubt most people do. They are saturated with conventional wisdom from the mainstream media, and the only history they know is what they got in high school, the history that says America is best and we have a two party system because God ordained it. Or something like that. I believe the average person will be perfectly fine with Hillary Clinton ducking certain issues. That's standard behavior for politicians, and most people accept a certain amount of it.

[AzDar]

150. K & R

[JohnnyRingo]

173. And the writer doesn't see the concept of "Super Delegates".

I don't have a crystal ball so unlike the author of this article, I don't know who will win the nomination, but both major parties have mechanisms to ensure the most electable candidate is in the final race.

One can ask Ron Paul how the GOP skews the primary process to weed out popular but dark horse candidates, but the Democratic party has a similar procedure. Super delegates cast delegate votes that equal about 10,000 individual votes and help make certain the DNC offers up the most hopeful candidate in the end.

As I said, I don't know who will be the eventual candidate at this early date, but Sanders supporters should wonder if the Democratic Party sees a far left candidate as much the shoe-in as they do. If not, it may not go as "fairly" as they hope. That doesn't mean it's Ms Clinton's for the taking, but a moderate nominee may be in the party's better interest.

I have to disclose that this process is not as fool proof as designed. In 2004 the DNC had Super Delegates cast their votes for Howard Dean over John Kerry, and we all know how that went.

[leftofcool]

175. LMAO! Yet, she is still leading by 50 points in all the polls!

[brooklynite]

182. But polls are meaningless expressions of name recognition...

...unless Sanders is doing well.

[hifiguy]

196. I repeaJt, at this point in 1975,

virtually no one outside the state of Georgia had the slightest idea who Jimmy Carter was.

[brooklynite]

201. Elections have changed a might in 40 years....

...and nobody of the stature of Hillary Clinton was running in 1976.

[NuttyFluffers]

186. interesting article, thanks!

[GeorgeGist]

202. Says the guy who couldn't get elected Governor of Connecticut ...

Twice.

[AtomicKitten]

256. he got 71% of the vote when last elected in 2012

[LanternWaste]

203. More prophecy. I admire the genuine faith and devotion of we often place in divine revelation.

More prophecy. I admire the genuine faith and devotion of we often place in divine revelation.

[AngryOldDem]

221. Case in point -- Indiana today.

She came to Carmel, just outside Indianapolis, the richest 'burb in the state, if not one of the richest in the country, and had a private fund-raiser at the home of a millionaire developer.

She couldn't have done both? Schmoozed with the rich and communed with the poor? She couldn't make a stop in one of Indy's poorer neighborhoods to at least create the impression that she cares about them?

She does it "all for us." Yeah, right.

[HooptieWagon]

227. She intends to buy the nomination...

That's pretty obvious. And she'll dance to the billionaire's tunes.

[eridani]

225. That depends on how idiotic the Republican nominee is

But it really is lousy strategy to depend on opposition blunders to win.

[Thinkingabout]

229. Bookmarking for future reference

[JDPriestly]

234. Great article.

[mother earth]

243. The problem I see with no one playing the game better than Hillary, is that this is NOT a game.

We've given up enough to oligarchy & NO corporate candidate is viable, no matter which party, going that route is just going to deliver more of the same.

We simply cannot afford more of the same. We need change & we need it yesterday. Enough is enough.

Feel the Bern!

[Fuddnik]

265. Feel The Bern!!!!

[L0oniX]

269. It's not a game. IMO it's the last chance to unchain the 1% from our government.

[mother earth]

320. The defining issue of our time, absolutely.

[NanceGreggs]

259. Yes, yes, of course.

Hillary will definitely lose. You just have to look at the poll numbers to see how badly she's already losing.

[msanthrope]

275. This is the lesson that President Kucinich's campaign taught us. nt

[d_legendary1]

321. Ahh yes President H. Clinton was elected in '08 because Denny K. was a loser

Oh wait that didn't happen.

[Omaha Steve]

280. Yep

[Thespian2]

282. Hillary

against any representative of the GodOffalParty...

Who wins?

The Greedy Corporate Bastards who will continue to rule the country...

[Babel_17]

283. I think we're going to see lots more of this kind of press.

The press have been waiting to see this narrative mature into something that would make a compelling read. It now has.

[sellitman]

286. Love this

The passion factor for this man is Obamaesque.

[SoapBox]

287. Feel the Bern!

[PBass]

290. Well there's an article that really gets it wrong...

A campaign kickoff event is certainly not the time or place to dig into policy details and positions on current events. There will be plenty of time for specifics later. We already know where Clinton stands on many issues (women's reproductive rights, health care reform, etc). George Lakoff says that Democrats lose elections when campaigning if they get bogged down in wonk-level details about policy, rather than creating a positive image... "Values trump issues". (You guys DO want to win, don't you?) The Salon article criticizes David Axelrod for taking this 'values over issues' approach with Obama's campaign (and Clinton for doing the same) but Obama won (!!!) while the big wonky policy campaigns by Al Gore ("Al Bore&quot and John Kerry (he's so stuffy!) LOST. (I know Gore technically won, but he should have demolished Dumbya, it shouldn't have been even close, except Gore ran a bad campaign).

Good article by George Lakoff linked below (a little confusing, as the bullet points describe what Democrats do wrong... and then he corrects each point with the bolded text). It bears repeating... wonky conversations about policy details seem sexy to to us at DU - gosh that Al Gore seems smart, and Bush seems so dumb! - but they don't win presidential elections. Elections are won by the person who seems the most sincere and likable (which is why Republicans attack Clinton on the likability and sincerity angles) and candidates who have good values. It's NOT a contest to see who can dig the deepest on policy, that just turns people off - the average person doesn't follow politics that closely, and just wants somebody they trust to handle everything so they can concentrate on making dinner.

http://georgelakoff.com/2014/11/13/democratic-strategies-lost-big-heres-why-and-how-to-fix-it/

[Doctor_J]

298. nah. minorities, women, dinos will win the primary for her.

Those will be plenty for the Ge, plus people like me who always vote d, plus the republicans will run either a Bush or some nut.

More corporate rule for the foreseeable future.

[merrily]

308. I think seeing it is why she hired over 200 economic advisors.

They saw the problem essentially as placating the populists without making the wealthy feel "attacked."

That said, the reason I picked Obama in 2007 was that I thought the rest of the field might not be able to take the general and I desperately wanted a Democrat to take the general. As the campaign progressed, I became a fan and defender of Obama. I think that is in part just a human tendency. However, initially, I made a cold calculation.

[Renew Deal]

309. Some people are about to get a lot more frustrated.

[Rafale]

312. If she wins

If she or any of the ass clown GOPers win, this article explains how they will do it.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201506/anti-intellectualism-is-killing-america

[raouldukelives]

315. We don't need no Wall St let the motherfuckers Bern.

Bern motherfuckers, Bern.