HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » i understand fully, Hilar...

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:51 AM

i understand fully, Hilary's premise that Sen Sanders hurt her candidacy.

Never have such words as .."Don't do as I do, do as I say" ring true.

His disparaging assertions, along with the media's abisimal and criminal coverage of her campaign, a 30 year drum beat to destroy her...piled on.

All his campaigning for her did not sway his ardent supporters.

Seasoned politicos fully know that words used as weapons matter..

132 replies, 7581 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 132 replies Author Time Post
Reply i understand fully, Hilary's premise that Sen Sanders hurt her candidacy. (Original post)
Ninga Sep 2017 OP
jrthin Sep 2017 #1
still_one Sep 2017 #2
Baconator Sep 2017 #18
still_one Sep 2017 #24
Baconator Sep 2017 #26
still_one Sep 2017 #28
WhiteTara Sep 2017 #103
still_one Sep 2017 #108
WhiteTara Sep 2017 #102
George II Sep 2017 #106
George II Sep 2017 #53
still_one Sep 2017 #61
lunasun Sep 2017 #7
mythology Sep 2017 #8
CBHagman Sep 2017 #11
dottie66 Sep 2017 #30
DonaldsRump Sep 2017 #33
karynnj Sep 2017 #37
Jim Lane Sep 2017 #73
DoBotherMe Sep 2017 #79
Mariana Sep 2017 #91
karynnj Sep 2017 #98
white_wolf Sep 2017 #117
CrispyQ Sep 2017 #13
renate Sep 2017 #16
brush Sep 2017 #23
Omaha Steve Sep 2017 #55
brush Sep 2017 #58
StevieM Sep 2017 #88
lunasun Sep 2017 #19
Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #80
lunamagica Sep 2017 #81
treestar Sep 2017 #40
StevieM Sep 2017 #84
WhiteTara Sep 2017 #104
Ken Burch Sep 2017 #62
lunasun Sep 2017 #82
lunamagica Sep 2017 #83
QC Sep 2017 #87
Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #111
Autumn Sep 2017 #132
Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #3
alarimer Sep 2017 #4
brush Sep 2017 #9
lunasun Sep 2017 #20
lunamagica Sep 2017 #85
Ken Burch Sep 2017 #89
lunamagica Sep 2017 #93
Ken Burch Sep 2017 #95
lunamagica Sep 2017 #96
Ken Burch Sep 2017 #113
lunamagica Sep 2017 #118
Adrahil Sep 2017 #14
brush Sep 2017 #21
Egnever Sep 2017 #57
Adrahil Sep 2017 #60
Egnever Sep 2017 #63
LanternWaste Sep 2017 #64
Adrahil Sep 2017 #65
Egnever Sep 2017 #69
brush Sep 2017 #99
lunamagica Sep 2017 #86
Me. Sep 2017 #126
dflprincess Sep 2017 #105
world wide wally Sep 2017 #5
Adrahil Sep 2017 #22
R B Garr Sep 2017 #119
leftstreet Sep 2017 #6
clu Sep 2017 #10
Proud Liberal Dem Sep 2017 #54
Lucinda Sep 2017 #12
Weekend Warrior Sep 2017 #15
Willie Pep Sep 2017 #31
chwaliszewski Sep 2017 #45
The Polack MSgt Sep 2017 #42
Weekend Warrior Sep 2017 #49
JCanete Sep 2017 #56
The Polack MSgt Sep 2017 #70
JCanete Sep 2017 #71
Jim Lane Sep 2017 #74
ProfessorGAC Sep 2017 #125
The Polack MSgt Sep 2017 #128
ProfessorGAC Sep 2017 #129
SweetieD Sep 2017 #17
brush Sep 2017 #25
SweetieD Sep 2017 #32
brush Sep 2017 #34
Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #35
brush Sep 2017 #36
Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #39
brush Sep 2017 #41
nini Sep 2017 #59
lunamagica Sep 2017 #90
Weekend Warrior Sep 2017 #50
beachbum bob Sep 2017 #27
marylandblue Sep 2017 #29
trueblue2007 Sep 2017 #38
karynnj Sep 2017 #77
Jim Lane Sep 2017 #78
RDANGELO Sep 2017 #43
lunamagica Sep 2017 #92
floWteiuQ Sep 2017 #44
Tarheel_Dem Sep 2017 #109
IronLionZion Sep 2017 #46
Post removed Sep 2017 #47
samnsara Sep 2017 #48
redstatebluegirl Sep 2017 #51
HarmonyRockets Sep 2017 #66
brush Sep 2017 #100
geek tragedy Sep 2017 #52
HarmonyRockets Sep 2017 #67
Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #72
Jim Lane Sep 2017 #97
Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #124
HarmonyRockets Sep 2017 #131
SpicyBoi Sep 2017 #68
haveahart Sep 2017 #75
jalan48 Sep 2017 #76
SDOPINION Sep 2017 #94
shanny Sep 2017 #101
Tarheel_Dem Sep 2017 #110
shanny Sep 2017 #114
Tarheel_Dem Sep 2017 #116
Ninga Sep 2017 #120
Tarheel_Dem Sep 2017 #130
sharedvalues Sep 2017 #107
longship Sep 2017 #112
aikoaiko Sep 2017 #115
Ninga Sep 2017 #121
aikoaiko Sep 2017 #122
LWolf Sep 2017 #123
Lil Missy Sep 2017 #127

Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:54 AM

1. He did. Not to relitigate the last election, but when Bernie announced

that he was going to challenge Hillary, I turned to my husband and said, this will not end well for the Democratic election. I told my husband that this move will elect a republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jrthin (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:02 AM

2. "democrat election"? It is the DEMOCRATIC election. Referring to the DEMOCRATIC party as

"democrat" party is a pejorative term coined by REPUKE politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:52 AM

18. Good lord...

That might be enough internet for you today...

Go outside...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baconator (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 12:50 PM

24. It's the DEMOCRATIC party, NOT the "Democrat party". All I was doing was informing the poster

the negative nature of that terminology, and guess what, the poster heard what I said and changed it accordingly

Seems you are the one who is having the problem


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #24)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:00 PM

26. There's a difference between informing and being rude...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baconator (Reply #26)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:03 PM

28. Which part of what I said was rude?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #28)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:38 PM

103. You weren't. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #103)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:03 PM

108. Thanks Tara. I sure wasn't trying to be rude

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Baconator (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:38 PM

102. Hey, Baconator!

I hate that incorrect grammar too. "Democrat Party" was coined by Roger Stone of the Nixon Rat Fuckers. In ads on tv, they would highlight RAT and that is why I find it so offensive. I don't think our fellow DU poster was being rude at all. Usually, I send a PM to the offender, but sometimes, it's necessary to say this in public.

We are Democrats (noun) This is the Democratic (adjective) Party. Proper English usage is a hallmark of Democrats, or at least educated people (who tend to belong to the Democratic Party.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #102)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:55 PM

106. Actually "Democrat Party" can be traced back to the 1930s or earlier. It became dormant....

...for a couple of decades when Joseph McCarthy and his allies resurrected it. It has remained an insult by the republic party (yes, that's how I respond to those who use that term!) since the McCarthy era.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 02:46 PM

53. Exactly. Democrat Party is a term glorified during the McCarthy era.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 03:29 PM

61. My orginal comment was to post #1, and that poster changed the post accordingly to Democratic

I believe the post was either a typo, or an honest oversight, which is why I explained the negative connotation behind it



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jrthin (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:17 AM

7. When he hung on in the end after California I asked how can he not be helping republicans ?

Entering a primary is one thing and IMO didn't have to end in a republican win, but not accepting defeat at the appropriate time is another thing and that included his voters

"Many were seething with anger at what they believed to be early calls by news organizations that Clinton won the nomination.

As a huge video screen towering above the crowd showed California's early returns---with disappointing numbers for Sanders---the crowd erupted into repeated chants of "Bulls---t! Bullsh---t."

When the channel flipped to CNN -- again showing the evening's strong results for Clinton -- the crowd thundered: "Turn it off!"

The decision by news organizations to call the race for Clinton on Monday only hardened the determination of the contingent of voters who call themselves "Bernie or Bust.""

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunasun (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:25 AM

8. Clinton did the same thing in 2008

 

Sanders didn't cause Clinton to lose. She lost to a combination of factors. Her polling dropped substantially after the second Comey announcement. If she didn't have that stupid server, there wouldn't have been an announcement to make.

Clinton knew damn well that Republicans would be all over her if she ran in 2016. She should have been smart enough to plan ahead for that and go above and beyond to not give Republicans an issue.

The lack of self-reflection in blaming Sanders or any other outside cause without first looking at her own actions rings hollow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:41 AM

11. In other words, see into the future...

...to an attack during the 2012 campaign, to changes in the law for use of private email servers, to how the media would cover it all, etc.

Not a workable suggestion, and the electoral map math is still what it was: a Trump "win" based on perhaps 80,000 or so votes in key areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBHagman (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:09 PM

30. A questionable 80,000 vote margin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dottie66 (Reply #30)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:17 PM

33. and an international conspiracy that is under criminal investigation n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBHagman (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:35 PM

37. Easier than what you describe - In January 2013, as she was leaving - she could have left all her

work emails.

Months before that, there were already requests for Clinton emails on various subjects. These requests were not going to dissapear when she left. It would not have taken much ability to see THAT future. So, what could she have thought would happen? That the Republicans would suddenly lose interest? That the State Department could stonewall for 4 years without it looking fishy -- thus harming Clinton claiming the Obama administration was hiding something.

It was nearly two years after she left, that the State Department got all the email and quickly tried to answer a prominent Congressional request as they started to process those emails. This led to the NYT getting a story in March 2015 -- right before she was to declare formally her intention to run -- that she had used a private server for all her email for her term as SoS. This was a terrible story and even then, she did not completely get the truth out immediately - leading to a month or so of corrections. It also led to her demanding ALL the emails that could be published be put online. This lead to monthly HRC email tranches -- reminding people for a year about the email problem.

While the full eventuality could NOT have been foreseen, consider that there was NOTHING in the emails that related to any of the requests that was a problem. Not to mention, information coming out in 2013 or 2014 on emails, where it is very likely no one would have known that they did not come from a regular state account, would have been far less damaging than the email story eclipsing her formal entry into the race.

Taking the entire email story, complete with investigations, Comey letters, Anthony Weiner etc would have changed her campaign. It had to be an enormous burden for her team to having to regularly deal with bad stories. Consider her polling was MUCH higher before the Comey letter. Also consider that even before that, her favorable numbers and polling on honesty took a major hit in the months right after March 2015.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #37)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 08:37 PM

73. Excellent recap. Thank you. (n/t)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #37)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:12 PM

79. As the abusive husband says

She didn't have dinner on the table on time
The house wasn't clean enough
She didn't stay home and bake cookies
She's too fat
She didn't get my shirts clean
She told me she wasn't going to stand by her man

So I beat the s*** out of her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoBotherMe (Reply #79)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:43 PM

91. A voter criticising of the decisions of a candidate

on a political message board is NOTHING like an abusive husband beating the shit out of his wife for whatever bullshit excuse he can conjure up.

How disgusting of you to make that comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoBotherMe (Reply #79)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:12 PM

98. Ridiculous. Her lack of thought on this hurt her own chances

And left the Obama administration with many scandals that touched others, especially Loretta Lynch.

I watched the stories as a Democrat, concerned because she was almost certainly our nominee and because I was concerned that two people I respect more than Clinton, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry, would be muddied by this quagmire. Both were smart enough to distance themselves as much as they could.

This was a self inflicted wound. It did not have to happen. The person most to blame for it was Clinton..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoBotherMe (Reply #79)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 01:12 AM

117. Are you seriously comparing criticizing a politician to domestic abuse?

This has got to be the most disgusting thing I've seen on DU in a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:45 AM

13. Ditto on the Wall St. speeches & the comment about being broke when they left the WH.

Her presidency would have been mired in controversy. Not like the Con's by any means, but The Hunting of the President, part 2, would have continued. It sure makes you miss the scandal free days of Obama. OMG! He saluted someone with a cup of coffee in his hand!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:50 AM

16. I happily and proudly voted for Hillary, and hope Bernie doesn't run again

But I agree with you. He didn't cause her to lose. For one thing, he didn't cause her to lose. She won the popular vote, by a lot.

And he didn't cause her to lose, any more than any other challenger in any other primary in any other election caused his/her party's nominee to lose. (And besides, as you say, she did the exact same thing in 2008, so I'm really not interested in her opinion that he should have dropped out sooner.) What caused her to lose (Russia notwithstanding) was her campaign's casual assumption that Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were in the bag. That was dumb and that was why she lost the electoral college.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renate (Reply #16)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 12:48 PM

23. She didn't do the same thing in '08. She graciously conceded and worked hard for Obama.

A certain someone did not graciously concede. He drug it out for forever, continually attacking the Democratic Party establishment, as he put it, and had to figuratively be dragged kicking and screaming to concede, and because of that, it came off as halfhearted and his supporters got that message, as did the rest of us.

IMO that cost us votes that went third party candidates. And as far as the reasons for the loss, Comey, Putin and repug vote suppression were huge factors.

Do you actually think that 77,000 votes that could swing the EC weren't targeted, and the three states where those votes were ripe for hacking/suppression weren't targeted?

That was all calculated and we got a stolen election, a coup.

But keep believing the media talking points about Clinton not campaigning in those states. There was much more going on under the surface in those states than what the media postmortem spewed. trump redirected his plane to those Midwestern states at the last minute to make it seem like he was actively campaigning there so any irregularities, like just enough votes to swing the EC, wouldn't seem obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #23)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 03:03 PM

55. The advertising decisions that helped doom Hillary Clinton


"But keep believing the media talking points about Clinton not campaigning in those states."

Omaha has ONE EC vote. All the ads were attack Trump, not about what Clinton would do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/12/the-advertising-decisions-that-helped-doom-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.9b34c22f2989

By Jim Tankersley November 12, 2016

In the closing weeks of the presidential race, Hillary Clinton's campaign — and the outside groups that supported it — aired more television advertisements in Omaha than in the states of Michigan and Wisconsin combined. The Omaha ads were in pursuit of a single electoral vote in a Nebraska congressional district, which Clinton did not ultimately win, and also bled into households in Iowa, which also she did not win. Michigan and Wisconsin add up to 26 electoral votes; she appears not to have won them, either.

Strategic decisions can make all the difference in a close race. Clinton lost the White House (despite winning the popular vote) to Republican Donald Trump on the strength of about 100,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. That is the definition of a close race.

But a review of Democrats' advertising decisions at the end of the race suggests Clinton and her allies weren't playing to win a close one. They were playing for a blowout. And it cost them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #55)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 03:21 PM

58. More media/pundit spew. The 77,000 votes needed to swing the EC was calculated...

and the repugs suppressed/targeted those votes and those states.

We know repugs cheat.

Do you actually think they didn't in those states when the 77,000 votes they needed to swing the EC is just what they got?

It's even more obvious now that on Nov. 9th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Reply #55)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:30 PM

88. Trump also stopped advertising so heavily in those places.

When someone concedes in a state where you are way up you accept their concession. If she hadn't reduced her advertising there, and moved the money into other places, and then lost the election, people would have attacked her for leaving her ad spending in those states where it was.

The factors that led PA, AZ, NC and FL to move are the same ones that led WI and MI to move. If she had held her lead in Pennsylvania and Florida she would also have held her lead in Wisconsin and Michigan. Not that those states would have gotten her a victory, in any event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:55 AM

19. When did Sanders formally drop out of the Democratic race? Not the same unity push imo

Sanders before the convention 16
Instead, he said he will attempt to use his delegates to push for more progressive reforms at the upcoming Democratic National Convention, in Philadelphia. “Why would I want to [drop out] when I want to fight to make sure that we have the best platform that we possibly can?” he asked rhetorically. “The goal of our campaign was to transform this nation.”

Although Sanders acknowledged on Morning Joe Friday that most of his supporters were heading for the exits, he reiterated that he is not dropping out of the race until his oft-promised “political revolution” yields real results.
“I'm pretty good at arithmetic, and what I know is that Hillary Clinton has more pledged delegates than I do, and she has a lot more super-delegates than I do,” he said. “But what I also know is we're bringing 1,900 delegates into the convention, that we have received 13 million votes


Clinton less than one week in primary08
"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won, the extraordinary race he has run and and I throw my full support behind him — and I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," she said.
She said she and Obama have faced each other in 22 debates and she has had a "front-row seat to his candidacy" and has seen "his determination, his grace and his grit."
With daughter Chelsea and husband — former U.S. president Bill Clinton — along with her mother, Dorothy Rodham, watching, the New York senator formally ended her bid for the country's highest political office after a 16-month contest to win over party delegates.

The official announcement came less than a week after the Illinois senator secured enough delegates — totalling 2,118 — to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunasun (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:17 PM

80. That is quite a contrast.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunasun (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:17 PM

81. Thank you for posting this. What a difference!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:38 PM

40. She didn't give them an issue

If it wasn't that, it would have been something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:24 PM

84. If the FBI didn't make something out of the fake email scandal they would have picked something else

to investigate her for. The election was lost when Obama named Comey as FBI director.

Barack Obama was a great president but appointing James Comey as FBI director was his biggest mistake. And the fact that Comey and Trump later turned on each other is irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:42 PM

104. Wrong.

If she hadn't had a server, they would have found something. Anything. Bernie was not helpful to our Party or our Nominee.

Let's see what he does with all that is happening in Washington. I know he's been running around the country, but Congress will be back in session and there's lots of work to do. This is his moment to shine. I hope his star is not made of tin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunasun (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 03:37 PM

62. He had to stay in until California

 

He couldn't leave his supporters with no one to vote for in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:20 PM

82. My post is in regards to after California,about after she clinched the nomination- way after in fact

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:22 PM

83. No, he didn't have to. The right and honorable thing to do when you see there's no chance to win

is to concede as soon as possible, so the eventual nominee can concentrate on the GH. Whoever doesn't do that is just hurting the eventual candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunamagica (Reply #83)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:30 PM

87. We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #87)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:27 PM

111. What point are you attempting to make?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #87)

Wed Sep 13, 2017, 01:56 PM

132. As a Hillary supporters at that time I remember the outrage was epic over that, here and everywhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?mcubz=3
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?” she said. “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, which has refrained from engaging Mrs. Clinton in recent days, said her statement “was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.”

Privately, aides to Mr. Obama were furious about the remark.

Concerns about Mr. Obama’s safety led the Secret Service to give him protection last May, before it was afforded to any other presidential candidate, although Mrs. Clinton had protection, too, in her capacity as a former first lady. Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, voiced concerns about his safety before he was elected to the Senate, and some black voters have even said such fears weighed on their decision of whether to vote for him.

It was against that backdrop that Mrs. Clinton’s mentioning the Kennedy assassination in the same breath as her own political fate struck some as going too far. Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, an uncommitted superdelegate, said through a spokeswoman that the comments were “beyond the pale.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:04 AM

3. If my thought-dreams could be seen...

 

they'd probably put my head in a guillotine

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:08 AM

4. She's wrong, though.

A robust primary is what the Democrats needed and they needed someone to pull them left. They still do. That's the way to win, not doubling down on centrism or "Third way" which is what some are advocating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:26 AM

9. "That's the way to win"...? Come on. Did we win?

A certain someone attacked the Democratic Party establishment throughout the entire campaign and refused for weeks to concede after it was impossible to gain the nomination.

That's the way to divide the party, not the way to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #9)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 12:17 PM

20. Thank you - Her primary opponent refused for weeks

How is that a neutral factor? He did not concede.
no unity no win doesn't help the larger equation that resulted the current situation

Sanders before the 16 convention
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029555893#post19

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #9)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:24 PM

85. +1. It can't be said enough. HE DID NOT CONCEED

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunamagica (Reply #85)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:31 PM

89. He conceded weeks before the convention.

 

And he made a point, in his last month-and-a-half of the campaign, to be as positive as possible towards her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #89)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:44 PM

93. No, he did not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunamagica (Reply #93)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:58 PM

95. He conceded July 6th. The convention started July 25th, almost three weeks later.

 

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-finally-concedes-that-hillary-clinton-is-the-presumptive-nominee/

Given the anger some of HIS supporters felt about various things, I'm not sure he COULD have conceded any earlier.

He had spent most of the previous month talking them around to the idea that HRC would be the nominee.

Why didn't she just agree to NO TPP platform language right after California?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #95)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:00 PM

96. Is this a joke? That is NOT conceding, not at all! Oh, my this is just sad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunamagica (Reply #96)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:56 PM

113. Hairsplitting.

 

Acknowledging that she'd won was a concession.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #95)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 01:56 AM

118. He did NOT concede. Read this from July 12

Last edited Wed Sep 6, 2017, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

from July 12:

I AM STILL OFFICIALLY A CANDIDATE. WE ARE GOING TO PHILLY. I DID NOT AND WILL NOT CONCEDE. I AM NOT SUSPENDING MY CAMPAIGN.

http://justicegazette.org/endorsed-but-did-not-concede.html

This is why so many of his supporters acted the way they did, causing mayhem by waving signs saying "Just go to jail Hillary!" "this ridiculous election is rigged" behind MSNBC pundits, booing her during her speech (do you really think that didn't hurt her? Where was the "unity"?), anyway, they were hopeful they could bully Hillary out of her deserved and fairly won election and get Sanders the nomination. You know why they thought that? Because Sanders did NOT concede

Now, let me show you what a concession is like:

"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won, the extraordinary race he has run and and I throw my full support behind him — and I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," she said.
She said she and Obama have faced each other in 22 debates and she has had a "front-row seat to his candidacy" and has seen "his determination, his grace and his grit."
With daughter Chelsea and husband — former U.S. president Bill Clinton — along with her mother, Dorothy Rodham, watching, the New York senator formally ended her bid for the country's highest political office after a 16-month contest to win over party delegates.

The official announcement came less than a week after the Illinois senator secured enough delegates — totalling 2,118 — to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination." (thanks to lunasun for posting this)

See?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:46 AM

14. It was not "robust" in my view. It was, at time, vindictive.

 

Putting positions aside, there was a nasty streak in much of the campaigning from "the left." and the refusal to concede defeat once it was obvious just hardened hearts. It was a terrible mistake, and the fact that the losing candidate and his supporters won't acknowledge it is the main reason why we continue to have problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 12:27 PM

21. Exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 03:18 PM

57. How quickly we forget 2008

 

Hillary set the precedent for staying in after it was obvious it was over and beating up on the nominee.

The audacity to complain about Hillary doing the same to her is pretty galling. Hell we still have websites today from her actions in 2008 .

Probably not the best idea to stick in past your realistic chance of winning but she has zero room to complain about it.

In fact her actions in 2008 probably contributed to her loss this time around.

The JPR website that is so hated here sprung up because of her refusal to accept defeat by Obama. Hell her campaign staff were outwardly rebellious on the convention floor after Obama beat her.

Seems highly hypocritical to complain when it happens to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #57)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 03:25 PM

60. Oh yes, I am audacious.

 

At the least, Hillary REMAINED a Democrat after the election. Sen Sanders? Nope.

Also, HRC DID conceded before the convention.

And here's a key point.... she FULLY SUPPORTED Obama during the generals, Obama WON.

Sander's was always lukewarm on his support for Clinton, always focusing on how bad Trump was, instead of advocating FOR Clinton all that much.

So you can call be a hypocrite if you want (I was an Obama support in 2008, BTW), but frankly, I have no fucks to give.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #60)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 03:45 PM

63. Rose colored glasses

 

Obama clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3, 2008.

Clinton did not formally end her presidential campaign until June 7, 2008.

Seems silly to complain and this was over a month after it was obvious Obama would win and 4 days after he had officially passed the clinching numbers.

She laid the precedent.

Complaining when it happens to her seems petty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #63)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 03:57 PM

64. I especially like how you move the goalposts without even attempting to hide it.

I especially like how you move the goalposts without even attempting to hide it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #63)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 03:59 PM

65. Oh yes, I'm petty too!

 

Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I mean sure, let's ignore the 30 years the right wing has attacked Clinton. And let's forget that Clinton vigorously campaigned for Obama without Sanders-like equivocation. And oh yeah, Clinton was a Democrat before and remained a Democrat after the election.

I feel like cult of personality has emerged where the divine Bernie can do no wrong. It's like he and his more rabid supporters are allergic to admitting to mistakes.

Oh yeah, I'm petty...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #65)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 04:29 PM

69. Seems more like

 

Making excuses to me.

And just for the record I am not a big fan of either of them.

Just noting the different standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #63)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:19 PM

99. You wanna talk days...how many days after Hillary clinched did Sanders concede?

Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Or should I ask how many months because he never officially dropped out of the race until after the convention?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Adrahil (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 10:33 AM

126. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:46 PM

105. Exactly.

Unfortunately, the party appears unwilling to learn any thing from 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:08 AM

5. When Bernie didn't drop out after Hillary clinched the nomination,

I knew he could only hurt our chances. What other possible outcome could there be?
He was already invited and accommodated to help write the platform. Say what you will, but this was totally self destructive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 12:32 PM

22. Yup

 

That really was damaging and Bernie and some of followers won't acknowledge it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 03:06 AM

119. +1,000,000. The things he's said are damaging

and, as Hillary said in her new book, fundamentally wrong. I'm tired of the browbeating and insults about my party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:10 AM

6. What were his 'disparaging assertions?'

Compared to her primary battle with Obama, I thought Sanders was really tame

Guess I missed something

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:33 AM

10. the same MSM mouthpieces behind dean's MRAHHH

 

were clamoring about how bitter the debate was. we heard it echoed in the NV dem primary with Barbara Boxer projected on the wall claiming "Bernie don't be negative!" I noticed no such thing. apparently GE/NBC makes TVs, miniguns, and they also operate a memefactory. yes I know that GE no longer owns NBC it is a joke

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 02:47 PM

54. Neither Obama nor Hillary attacked or discredited the DNC "establishment" during their primary

Hillary bowed out gracefully when it was clear that Obama was going to win (and I'm sure that Obama would have done the same for her). There were a few Hillary "dead-enders" (PUMAs) but they were small and roundly ignored (and not egged on by Hillary). Many of Bernie's supporters went hardcore against Hillary by recyclying right-wing lies and smears, claimed that the DNC was robbing Bernie of the nomination, and trying to pressure Superdelegates to switch their support from Hillary to Bernie even though she was winning more votes overall. Bernie staying in to demand a say in the platform for the party of which he was a nominal member was presumptuous and arrogant IMHO and left a bad taste in my mouth. Whatever Bernie did at the DNC and during the rest of the campaign to help Hillary win against Trump obviously wasn't enough to smooth over some of his supporters' ruffled feathers enough to get them to vote for Hillary or sway them from going Stein or even Trump. There were other factors in the election, of course, but Bernie did not play a particularly good or productive role and whatever role he and his supporters thought they were playing in terms of pushing the Democratic Party to the left obviously didn't help us win against Trump last year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:43 AM

12. Yep. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:49 AM

15. It's my understanding that an overwhelming majority of those who voted for him....

 

Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)

then went on to vote for her. Considering some of the things we heard from some of his most ardent supporters is it any shock to find out some are morally and ethically bankrupt? Ideology doesn't dive their decision making in any way. Still, those sick individuals are a minority of those who supported Sanders. They have nothing to do with Democrats, the Democratic Party, or any type of knowledge of "it takes a community".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weekend Warrior (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:15 PM

31. The small number of hardcore Sanders people were probably lost to us anyway.

They are loud and have a big presence online that inflates the perception of how numerous they are in real life but they mostly represent the usual hard left people who probably sit out most elections or vote Green every election. Like you said, the vast majority of Sanders supporters voted for Clinton in the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Willie Pep (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:52 PM

45. Truth!

Bernie in the primary, Hillary in the GE. I was not swayed or deterred in any way. The ones that were probably were never voting for Hillary anyway.

On a side note, I hear there's an election coming up next year. Maybe it's time to focus on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weekend Warrior (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:47 PM

42. 77% Voted for Clinton.

3% or so didn't vote, just under 10% voted 3rd party or wrote in Sanders and - 12% voted for Trump.

So, even though 77% vs 23% looks like a vast majority, the thousand of Sanders supporters that voted for Trump are not inconsequential - in the 3 states that most affected the outcome (PA, MI, and WI) the number of Sanders supporters who voted for Trump were greater than Trump's overall winning vote tally.

So, no the BoBers are not the blameless, pure of heart keepers of the soul of progressiveness - They are instead a vital piece of the coalition that elected Fascism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Polack MSgt (Reply #42)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 02:29 PM

49. That is a much larger number than I was thinking. Wow. nt.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Polack MSgt (Reply #42)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 03:07 PM

56. But would any of those Bernie or Busters have been in Clinton's court whether Sanders had

 


been in the race or not, and is it a weakness of Sander's message that he was able to pull even people who lean republican to a candidate who is for social justice and who said unequivocally "black lives matter", or is it a strength? I come down on the side of that being a strength. It isn't that he pilfered these voters from Clinton but that he may have pilfered them from the GOP. So of course, there were supporters of Sanders who do not represent progressivism. Of course there were some who ultimately voted against Clinton. Of course there are others who don't trust the establishment already and who were never going to vote for Clinton but saw a champion of their values in Sanders.

The question is, how many voters WERE in Clinton's court, but were swayed to not vote for her in the GE BECAUSE of Sander's campaign. It is these voters who are the only ones who would give truth to the claim that Sanders disrupted Clinton's chances. That's the number I'd like to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #56)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 04:30 PM

70. In my opinion, trying to parse intentions after the fact

Is just about impossible.

But the fact remains that if the people who voted Sanders in the primaries had all voted Democratic or had all stayed home, Trump would be a WTF footnote in history. Not the 45th President.

That doesn't mean that Comey's fuckery is meaningless.

It doesn't mean that Russia is blameless.

It does mean that a vital demographic in the coalition that put facsists in power were wearing Bernie Sanders for President buttons at some point in 2016.

So it irks me that Sec. Clinton is (still) being attacked for missteps in her campaign, but no other factors can be discussed without risking the swarm of alerts and accusations that are currently the S.O.P. here in DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Polack MSgt (Reply #70)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 05:52 PM

71. But those factors should still be discussed honestly, and I've just presented ways in which Sanders

 


ability to reach certain voters does not then translate into Sanders sabotaging Clinton's campaign in any way, just because we can look at the votes and break them down the way they were above. This is a matter of narrative framing. In one framing, Sanders voters, spiteful, chose to vote for Trump rather than their candidate's rival. In another, and I think far closer to the truth, some GOP voters were receptive to Sanders message and when he was no longer an option, reverted to a wholly different anti-establishment candidate.

I agree, you can't take Clinton's loss in a vacuum of all of the factors, the biggest one being massive voter disenfranchisement, and very questionable vote tallying methods that we have-particularly as that pertains to their hackability. The biggest factor was still her though, but I grant that the most significant part of that factor that would permit people who otherwise wouldn't do so, to vote for Trump, is the smear job of actual falsehoods that have painted Clinton as the Devil for the last 15 years or so. In retrospect, I both understand the choice of running in-spite of being the one to fall on that grenade for so many years, but I also see the hubris in it...again, in retrospect. I never actually thought she had a chance of losing to Trump. I thought it was sewn up and that the media would take Trump down in the last leg of the race, which it did finally, though granted, barely lifting a finger to do so. What I didn't anticipate is them trying to rebalance the scales at the last moment to keep things a horse-race.

Her inability to get liberals to trust her is a different matter. I think its reasonable to blame them for not getting on board and stopping Trump, in-spite of being unconvinced by her. I also think its reasonable to blame her for not finding a way to connect with the far left of the voter spectrum. I think she was hopelessly doomed in any effort to connect with the moderate right in any way because of reasons I already addressed, so she really should have gone for these votes harder. She didn't have to stick to her guns to contrast herself and Sanders. All she had to do was to adopt what she did later anyway, and see if he had any more wind in his sails after that. I suspect that had any of that happened he would have exited the race sooner rather than later.

BTW, I'm not saying Sanders didn't have a small but significant role in Clinton's loss, but I don't think there is any hard evidence that can actually corroborate that. I allow for the possibility, although I am pretty damn skeptical of that being the reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Polack MSgt (Reply #42)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 08:44 PM

74. The percentage was higher than the comparable number in 2008.

 

Primaries always attract some voters who focus more on personality than on ideology. You can't assume that everyone who votes in a Democratic primary will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.

The fact is that the percentage of Sanders voters who voted for Clinton in the general was higher than the percentage of Clinton voters who voted for Obama in 2008 -- and that's despite the larger ideological gulf between the candidates in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Polack MSgt (Reply #42)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 10:22 AM

125. Hey Sarge, Who Did That Poll?

Those numbers seem hard to believe. I'd like to go that firm's website and see how that poll was conducted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #125)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 10:37 AM

128. synopsis of the findings are here

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/bernie-sanders-voters-helped-trump-become-president/

The original article is on The Wire - authored by Taegan Goddard is behind a paywall here:

https://politicalwire.com/2017/08/23/sanders-voters-tipped-election-trump/

chart on the breakout of Sanders' supporter votes on this tweet

pic.twitter.com/iOjKr7eoYJ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Polack MSgt (Reply #128)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 11:29 AM

129. Thanks.

I'll try to track down how the poll was done. I've seen other polls that contradict this one, so i'm curious as to which numbers are closer to the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:52 AM

17. Should we have never had a primary at all? Trump said much more vicious things about his

Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

primary challengers. And yet Republicans seem to have moved on from the primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SweetieD (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:00 PM

25. The huge difference was that repug primary candidates did not continually attack their own party...

like a certain someone who became a Democrat temporarily did.

His whole mantra throughout the campaign was to go after the Democratic Party establishment.

Who does that and not expect divisiveness, discord and lost votes?

YOU DO NOT ATTACK YOU OWN PARTY PUBLICLY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHENEVER SOMEONE THRUSTS A MIC IN YOUR FACE.

That seems like a no-brainer if you want your party to win but apparently someone didn't learn that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:17 PM

32. I completely disagree with that. I never saw Bernie attack anyone.He robustly campaigned for Hillary

And even did a unity tour to heal whatever divisions people felt were caused in the primary. All that he did on his own accord.
If Bernie wanted to destroy the democratic party, then he could have rallied his supporters to not vote for Hillary. But he didn't. I guess I am just not seeing any hardcore anti Democrat in Bernie. He went out of his way to make amends and his crime was the fact that he dared to actually challenge someone in the Democrat primary.

And yes I think the Republican primary comparisons are fair. Trump advocated for ideas that were insane and some ideas that were actually not a part of the Republican party platform. He also was extremely vulgar and insulting to his opponents. And yet I don't hear a peep from anyone about that primary. The only people I see mention those terrible things done by Trump are not even Republicans. Republicans unite together no matter what to get their awful agendas passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SweetieD (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:24 PM

34. You don't remember him constantly attacking the Democratic Party establishment?

Come on. I'm talking about during the campaign, not any unity tour.

Did you forget all that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:31 PM

35. The Unity tour where the DEMOCRATIC Party got trashed...

 

and where Party chairman Tom Perez got booed? That "Unity" tour?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Expecting Rain (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:33 PM

36. Forget the unity tour. During the campaign a certain senator constantly attacked his own party.

What's up, a short memory?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:37 PM

39. Well, maybe not "his" party.

 

I do have a long memory of the attacks on the DEMOCRATIC Party.

My party. Proud to say!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Expecting Rain (Reply #39)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:41 PM

41. Well ok then. Thanks for clearing that up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SweetieD (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 03:22 PM

59. You have selective memory

Holy shit..

He is STILL trying to divide the Democratic Party.. It's been his game since the 90s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SweetieD (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:35 PM

90. Robustely? Really? He never conceded and his support was lukewarm at best

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SweetieD (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 02:30 PM

50. "And yet Republicans seem to have moved on from the primaries."

 

You aren't paying attention. They haven't even come close to moving on. That is extremely clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:02 PM

27. need more fruitful discussions, like how do we take america back

 

and what are each one of going to do to make it so

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:04 PM

29. "Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:35 PM

38. "All" his campainging for her ??? He hardly campaigned for Hillary at all. Shame on him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #38)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 08:59 PM

77. Yes, all his campaigning Here is the best source I can find for his schedule

Scroll back from election day and you will find that he did sevral apppearances a day for much of September and October. http://blog.4president.org/2016/bernie-sanders/ NOT included here is that he did a few swings through Vermont to support Democrats here -- something that helped them bring out crowds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:50 PM

43. Since this post is still here, I am going to air it out.

Hillary is a good person who has dedicated her life to helping the most vulnerable in our society. That being said, Hillary lost the election because Hillary was a bad candidate. Even before she announced, there was a substantial number of people outside of the Democratic who just didn't trust her. She substantiated that distrust by waffling on the big issues of The Key Stone Pipeline and the TTP trade agreement and the e-mail situation. Towards the end of the campaign, she neglected to show up in the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. I believe she made another mistake by not selecting a minority for Vice President. What we should learn form this is that we should not nominate somebody because we are in love with them personally; we should use our critical thinking skills and nominate a good candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RDANGELO (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:43 PM

92. Your last sentence is ironic considering your avatar. I'm not sigling you out personally, but

many of his followers... well...

And she WON. she received more votes than any white candidate, and she was cheated out on the EC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:51 PM

44. Nuts....

I voted for her, but these excuses are getting ridiculous. Bill's sexual escapades damaged her as much as anything else. When are we going to hear him get blame!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floWteiuQ (Reply #44)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:08 PM

109. Are you serious? The Clenis argument? You sure you're in the right place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 01:52 PM

46. We didn't have these types of discussions after the 2008 election

Yes, the media screwed her over pretty bad. But I wouldn't blame someone who ran a long shot primary candidacy and then endorsed her in the general election. It's not like he ran an independent spoiler campaign in the general election. Bernie was actively campaigning for Hillary against that orange shitstain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 02:09 PM

48. theres just so many resources to go around and they got used up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 02:33 PM

51. Yes, he is a pox on the Democratic party.

He is constantly getting his supporters riled up to fight the party. He should start his own party and then he can say what he wants to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #51)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 04:08 PM

66. Wow

 

Sanders starting a third party and the Democratic Party splitting in two should be the last thing we want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #51)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:35 PM

100. You're right. He never should've been allowed to run as a Dem. It just divided us and it still...

having divisive effects.

This thread for example.

O'Malley and Hillary and whoever else got in, real Democrats would've campaigned without constantly attacking the party.

That hurt us tremendously as it turned many to third party candidates and many to stay home and some even to trump.

Sanders did that until the convention. He didn't actually drop out until the convention. Read the link:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9556266

He was dividing us at the convention even.

And then he dumped us afterwards and went back to being an independent.

God, with friends like that...I don't really need to finish that do I?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 02:42 PM

52. Did Clinton run a purely positive campaign against Obama in 2008?

 

Asking for a friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #52)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 04:10 PM

67. Nope

 

And remember, multiple surveys found that around 25% of Clinton primary voters ended up voting for McCain in 2008. One poll recently found that only 6% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump in 2016 (another found 12%).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarmonyRockets (Reply #67)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 06:53 PM

72. The Party was not attacked in 08...it was in 16 and that is the difference.

Not true about the 25% primary voters...

"According to Gallup Polls from June 9 to August 17 McCain's cross-party support fluctuated between 10% and 13%. In the poll for August 18 to August 24 support for McCain among Democrats peaked at 14%. From October 13 to October 19 polls showed McCain's support among Democrats to be 7%, which was the lowest thus far.[42] The CNN exit polls placed his Democratic support at 10% with the same percentage for liberal support. These results may not represent the general voters due to early voting.[43]

According to exit polls on Election Day, McCain won the votes of only 10% of Democrats nationwide, the same percentage of Democrats' votes that George W. Bush won in 2004"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #72)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:09 PM

97. Your claim "Not true" is itself not true.

 

The statement by HarmonyRockets that you purport to disprove concerned how "Clinton primary voters" voted in 2008. Your figures are for McCain's share of the votes of all Democrats.

Obviously, "all Democrats" includes the Obama voters, who were happy to vote for him again in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #97)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 10:13 AM

124. You numbers were off...and some Obama supporters may have been independents....the

way it was done makes it unreliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #72)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 07:15 PM

131. The Party was attacked?

 

What in the world are you talking about?

Anyways, it was indeed found that 25% of people that voted for Hillary in the 2008 primaries voted for McCain in the general.

https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/06/hendersonhillygustompsonPOQ.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 04:20 PM

68. Relitigating the 2016 primary...

Why does our strategy for 2018 and 2020 consist of shaming Bernie Sanders and his supporters... Do you think that will get them to come along later?

I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 08:45 PM

75. I not only understand it, I almost the same thing right after the election.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 08:51 PM

76. Time to move on from the blame game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:51 PM

94. agree

I agree. Bernie Sanders is an Independent who ran as a Democrat. He did a lot of damage to Hillary and when he went on stage with her when he finally conceded he used the occasion as an opportunity to sing his own praises and oh by the way vote for Hillary as she is better than Trump. But to me he was harsher on Hillary then he was to Trump. He questioned her judgment.....many more examples. He could have done more to help get Hillary elected. Honestly I feel he is glad she lost.
Ironically his wife is under fbi investigation and suddenly he questions the motives of the fbi... I am not a Bernie fan for sure and he will never get my vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 10:38 PM

101. haven't read the book.

 

that said, every excerpt i've heard so far amounts to "somebody else's fault"

not buying it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanny (Reply #101)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:20 PM

110. You don't have to buy it, but the consensus here is that it was indeed "somebody else's fault".

Only the BOB'ers keep arguing that it was all Hillary's fault as she was "a flawed candidate", but who the hell isn't? Susan Sarandon even told BOB'ers that Hillary would be worse than Drumphf. So, your dismissive "not buying it" is right up there with Sarandon's casual dismissal of the very folks she claimed to be fighting for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #110)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 12:21 AM

114. Not a BoBer

 

But I don't buy that Hilary's loss had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary. I think it was a perfect storm of bad/ unfortunate/ untimely actions and actors that gave us resident tRump...and I include Hillary in that list. Sorry if you disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shanny (Reply #114)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 12:57 AM

116. I'm just hopeful that the Democratic party will come to its senses about the far left. They are not

allies. They, like Trump's base, want to blow the whole thing up. That's the reason they focused with laser like precision on DWS and the DNC. Sanders' base kept getting cues from on high that "the system was rigged" against him, and the Democratic party suffered a huge loss because of their hurt feelings. Well, guess whose feelings are hurting now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #110)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 08:45 AM

120. Yes. A clear example of "words matter." Sarandon 's callous and off handed words were

easily repeatable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Reply #120)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 02:56 PM

130. Exactly. "Words matter". n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:01 PM

107. No. Fox, Breitbart, GOP, NYT, Judicial Watch all hurt her FAR MORE than Bernie

Bernie hurt her. But what really hurt her was:

Fox
"Clinton Cash" - hitpiece book by Bannon
Breitbart
Limbaugh
Rightwing radio
Judicial Watch - spent about a half BILLION over more than a decade to assasinate her character
NYT - Haberman, "emails". Read Charles Pierce on the NYT's role in damaging HRC
CNN - with Jeffrey Lord
Media members who allowed GOPers to lie unchecked on air or in print
Jill Stein
Putin's social media campaign

I'd probably put bernie at the bottom of this list, ahead of Rubio and Jeb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Tue Sep 5, 2017, 11:38 PM

112. Heaven help us all!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 12:25 AM

115. The vast majority of Bernie supporters voted for HRC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 08:50 AM

121. At the end of the day, after reading all the debate, I stand by my opinion...

Seasoned politicos know fully well that words used as weapons fully matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Reply #121)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 09:00 AM

122. Words do matter. HRC's words, too.


Quite a few Democrats and left-leaning independents who usually vote for Democrats and appreciated Bernie's campaign have to wonder what HRC thinks of them and their place in the big tent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 09:04 AM

123. As I pointed out here ad nauseum,

I never wanted HRC; I hoped someone who was not a neoliberal would challenge her from the left so that I'd have a candidate to support and a reason to engage. Senator Sanders did; it was never about him, but about what he offered.

I suggest that it was not "his disparaging assertions," but the despicable treatment of his supporters at the convention that further alienated his "ardent supporters." My own state was PUT IN THE FUCKING DARK because the DNC didn't like them chanting "no more war."



That's not exactly unity, nor any sort of effort whatsofucking ever, for unity. And it's only ONE example of many.

In the primaries, my state overwhelmingly supported Sanders. We were treated like shit at the convention. Still, my state strongly supported Clinton in the GE, and she got all of our electoral votes. From this state of "ardent" Sanders supporters. That shows your placement of blame to be false.

I'm sorry you are determined to play the blame game instead of trying to move forward; the continued attacks on the left-wing of the party and the nation will not help the party win future elections either.

I am an ardent supporter of issues from the left, and by left, I mean well to the left of the neo-liberal "centrist" Democrats. If the party wants the votes of those in my position, it would be better to reach out than to attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ninga (Original post)

Wed Sep 6, 2017, 10:35 AM

127. Of course he did. It's not about a popularity contest, it's about FACTS. The statement is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread