Am I the only one fearful that Dems may be preparing to piss away ...

[11 Bravo]

an election that shouldn't even be close?

Fact: Only one of our two candidates is going to get the nod from the party; and if supporters of the runner-up, whomever it may be, refuse to unite in opposition to Donald Freaking Trump, then we, and the country, are well and truly screwed.

Fuck the people who will reject this as a demand for some kind of a loyalty oath.
Fuck the people who think calling supporters of another candidate "Bernbots" or "Hillaryans" is helpful (or clever).
Fuck the PUMAs.
Fuck the people who claim that either DEMOCRATIC candidate is "unelectable", "dishonest", "shrill", or "violent".

Have I left anyone out? If so, it's not from lack of trying.

Because Donald Fucking Trump presents the most existential threat to Democracy, decency, and everything that this country is supposed to stand for, of any candidate in my lifetime.

And I'm afraid that Democrats are about to help elect him.

[Ohioblue22]

1. Dems never pass on an opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

But during the 2008 only 60% said they would vote for Obama if hill loses in this election 72% say the will vote for her if she wins. The I didn't get my way caucus is much smaller this time around

[scscholar]

41. It's the optimism that staches those wins

When we're able to get something, we try for more rather than just settling for something good. We're too intolerant of people that know what needs to be done, but instead order them to do the impossible.

[silvershadow]

43. Well we have just the chair to do just that... nt

[Jackie Wilson Said]

2. I get to answer, a. since this is not in GDP where I refuse to post

and b. I dont belong in any of the "fuck you" categories.

As someone who has done nothing but show support for both candidates (although if I am honest, I have been far more critical of Hillary than Bernie but I do have a bias), I agree with you and believe the damage Drumpf would do along with the Republican control of both houses, would be irreversible.

We would be looking at a complete destruction of our country at a minimum, and if someone insults his hair or hands, the end of all life on the planet.

I wish this was an exaggeration.

[cwydro]

3. No.

You're not the only one.

[joeybee12]

4. Unfortunately yes, and it's pissing away a sweep down ticket as well...

Getting in before this gets locked for GDP

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. "Have I left anyone out?" No, that pretty much covers us all: ...

... sort of a general "Fuck all y'all".

Dismissiveness, gloating, and self-righteousness seem to be themes in this year's Democratic primary.

[Fresh_Start]

6. That is my main fear for this election

I will vote for whoever is the nominee.
The fact that the partisans on either side keep trying to yank the others chain upsets me very much.

[Xolodno]

7. As a socialist....love Bernie.

With that said, the math says Hilary. So in the GE, I'll vote Hilary. Cutting your nose to spite your face is not a winning proposition. Just look at what happened when those who voted for Nader deprived Gore of the election. Sure not everyone was happy with Gore, but as a result, we got Bush....and just look at how many lives were lost as a result. Elections have consequences.

What I loved about Bernie was his campaign was about policies, ideas, etc. Some of his militant followers have now made it about character assassination.....as the saying goes....

Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss current events.
Dumb asses discuss people.

...I might have changed the last part a bit.

[world wide wally]

11. Finally! ^

The most intelligent remark I have heard in a while.

(Pride goeth before a fall)

Get over it. Only one person wins an election.

[ish of the hammer]

15. gore lost the election all by himself. you are repeating a non - fact.

that said, clinton will lose the g.e. all by herself, if she gets (by hook or crook) the nom.

[Xolodno]

36. Excuse me.....I normally don't feed trolls like you.

But I forgot to qualify my comments:

Nader like Perot, tapped into the disenfranchisement of the electorate and help spur the mentality that neither candidate was all that different (despite being false). This was further exacerbated by Gore's pick of VP, a conservative Democrat, Joe Lieberman (perhaps Gore was trying to attract the Republicans that voted for Clinton, an error he obviously regretted). Bush Jr., was the chance for Republicans who voted for Perot and Clinton a chance to "redeem" themselves...while Gore, thinking he could court them, was in error. Even "Rage Against the Machine" a rock band (one I happened to like) with left leanings equated the culture of them both "being the same" in a video.

Now, we see the same thing happening. Only on the Democratic side. Sitting out the election, voting for Trump (and its documented that he is trying to court Bernie voters to "send a message to the Democratic Party&quot , voting third party, etc. will guarantee his win.

Oh and, its an opinion piece, but has some good food for thought to refresh your recollection: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Now I'm not accusing of Bernie of the same thing, I honestly and genuinely believe in his noble cause to move the party further left, a left that they "left" since Reagan (shit, if my choice was Nixon vs. Trump, I'll take Nixon...the guy who gave us the Clean Water Act, the EPA, etc.). He's doing a good job sending notice to the DNC the days of courting the right wing is over and the electorate is moving left (as opposed to right since 1978 to 200?) and the nominee will have to do the same. However....

If dumb asses like you sit out, vote for Trump, etc. You only reinforce the notion that you are a dumb ass. The GOP knows there current platform does not resonate with the populace at whole and has circled the wagons by gerrymandering themselves into safe districts...which also has gave them control of both houses. Now if Trump gets in, you will get a Supreme Court that will last a generation or two that will trumpet right wing ideas. Not to mention legislation that furthers right wing causes (and will be hard to undo due to the Supreme Court being right wing).

So in conclusion...let me put this into terms you can understand....

Obama got the ACA passed....a terrible program, but best he could do under the circumstances, and still better than what we had before.

Trump as President would mean:

1. ACA repealed with nothing to replace it.

2. A repeal on regulation in the medical industry (i.e. more woo with doctors telling you how wheat grass can cure cancer and enzyte commercials back on TV).

3. A repeal of Ronold Reagan's directive of emergency rooms not being able to turn away patients despite ability to pay....better have your insurance card ready or have significant assets if you have a heart attack.


And that was one example. Imagine this in matters of race, sexuality, education, foreign relations, women's rights, etc.

Choice is yours, be smart and live to fight another day...or be a dumbass and set us back so far that it will take 8 to 16 years to undo the damage (and never mind furthering progressive ideas, they will be on the back burner).

[ish of the hammer]

50. I have 153 million reasons not to believe a word that any clinton says and

I will never vote for someone who is a corporatist (which is another name for oligarch) and is the soft face of fascism.
trump is the hard face. some fucking choice

[brush]

77. Not smart, buddy. Not smart at all.

[Xolodno]

134. What can be said...other than he's a dumb ass.

Refusing to vote for Clinton is a vote for fascism . Sure Clinton is probably a "moderate", but better Clinton than Mussolini. And lets not forget what happened to socialists under fascism, they were rounded up.

Part of me thinks Trump is doing this for the only purpose of decimating the Republican Party so it can rebuild....but why take the chance?

If he is doing this for other purposes....oblige him. If he really is a nut case....people say they will move to Canada, I'll move to Mexico. I'm not going to get my self "rounded up".

[brush]

137. You could have a point. Socialists are the exact opposite of fascists on the political scale

Best to keep a low profile, and not just socialists. Any left-leaning and even moderate dems have to be careful.

[demosincebirth]

38. If she loses the election it will be people like you who can't stand the thought of Sanders

Last edited Sat May 21, 2016, 01:18 AM - Edit history (2)

losing the nomination and will not vote for the democratic nominee (Clinton). Just like a lil' kid not getting his way, then throws a tantrum. That said, she'll win the election with or without the Sanders' tantrum throwers.

I never was a Sanders supporter, but if the tables were turned I would certainly vote for Sanders. It's not Sanders I don't like...it's the many of his supporters who feel that if Bernie can't get the nomination, then fuck it, lets have Trump.

[ish of the hammer]

51. see my answer above

[Major Nikon]

93. Probably not

Something interesting on Chris Matthews today. At this point in 2008, only 60% of HRC supporters said they would vote for Obama. Right now 72% of Sander supporters say they will vote for HRC.

So HRC is currently getting more opposition support than her side ever gave last election. If she loses, it will be her fault.

[Buttons3345]

106. WOW!!!

That was perfectly said! THANK YOU!

[JimDandy]

116. I don't know of a single real Bernie supporter who would vote for Trump.

They will not vote for a corporatist, period. So that also leaves out voting for Clinton, if she becomes the nominee. Progressives Dems need better options.

[awoke_in_2003]

136. Not voting

will guarantee a fucked up Supreme Court for decades. My sister might like to get married one day. With so many states trying to fuck up females reproductive rights, a conservative court will make sure they don't have any. With a conservative SC, any chance of challenging the gutting of the VRA will cease to be. But no, some want to fuck up a bunch of people's lives because they didn't get their way.

[JimDandy]

140. I vote my conscience. Everyone should. Que sera, sera.

[awoke_in_2003]

144. Well, I guess we know...

how much importance you place in marriage equality, voting rights, and reproductive rights.

[JimDandy]

145. A lot, especially voting rights! It is clear though, that economic equality,

which Dems have not made a priority all of my life, is what needs to be focused on now, as it touches everything in our lives. Progressives can multi-task, though. I hope other liberals will choose to join us in a big way on improving our lives economically, but if not, Progressives will carry the weight for all of us.

[redstateblues]

60. complete Bullshit. Nader voters(you sound like one) in FL helped give the state to Bush/Cheney

There were other factors but to deny that Nader voters didn't play a big role is denying reality-something most Nader voters don't like to do. Hillary will win-Bernie will give his full endorsement.

[ish of the hammer]

62. nope - this has been debunked already. and I still have 153 million reasons to

not vote for clinton under any circumstance.

[GaYellowDawg]

69. No, it hasn't been debunked.

There are those of us who would dislike having on their conscience the idea that their vote increased the chance that W or Trump would inhabit the White House. Naderites obviously want to deny their role in the appointment of the worst president in U.S. history, but they played a significant role. If you want to bury your head in the sand and deny that anyone who does not vote for Clinton is assisting Trump, then go ahead, but I can't think of a better way of flashing an "I'm just slightly less of a fucking moron than an actual Trump voter" card.

[riderinthestorm]

78. Thorough debunked. Here's the actual ballot analysis

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf 

[GaYellowDawg]

110. From the abstract:

The 2000 presidential race included two major party candidates—Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore—and two prominent third party candidates—Ralph Nader of the Green Party and Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party. While it is often presumed that Nader spoiled the 2000 election for Gore by siphoning away votes that would have been cast for him in the absence of a Nader candidacy, we show that this presumption is rather misleading. While Nader voters in 2000 were somewhat pro-Democrat and Buchanan voters correspondingly pro-Republican, both types of voters were surprisingly close to being partisan centrists. Indeed, we show that at least 40% of Nader voters in the key state of Florida would have voted for Bush, as opposed to Gore, had they turned out in a Nader-less election. The other 60% did indeed spoil the 2000 presidential election for Gore but only because of highly idiosyncratic circumstances, namely, Florida’s extreme closeness. Our results are based on studying over 46 million vote choices cast on approximately three million ballots from across Florida in 2000. More generally, the results demonstrate how ballot studies are capable of illuminating aspects of third party presidential voters that are otherwise beyond scrutiny.

Whether or not the circumstances were highly idiosyncratic, they were still the circumstances that were in place. Had the Nader voters broken 60-40 for Gore (a figure that I was not convinced of by the paper's very shaky methodology), his margin would have increased from 537 to over 20,000. Which would have made it virtually impossible for Bush to declare victory in Florida or to steal the state. And then we would have had President Gore. As hard as your source tries to argue against it, Nader voters cost Florida, thereby costing the election.

Game, set, motherfucking match.

[riderinthestorm]

112. The paper is clear - 300,000 Democratic voters switched to Bush

Nader's 17k were nowhere near the margin.

Furthermore Gore ran a bad campaign and owns it entirely. He lost his own home state of TN and refused to let Bill Clinton campaign for him in Arkansas and lost there too. A win in either state would have rendered FL moot.

[GaYellowDawg]

118. Obviously, you didn't actually read the paper.

It states on the first page that there were 97,488 "Floridians who opted for liberal crusader Nader," not "17K." The methodology of the paper rests on a good deal of unfalsifiable assumptions. The analysis doesn't have any real rigor.

[riderinthestorm]

121. I'm sorry for the typo, geez.

Gore lost his own home state of TN and refused to let Bill Clinton campaign for him in Arkansas and lost there too.

He ran a bad campaign and owns the loss entirely. Even he knows better than to blame Nader.

[GaYellowDawg]

125. The "typo" is quite substantial and the fact that it's happened more than once indicates

It indicates that you are writing down the wrong number. I'll assume it's an unintentional mistake.

Yes, Gore ran a bad campaign. But even with the bad campaign, and even if your flawed paper's assumption that Nader voters would have only broken 60-40 for Gore, that makes almost a 20,000 vote swing in Gore's favor. If that happens, Gore wins Florida clearly, and wins the election. Because it didn't, Gore was placed in a position to allow Bush and his cronies to steal the election.

Stop denying.

[Fuddnik]

154. You conveniently forget over 80,000 Democrats purged by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush.

And the funniest thing is, one of the persons most responsible for that purge is the CURRENT Chair of the Florida Democratic Party, Allison Tant, installed by Bill Nelson and Debbie Weaselman-Schlitz. She was an employee and lobbyist for ChoicePoint, the company hired to provide the fraudulent purge lists.

Even funnier, Tant's husband was one of the lead attorneys in Bush v Gore. And he wasn't on the Gore side of the case.

Fact: Gore actually would have won a full recount, had not 5 traitors on the Supreme Court stopped the recount, despite all the shenanigans and fraud. The "official" final tally had Gore losing by 537 votes.

Enough of this revisionist Nader bullshit. I'm in Florida now, but Gore was such a piss poor, uninspiring candidate, that I almost voted for Nader (in Ohio) my own damn self.

Hillary Clinton has the highest negative ratings, for a presumed nominee, in history. And if we lose to Trump, a total, complete asshole, the Democratic Party will only have themselves to blame for putting forward such a lousy candidate.

[redstateblues]

70. I've seen the debunking-it's essentially one persons opinion

probably a fellow Nader apologist-the truth is that Nader voters in FL contributed to the election of Bush/Cheney-they weren't the only reason but a big part. I can see why it's hard for all those folks to admit it.

[riderinthestorm]

79. No, here's the actual ballot analysis

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf 

Definitely debunked.

[GaYellowDawg]

113. It's a shitty analysis. Full of questionable assumptions.

Did you even read the paper? As I noted above, even in the abstract, there's an admission that Florida Nader voters cost Gore the race. Anyone who's had any experience reading peer-reviewed articles can tell that the paper is full of holes. The title page says that "An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL."

The authors couldn't even get this shit into peer-reviewed journal.

[riderinthestorm]

115. 300,000 Democratic voters voted for Bush in FL.

Versus 97k for Nader.

[GaYellowDawg]

123. The paper says ON THE FIRST PAGE that 97K Floridians voted for Nader. You obviously didn't read it.

Stop digging your hole. Just stop. You have no clue what you're talking about. You didn't read the paper. You just stuck it up there and trusted that people would look at the title and treat it like a Verizon terms of service agreement and sign off on it without reading. I actually read the methodology section of the paper and it is deeply flawed. If that's your best source for the "debunking", then I think we can safely assume that Nader cost us the 2000 election.

[riderinthestorm]

124. I'm sorry. I thought we were having a discussion

If a typo of a single digit is going to derail this convo then so be it.

I've put the info out there. People can read it themselves.

[GaYellowDawg]

127. It's not a typo if you repeat it as often as you have. It's an error.

I'm going to assume the error is unintentional. And we are having a discussion. It's a discussion in which you are demonstrably wrong. I did read the (fatally flawed) info myself, and it completely supports my position. Anyone who has any experience reading analyses will conclude likewise.

[riderinthestorm]

72. It's a myth that Nader cost Gore the election. That's been thoroughly debunked.

http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/

Here's the actual ballot analysis.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf 

Gore ran a bad campaign. He lost his own home state of TN and refused to let Bill Clinton campaign for him in Arkansas and lost there too.

Nader got 2.74% of the vote in 2000. He was a non-factor.

[ish of the hammer]

83. I find interesting that the clinton acolytes are sooo ready to

relitigate bush v gore and ignore the legal bribery that 153 million dollars represent. oh well.

[redstateblues]

91. There is no way to deny Nader voters in FL helped give the state to Bush/Cheney

There were a lot of moving parts but simple math shows that if those 17,000 well meaning idiots hadn't voted for the narcissist Nader it would have been President Gore. There were other factors and Gore did run a bad campaign but the truth is the truth. Amazes me how many Nader apologists are still in the denial mode.

[riderinthestorm]

101. 300,000 Democratic voters voted for Bush in FL.

It wasn't Nader's 97k that cost the election.

I happily voted for Gore but I'm also not going to be stupid enough to watch my Democratic party make the same mistake by nominating such a deeply flawed candidate that we're back to watching a presidential election get stolen again.

You obviously didn't read anything in that study. I'm actually sorry for you Hillary supporters persisting in keeping your heads in the sand.

[brush]

82. You can tell who the Nader voters were. Whenever that a-hole's name comes up, they defend him.

[riderinthestorm]

89. I happily voted for Gore. No brainer for me. nt

[redstateblues]

92. None of them will ever admit it though-pretty amazing

I wouldn't either

[Fast Walker 52]

63. I'm with you

I'm so sick of the cheap character analysis and general hyperbole.

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. I think both candidates will work to defeat Trump after June.

And the vast majority will come together.

[pressbox69]

10. I for one sure hope you are right.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

20. +1000 nt

[redstateblues]

95. Bernie will be a strong supporter for Hillary

[TrappedInUtah]

9. Meh

I see some key issues that are destroying the heart of our nation.
-War on Terror and the continued erosion of our rights in the name of 'safety'.
-War on drugs and the emerging police state. Compared to other nations we have an ABSURD amount of citizens killed by police. The police are completely out of control and there's very little accountability. They'll just take your money or assets without even charging you with a crime(Prove it isn't drug money). They kick in doors and hold families at gunpoint over rumors that somebody was growing a damn plant on the property. An increasing amount of cops seem to have a "respect my authority or pay" viewpoint, which is also worrisome.
-The MIC and never ending wars. Our nation spends a CRAZY amount on our military while our infrastructure and social programs crumble.
-Increasing income inequality and big money in politics.

The only candidate who wanted to actually tackle these issues was Bernie, and he got screwed by super delegates and red states that don't vote dem in the general anyway. Far as I know, Hillary doesn't plan on doing much of anything to address these problems. Just another establishment 'business as usual' politician. She's better than Trumpster, but that isn't saying much.

[world wide wally]

12. Now, actually THINK about the difference between Trump and Hillary.

That means Hillary will overturn Roe V Wade
She will cut off Planned Parenthood
Eliminate Social Security
Cut back Medicare
No free school lunches for poor kids anymore
Abolish rhe Civil Rights act through her activist RW Supreme Court appointments
Ban Muslims from America
Tear apart millions of Mexican families
And probably a few more I am leaving out

That leaves only one question:
What color do you think she will paint the wall?

[TrappedInUtah]

13. Yes, she won't make things worse

But what will she actually improve? I mean I'm gonna vote for her over Trump(He's a damn lunatic), but that doesn't mean I'm very inspired by her as a candidate.

[zalinda]

16. Neither Trump nor Hillary have actually stated a platform

They both have flip flopped on what they are going to do. The fact is that people KNOW what Hillary is going to do because of her past actions and they don't like them or her. They have no idea what Trump is going to do, except that he is against the trade agreements which they see as good, so they can keep their job. They may dislike Trump, but not as much as they dislike Hillary. Trump says no more war, but Hillary hasn't met a war she hasn't liked.

And while Trump throws out red meat once in a while, most people who have seen his show think he's fair. They don't see that in Hillary, especially after all her campaign has done to Bernie. Bernie, who is well respected and liked more than both of them combined.

If the DNC and Hillary had been fair to Bernie, things would be different, you could probably cajole most of Bernie supporters to vote for Hillary. Let's face facts, if even the MSM notices how unfair the Democratic Party has been to Bernie, you don't think Bernie's supporters won't notice? It is more proof that the ENTIRE system is rigged against them, and seeing it crumble is no big deal to them. They've already gotten the short end of the stick, and it won't get better with this group of politicians. They thought it would under Obama, but it just got worse, he pulled the HOPE AND CHANGE right out from under them.

If Hillary fails, it's her own damn fault. She was so focused on becoming the President, she never realized she also needed the little people to get there.

Z

[world wide wally]

23. So, I gather you are leaning Trump.

Good luck with that. I will try to remember to salute (with my right armed a raised, of course) whenever he drives by.

[Fuddnik]

155. That's just silly.

Me and a bunch of other Yippies threw 13,000 dead rats at Nixon at his second inauguration.

We got tear gassed and clubbed, but it was worth it.

[joeybee12]

28. Congrats...a fact-free post

Just blind hatred.

[Jester Messiah]

34. Discount that viewpoint at your peril.

You need to engage and convince.

[joeybee12]

35. Far too many don't want to engage back...

If you've seen evidence of ANY of his supporters wanting to do that, please point it out.

[Jester Messiah]

138. Doesn't change what you have to do as a Hillary supporter.

That is, if you want to win the GE.

[GaYellowDawg]

71. Un-be-freaking-lievable.

And while Trump throws out red meat once in a while, most people who have seen his show think he's fair.

Anyone who thinks that a "reality TV" show represents the actual fairness of one of its actors... Oh God, that is beyond fucking stupid.

[brush]

87. So are you voting blue or not?

[Nye Bevan]

14. By nominating Trump, in every likelihood it's the Republicans who have pissed away the election.

Many conservatives can't stand him and will either stay home or vote Democratic. If they had been sensible enough to nominate Kasich or Rubio there might have been a real fight.

[Egnever]

32. Yup Trump might be the only candidate Hillary could beat

He doesn't know how to play the game. That was fine in a primary where 30% or better of the people you are asking to vote for you are themselves racist assholes.

It won't work nearly as well in the GE where the racist asshole portion that elected him suddenly becomes a much smaller piece of the pie

[brush]

96. Your last sentence nailed it.

Never heard it put quite that way.

[elljay]

44. I disagree

They are all lining up to support him, whether they like him or not. The Republicans will be 100% united. Trump is walking back his craziness just a bit and raising the dog whistle issues that rile up the base. Plus, he is running against the one candidate that America dislikes as much as him. Hillary is already motivating millions of Republicans who loathe her and doing nothing at all to motivate millions of millenials and progressives to support her. This will be a real fight and Trump may win.

[Egnever]

45. Don't know where you get the idea they are all lining up to support him

Is that what the TV is telling you?

[riderinthestorm]

49. No, it's fact unfortunately

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/gop-elite-line-up-behind-donald-trump-223394

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll.html?referer=

[Egnever]

58. Not buying it

They say it is happening yet very few names are actually mentioned. Meanwhile this listing remains pretty meager. Really telling is the number of congress people listed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016

[riderinthestorm]

64. David Brooks was on NPR this afternoon and predicts Republicans unite within 2 weeks

Says he's talked to many of them and the dealing is almost finished for most of them.

That's why we suddenly get a "virtual wall and virtual mass deportation" walk-back comments.

I think you really seriously underestimate how ferociously the Republicans hate Hillary. Her candidacy will unite the Republican party and drive the Republicans to the polls in droves.

[Egnever]

68. So now we buy what Brooks is selling?

The same David brooks that wrote this 2 days ago?


No, Not Trump, Not Ever
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/opinion/no-not-trump-not-ever.html


I think you underestimate how badly Trump damages the republican brand. People may not like hillary but she is not a buffoon and that will be abundantly clear when they stand next to each other on a debate stage.

[riderinthestorm]

88. I believe Brooks has an inside line on inner Republican machinations

Yes actually on this, I do believe him unfortunately.

[Egnever]

97. but you didn't believe him two days ago?

You honestly believe that in two days the entire party had a come to jesus moment and abandoned all objections they had?

If you buy that well perhaps I could interest you in a bridge?

[riderinthestorm]

111. That article actually supports my statements

The voters have spoken.

In convincing fashion, Republican voters seem to be selecting Donald Trump as their nominee. And in a democracy, victory has legitimacy to it. Voters are rarely wise but are usually sensible. They understand their own problems. And so deference is generally paid to the candidate who wins.

And deference is being paid. Gov. Rick Scott of Florida is urging Republicans to coalesce around Trump. Pundits are coming out with their “What We Can Learn” commentaries. Those commentaries are built on a hidden respect for the outcome, that this is a rejection of a Republicanism that wasn’t working and it points in some better direction.

The question is: Should deference be paid to this victor? Should we bow down to the judgment of these voters?

Well, some respect is in order.

[Egnever]

139. Yea I could see where you would think that

The Republicans who coalesce around Trump are making a political error. They are selling their integrity for a candidate who will probably lose. About 60 percent of Americans disapprove of him, and that number has been steady since he began his campaign.

Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.


Worse, there are certain standards more important than one year’s election. There are certain codes that if you betray them, you suffer something much worse than a political defeat.

Donald Trump is an affront to basic standards of honesty, virtue and citizenship. He pollutes the atmosphere in which our children are raised. He has already shredded the unspoken rules of political civility that make conversation possible. In his savage regime, public life is just a dog-eat-dog war of all against all

[brush]

99. We still outnumber them

Romney got a huge majority of the white vote in 2012 and still lost.

And what makes you think their hate for Clinton is any greater than ours for that racist, carnival barker of a candidate of theirs'?

[riderinthestorm]

105. Republicans are kicking our ass in getting out the vote

They're getting many times the voters to the polls than Democrats.

A Hillary candidacy will inspire them even more.

[brush]

120. Give it a rest. They had, what, 18 get out the vote operations at one time?

And Clinton still has more votes than Trump, and Sanders for that matter.

We'll beat their asses and you can help, you know.

Get down to a Bernie or Hillary office and volunteer to do voter registration.

[Egnever]

132. Many times the voters?

Do you just make this stuff up on the fly and hope no one notices?

The popular vote difference so far is a small percentage. Something you might consider is that despite all the angst here most democrats are content with either of our candidates and feel no overwhelming need to pick between the two. Hillary and sanders favorability inside the party is nearly identical. Not so on the other side and that was driving them to the polls many of them to try to stop Trump.

So far Hillary has got more votes than Trump , by your definition many times more!

In the end it will come down to demographics and on that front Trump is setting himself up for a miserable failure while hillary is working hard to try to increase her appeal across all demographics or at least not alienate them quite the opposite of trump who seems to only care about keeping the white male uneducated vote while actively working on alienating every other demographic.

[Egnever]

108. Exactly!

And to take it even further while Hillary has high negatives her negatives are constant and have been there for decades. There are no surprises waiting in the wings with Hillary she has been vetted non stop for years. On the flip side Trumps negatives are already higher than hers and the opposition research on him is just getting started.


Sit back and enjoy the ride the destruction of Trump is going to be delicious!

[elljay]

67. The Atlantic is keeping a running list of endorsements

You are engaging in wishful thinking. The polls have very consistently said that Trump runs strongly against Clinton. They have consistently said that she is about as unpopular as he is. Bernie supporters have consistently explained that we dislike her NOT because of Republican smears, but because of her policies and repeated position changes. In particular, young people and independents have consistently stated that they don't like her. Do you really think all of this is made up? That we secretly adore her? That an unknown candidate with no support from the DNC or media and no PACs could defeat her in so many states unless she were a bad candidate? The facts are all there and they show a candidate loves by a small majority of registered Democrats, but disliked to various degrees by just about everyone else. I'd hate to see Trump win but wouldn't be surprised by it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/

[Egnever]

74. Again did you even read that?

half of the names there are people committed to not supporting him and there is a glaring lack of any congress people listed at all.

I get you are upset your chosen candidate is not winning but desperately grasping at straws at this point is getting embarrassing.

[elljay]

85. Forget it

You have a dream and I won't be a part of it. No point trying to convince you. I will let you deal with reality when it intrudes on your magical thinking.

[Egnever]

90. LOL my magical thinking

He is the Republican nominee yet has less than a handful of congressional endorsements but I am the one with magical thinking...


Good luck with that

[Surya Gayatri]

157. The GOP elite may be making a public display of unity...

But, I have a few doubts about the party loyalty of middle America.

Anecdotal evidence:

My elderly mother has been a dyed-in-the-wool Republican since she first began voting in 1940.

She once told me that the only vote she'd ever cast for a Dem was for FDR during WWII.

When I spoke to her last week, I casually asked if she had voted for Trump in her state's primary.

"Heavens no!", came back the answer.

Well, who did she vote for? "That man from Ohio".

So, what will she do in November? "I may not vote at all".

And, this from a former civics teacher who has never missed an election in her life.

[elljay]

59. How about the NY Times

as well as statements and endorsements from Republicans who previously called Trump unqualified and a cancer in their party?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/

[Egnever]

65. Did you actually read those?

Cause the picture they paint is not one of the party unifying.

[elljay]

80. Of course

True, Trump does not have he support of those intensely popular Republicans, the Bushes and Lindsey Graham. Between them, at least 2% of the Republican primary voters. The only major player not on board yet is Cruz, who is no doubt negotiating for something. Once he gets it, he'll support Trump, too. Republicans are herd animals and they hate Hillary. They will hold their noses and vote for him.

[Egnever]

86. lalalal LOL

again are you not able to notice the glaring lack of any congressional endorsements?

Seems you are just wishing and not really looking at reality. You seem to be grasping desperately to anything you find that might say they are coming together without doing any critical thinking whatsoever about the pieces you are reading past the headline.

[Fuddnik]

156. What if they threw an election, and nobody came?

To paraphrase an old anti-war poster.

[brush]

102. Keep growing. I applaud that. Organized for 2018 and take back Congress, just vote blue now.

[HereSince1628]

18. Trump is a dark shadow... CONGRESS is the danger

It's not at all clear that Trump will have many things in which his Congressional support reaches majority let alone super-majority status.

Conceding that HRC is going to win, I'm in a quandry about voting for Feingold, the dem senate candidate in WI. HRC should have a congress that supports her. Feingold would not. In WI, Ron Johnson is closer to Clinton than Feingold who to her is just another asshat progressive.

If she's elected she needs the House and the Senate to support her. Voting for a person who would oppose her just moves the problem for me from the presidential race to the senate race.

[Iggo]

19. I'm not fearful. I'm disgusted.

Thanks, Debbie!

[Maeve]

21. I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

Will Rogers, 1935. And still true today.

That said, I have always planned to vote for the person most likely to defeat Drumpf, i.e., the Democratic nominee.

[davidn3600]

22. Blame the DNC oligarchy...don't blame the voters

A rigged primary and complete disrespect to the working class is what's "pissing away" the election.

[world wide wally]

24. Can somebody please explain exactly what primary rules were changed after Bernie entered the race?

[MADem]

26. That would be "none." But if you don't read the rules, it stands to reason that

you don't understand or know them.

[joeybee12]

37. Exactly...

But making things up is so much easier to justify thuggish behavior and not take responsibility for your actions.

[MADem]

25. This is DU where being negative is regarded by some as a virtue.

I am not AFRAID of Republicans. They should be afraid of me because I'm not putting up with their bullshit. And they should be AFRAID of themselves because they picked a nutty old orange asshole who can't remember what he said from one day to the next, who lies like a fine Persian rug, and who is a panderer who is ON RECORD as saying different things at different times. Once people realize what a bullshit artist he is, they will reject him.

The media will pretend it is a horserace, but it isn't -- it's more like a race between an experienced, qualified, respected Democrat, and an idiot.

I intend to work hard to get our Democratic nominee elected. If I have to engage and convince GOP women that Trump is an ass-pinching, misogynist asshole, that's what I'll do. If there's pique and "Busting" going on, we'll just have to find those votes elsewhere--but we will.


I am NOT AFRAID.

[brush]

104. Now that's what I'm talking about. Agreed. Trump will lose spectacularly.

[arcane1]

27. Conservative Dems will do anything to kill the progressive movement. Even aligning with Trump.

Goldman Sachs may be giving a lot of money to Hillary, but they'll be just fine with Trump. Especially if it means they can discredit "the left".

[abelenkpe]

31. Yep. Nt

[Duval]

57. Agree, arcane1 nt

[kayakjohnny]

29. Every nation goes through a dark period. Maybe it's our time.

It could be that we have to hit rock bottom before we go up again.

There's only so much damage he can do before congress reels him in.

Or that he faces a removal from office.

Guess the same could be said for any one in the White House.

[redstateblues]

73. The Susan Sarandon theory

[craigmatic]

30. This election is going to be a test of the strength of the Obama coalition.

Hillary is a bad candidate because she lacks a bold vision for America or the oratory ability to give the impression of a bold vision. She's also hated by republicans so much that she's part of the reason why they've united behind trump. Any other democratic candidate would have an easy election but this really is going to be closer than many people think. If she wins we know that we're stronger as a coalition than the quality of our candidate. If she loses it'll be because we need better candidates and the coalition is weak at its core and the Obama years were the result of the president's own abilities and personality.

[joeybee12]

39. Nope, she's a fine candidate

Your view of her is not a fact, just remember that, it's your opinion.

[rury]

54. And your assertion that

Hillary is a "fine candidate" is also just an opinion.

[joeybee12]

56. Obviously,

But leave it to someone to have the final word because they are always right.

[brush]

107. So are you voting blue?

[craigmatic]

141. If I think it actually matters in terms of winning by a slim margin. If it looks like a blow out I'm

voting green.

[brush]

142. But how will you know?

You want to take that chance?

[craigmatic]

146. If my home state is within 3 or 4 % in the week leading up to election I'll vote for her if not I

won't.

[Jester Messiah]

33. So you're worried, but fuck everyone you disagree with.

It's a bold strategy, Cotton...

[oldandhappy]

40. We are five months out.

The polls and fucks will change after the conventions.

[w4rma]

109. Considering the trends, the polls will only get *worse* for Clinton. (nt)

[panader0]

42. Just saw on Chris Matthews show: 72% of Sanders supporters say they will back HRC

as opposed to 8 years ago when only 60% of Hillary supporters said they would support Barack Obama.
How about that stat?

[redstateblues]

76. only 60% of Hillary supporters in 08 said they would vote for Obama

things worked out fine

[riderinthestorm]

46. Getting Hillary over the finish line will be nearly impossible. She's so flawed

Probably fatally so.

If she loses, the responsibility will lay squarely at the feet of the DNC who pushed us into this, and Hillary herself.

She can't rely on Dems just "falling in line" anymore. For one thing the Democratic party is shrinking and the Independents aren't loyal. She's got to persuade them to vote for her. "Not Trump" isn't persuasive enough for them.

I'm on record that I'll vote for her if she's the nominee but I'm very angry about being in this spot (again) where I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. Climate change is upon us and voting for Hillary compounds the catastrophe. I won't donate, volunteer or advocate for her. She gets my sickened vote only.

[brush]

114. The DNC didn't push voters into voting for Clinton. Face it, she got more votes.

Sanders didn't get as many people to vote for him than her.

So don't hate on the DNC. Try hating on the bad advise Sanders got for discounting the early southern primaries.

Betcha he wished he had a do-over on that piss poor decision.

He'd probably be winning now he had won a few of those states.

[riderinthestorm]

119. The DNC did everything it could to bolster Hillary

and tamp down the competition.

If Hillary loses she will own it, just as Gore did.

[brush]

122. He tamped down his own competition by discounting AA voters in the southern primaries

Don't want to acknowledge that, huh?

[riderinthestorm]

129. I disagree. A vicious assault on his genuine civil rights record

The disgusting smears of him as a racist, the blatant distortion of what happened with the BLM, etc all played their part.

Bernie has never taken the black vote for granted. That's a lie.

[brush]

130. Vicious assault my ass. Try the truth. Bernie himself said the southern primaries "distort reality".

Here are quotes from Weaver and Devine:

Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, said on the call that their campaign chose not to compete in eight of the 32 states that have held primaries or caucuses so far. Weaver identified Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia and Louisiana as the states where they didn’t mount a challenge to Clinton, who swept all of the Southern contests; he said the Sanders campaign did not broadcast television advertisements in those eight states or have “a big campaign presence.”

“Almost all of Secretary Clinton’s delegate lead come from states where she faced little or no competition,” said Tad Devine, Sanders’ senior campaign strategist. “Her grasp now on the nomination is almost entirely on the basis of victories in states where Bernie Sanders did not compete.”

See, they made poor decisions, which is why they are losing. Sanders was not well served by those two — who discounts African Americans, a huge part of the Democratic Party's electorate?

You can't re-write history, at least history that recent.

[Beowulf]

133. No

Your explanation is way too simplistic.

[brush]

135. Here are words from Weaver and Devine on that very topic

Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, said on the call that their campaign chose not to compete in eight of the 32 states that have held primaries or caucuses so far. Weaver identified Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia and Louisiana as the states where they didn’t mount a challenge to Clinton, who swept all of the Southern contests; he said the Sanders campaign did not broadcast television advertisements in those eight states or have “a big campaign presence.”

“Almost all of Secretary Clinton’s delegate lead come from states where she faced little or no competition,” said Tad Devine, Sanders’ senior campaign strategist. “Her grasp now on the nomination is almost entirely on the basis of victories in states where Bernie Sanders did not compete.”

They did it to themselves. They advised Sanders poorly. I mean who ignores the African American vote, a big part of the Democratic Party's electorate.

And remember, Bernie himself said the southern primaries "distort reality".

What the hell does that mean, when they actually get you votes and delegates?

[Surya Gayatri]

158. So well said. Couldn't agree more. The unimpeachable truth. Both this post and the one above:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027845154#post130

[Hiraeth]

147. Ever notice how the Lesser of Two Evils keeps getting harder to tell the difference.

I don't know whether I can't wait to get it over with or wish November would never come.

I just hope I don't throw up in the voting booth.

[LS_Editor]

48. I am not arrogant enough to believe this country isn't stupid enough to elect Trump president.

I am a liberal, but I see selfishness and greed as the primary motivations of far too many Americans, including way too many I know.

[Different Drummer]

160. My thoughts exactly.

n/t

[MisterP]

52. well, ONE of the Dems is unelectable

[redstateblues]

75. Bernie will support Hillary in the GE and she win in the GE

[BillZBubb]

84. Keep telling yourself that red!

[modestybl]

53. All the Dems will support the nominee...

... but it is up to that nominee to win support of the independents.

And it won't be the end of the world if the Donald is elected... we survived president Cheney for 8 years... We'll have a Dem Senate in 2016, and likely a Dem Congress in 2018.

And Trump will still be Bill's golfing buddy...

[cheapdate]

55. No you're not. I'm with you. It's insane, or unwise to say the least.

[Cryptoad]

61. We dont need Bern or his Supporters to beat Trump.....

[HooptieWagon]

66. Given DWS's track record, a loss is all but assured.

And nominating a candidate currently the subject of an FBI criminal investigation has to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. It's like they WANT to lose.

[BillZBubb]

81. Hyperbole much???

We've had repubs that actually won who were far more existential threats than trump. You either have a poor memory or you are too young to vote.

[Android3.14]

94. A vote for Hillary in the primary is a vote for Trump in the general

We had it. We bloody well had an awesome candidate that fired up independents, and people like you fucked it all up.

The fear you are experiencing is the subconscious recognition that you effed up by backing Clinton. It's not about loyalty oaths, and fuck those who think Hillary deserves their vote out of some sort of supplication to this flawed candidate.

I fucking hate that I am going to cast a vote for that weak unethical two-faced vote suppressing nightmare of a Democratic candidate out of fear of Donald Fucking Trump.

Casting a vote out of fear rather than hope is a sign of evil times.

Most of the Democrats that are Bernie supporters will hold their noses and pull the lever.

It's the independents that we've lost, and fuck those who failed to stand up for a fair primary, because, when she loses in November, it will be your fault. The fear you are feeling means a part of you senses the coming nightmare.

Thing is, I'm not afraid. I'm determined to carry on Bernie's revolution through a Trump presidency, even after I waste my vote on Clinton.

[Paladin]

98. I share your fears, big-time.

Democrats need to come to their senses and unite, immediately. There has never been a more dangerous candidate than Trump.

[w4rma]

100. As long as the neoliberals are in charge, they will continue to piss away victories.

This is because their priority is to suppress progressives, by any means possible, not to defeat neoconservatives (with whom they share many corporatist beliefs with).

[JimDandy]

103. Hillary Clinton is totally responsible for what happens in the GE

if she becomes the nominee. As is every candidate.

[ReRe]

117. I think it is totally ironic...

... that indeed it's the Democratic Party itself that's going to be responsible for this whole 2016 defeat debacle. The very reason the "Leadership" of our party changed everything 24 yrs ago was so we could "win elections again," yet instead of getting behind the most popular candidate who can actually beat Donald Trump, they're going to throw the party under the bus to Hillary Clinton.

And that is exactly what the DNC has done, since the get-go. By hook or by crook, it's all been "Hillary's time." Everything has been stacked against Bernie from the beginning of the Primary and no one can deny it.

If HRC loses, it isn't Bernie's fault. It isn't Bernie's supporters fault either. You all can just go look in the mirror at the guilty one on election night. I hope you're very proud of yourselves.

[underthematrix]

126. I think we'll be fine. TPTB won't start really going after Trump

until after the conventions

[PatrickforO]

128. Hmm. Your post deserves an answer, and I'll try and give a thoughtful one because

today I heard General Hayden, who used to head the CIA and then NSA, give a keynote speech on the tail of his new book, "Playing to the Edge."

It was a heavily Republican crowd but there were some Democrats in the room. At my table, we were mostly Democrats. Liberal ones. So, Hayden starts off with several assertions:

1. Domestic spying is compatible with democracy, and specifically American democracy, and further,
2. Domestic spying actually PROMOTES democracy.
3. "Enhanced interrogation" techniques (torture), the kill lists for Afghans and Pakistanis and the drone programs are all 'as American as apple pie, and
4. In fact, espionage itself is as 'American' as apple pie.
5. The American people are frightened because it is NORMAL to be frightened, and ABNORMAL to worry about your civil rights when the NSA is making you so SAFE
6. Members of Congress in both parties LOVE the drones, the kill lists and the domestic spying

Now, I'm sitting there with a sick expression on my face because I'm afraid I'll puke up my lunch because I think this guy is a serious war criminal.

So...yes, Trump is a threat to us for two reasons - because he's opened the door promoting bigoted and racist and homophobic and misogynistic opinions - airing them in public as has not been done since the bad old days of the 1960s and 1970s. And, because he will appoint justices that are socially conservative and who will continue to support corporate corruption. But Trump will be controlled by the big money guys on Wall Street and especially in the MIC. Much as W was.

But, do you seriously think the US is still a democracy?? Because, 11 Bravo, the damage has already been done by empty suits in both parties who are owned and controlled by corporations and financiers. The neoliberal philosophy of 'free' trade, deregulation, privatization and reducing social safety nets is shared by the Third Way Democrats and establishment Republicans - it is THEY who pose the existential threat.

This is why I went all out for Sanders and am still for him all the way to the convention. Trump isn't 'anti establishment' - that's hokum. Bernie is the only one who is promoting policies that will actually improve our lives. Clinton sure isn't. Oh, she's paying lip service to some of Bernie's ideas, but she would NEVER have dreamed of even bringing up these issues had it not been for Sanders. Clinton is flawed and weak as a candidate, but she's backed by some of the biggest monied interests in the world. Against this, we have Bernie who is still winning primaries and doesn't even have a super-PAC.

[Dems to Win]

131. If Donald Trump is such a monster, what were the Clintons doing at his wedding?

If we are to mobilize voters to STOP TRUMP, we need an anti-Trump. I don't think we should be looking at Donald's wedding guest list to find our anti-Trump.

Hillary is part of 'the club' with Trump. Neither are on my side, that's for sure.

But, not to worry, if you truly believe Trump is the next Mussolini and we must be saved by one of his wedding guests. It seems clear that the people that rig the voting machines are on Hillary's side, so I expect her to be declared the winner. She's the one who will keep the gravy train rolling for the MIC and the 1% as usual, so it makes sense that the Powers That Be will be tilting the scales in every way possible in her favor.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. You of course are forgetting the independent voters that raelly

really, really do not trust her.

Months ago foreign media went there, the DEMS were about to nominate the weakest candidate in ages. I said pretty much the same months ago. Now I am settling in for the show.

Oh and "voting" is something we pretend to do anyway

[zalinda]

148. I remember back in 2004 when Kerry was running

Almost everyone here said Kerry was going to win in a landslide. It would be impossible for him to lose. At that time, I tried to explain to people that Kerry was not the shoe in that he appeared to be. He was not the candidate that I wanted, but I thought he would be fine. I was convinced that he was a fighter and that things would get better for the country, and he would pull troops out of the middle east. I even contributed to his campaign.

As people became more and more confident that he was going to win, I warned them that Bush would probably win because the voters normally don't switch leaders during a war. The vote was close, too close because Kerry voters got over confident. And then in Ohio, when he didn't fight for that recount, I was pissed. This war hero didn't have the balls enough to even TRY to get the votes counted. And, now I have to wonder if he was only going to be a place holder for Obama or Hillary.

The arrogance of the Democratic party in putting up a candidate this time, that has so much baggage, she has to travel by train, because a bus couldn't hold it all. A candidate that is being investigated by the FBI. And a candidate that is truly disliked and untrustworthy by over 60% of the country? Is any one going to try to tell me that there was no other candidate available that the party could get behind? The Democrats on have 25% of the voting population, and the Republicans have 23%, the other 47% belongs to the Independents. So we have a situation where it is said that 87% of the Democrats approve of Hillary and 76% of the Democratic Party Bernie supporters would vote for Hillary, so that leaves 47% and 23% of the country who dislike/hate her and don't trust her. What the fuck is wrong with this picture? How could anything go wrong?

Do Hillary supporters have blinders on? They must have because how else could you not see the perfect storm coming. The Democratic Party has manipulated the Democratic primary to such a degree that even someone who pays little attention to politics can see that they tried to screw Bernie at every turn. Some Hillary supporters even have the arrogance to say that Hillary doesn't need or want Bernie's supporters vote. That's good, because a pretty big majority of them won't vote for her. It has been made very clear by the Democratic Party, Hillary's supporters and Hillary herself that Bernie's supporters are stupid people who only want free things.

I can't tell you whether or not Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary, Trump or stay home. They have been treated like an abused spouse, and now they say, I'm sorry, I'll change my ways, you can trust me, just give me your vote of confidence and everything will be alright. Social workers tell those spouses to get out of a bad situation, because they'll never change, and they are right. I don't want to be abused any more.

Z

[Brother Joe Observes]

149. No

You are not the only one. I have nightmarish visions of the 1980 convention, where Kennedy was too prideful and stubborn to fully back carter. I don't claim to know if or how many Kennedy supporters might have refused to vote for Carter, but we both know what happened that November, and Donald Trump makes Ronald Reagan look like George McGovern!

[Rhiannon12866]

150. I remember, Brother Joe, and I certainly agree with you! That election was a heartbreaker... :(

Welcome to DU! It's great to have you with us!

[Brother Joe Observes]

151. Thanks 4 the welcome

It's now after 1 AM here, so I'll also say Good Night, Rhiannon!

[Rhiannon12866]

152. That's one nice thing about DU, someone somewhere is always around no matter what the hour...

Have a good night!

[beachbum bob]

153. unfortunately on "democrats" you are wrong...its not a problem that exists with both our

candidate supporters..... threatening to take "their ball home" if their person isn't the nominee...you can see in DU its 10x...100x sanders supporters over hillary who issue this threat daily....and to me they are not democrats in the manner that I would portray democrats. We don't have litmus or purity tests on who participated or is included.....and we definitely wouldn't sit back and NOT support our candidate.....and allow ANY conservative to be elected. That is not what a democratic supporter would do....that is what someone who's aim is to destroy america....the democratic party by any means possible to achieve their agenda.....and them people are NOT democrats but some else....some thing not worthy

[Surya Gayatri]

159. ^^^AMEN to this!^^^

We don't have litmus or purity tests on who participated or is included.....and we definitely wouldn't sit back and NOT support our candidate.....and allow ANY conservative to be elected.