From what I've seen on this site some Hillary supporters, seem

more war and more inequality? With all due respect, no.

If the control the house which is likely they won't go for single payer. I'm nit saying don't try but we need to be realistic.

... even though in the debates Rubio seems to be holding the corporatist line with Jeb Bush.

But if we don't get any questions on H-1B in the Democratic debates and Hillary gets nominated, she could lose an election to Cruz or Trump on a question on them, when they have the far more populist answer on that topic that will drive independents and Republicans and maybe a lot of Democrats (that used to be Reagan Democrats) to vote for Trump or Cruz if they are worried about their jobs (there are a LOT of us unemployed these days!)

in the continuation of our nation's shift to the left and the building on the movement policies begun by President Obama. It's happening. We're feeling good about that. We feel confident that at this moment in history Hillary will be very effective in continuing the progressivist repair and advancement of our nation.

WHAT WE WORRY ABOUT is losing this election to a GOP candidate who as president will continue the corporatist and neofascist movement they've been working at for 40 years and have no intention of failing at.

We worry BIG that a rackety, intolerant, too-extreme candidate like Bernie would lose us everything and kill our leftward movement for at least the next 9 years.

We also worry that like the messages of contempt and rejection his too-impatient followers send out to those not already with him will repel the independents and Democrats whose votes Bernie must have. Bernie is running as a Democrat. Democrats want a candidate who shares their ideology, and these attitudes threaten to engulf and follow his campaign around like a poisonous miasma.

Also, I'm not exactly looking forward to a President Trump nominating a Judge Judy to the Supreme Court.

a narcissistic President tRump for the appointment is not a...dignified one. I feel we could, however, count on Senator Sanders to vote against the nomination. It'd be both the least he owed us, and the most he could do about it.

....considered for the Supreme Court.

She has written some strong pro choice opinions

Rackety.. what the heck does that mean?

Extreme? compared to what? Mussolini?

Intolerant? of what? the plutocracy, racists, liars, fools,

I can't even write any more in reply to this nonsense.

back to the game.

bad mistakes and really incompetently missed opportunities to widen his appeal, both among the many voter groups he must have and among his colleagues, many of whom long ago grew tired of his "holier than thou," as Barney Frank put it, attitudes. He is not suited to dealing with members of a very diverse society and its various needs and it shows. So naturally clueless and has trouble playing well with others instead of "rackety".

For the rest, enough of the games. You may not see it, but everybody else does. Why do you think he's struggling so badly with minorities? His inability to connect with them is a lifelong pattern of failing to respect the right of people to hold opinions and have interests that do not reflect his own. That actually was a factor in his settling in a very white state. He did not do well in New York.

They desperately need a break in this truly dreadful, for them, election.

Today's criticism of Bernie is so incredibly mild compared to what the GOP has waiting. Even if Bernie loses, their lies and twisted stories about Bernie will be used like a several-month barrage of missiles to illustrate all that's wrong with the left. That's if he's NOT the nominee and most of their attacks are aimed on Hillary.

If Bernie were to become our nominee, approximately $1 BILLION in right-wing funding would be devoted to ripping this secular Jew, socialist, out-of-wedlock father (and THESE are just some simple truths to begin with), etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. to shreds. Just wait until the Religious Right alone gets to work on him.

As for research, I've read just about everything published about Bernie's background -- except his own co-written book and published speech. I tend to pass on those for any candidate. I doubt even one of his ardent supporters have done that as even friendly coverage has a way of offering at least some of the criticism they find both intolerable and false-by-definition.

Look, the GOP is PRAYING Bernie takes Hillary out.

So am I.


approximately $1 BILLION in right-wing funding ...etc..

I am not afraid of them.

except his own co-written book and published speech. I tend to pass on those for any candidate.

Read his book. Just as he is not like any other candidate in my lifetime, neither is his book like any other..

What is intolerant or too extreme about Bernie?

And what "leftward movement" over the past 9 years are you talking about?

Except in the area of gay marriage and detente with Cuba and Iran (maybe???), I don't think we have made much "leftward" progress at all in the last 9 years.

Economically, the disparity in wealth is greater than since 1929.

So is the tax unfairness if you include the sales and property taxes that all poor people and the middle class pay. We pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes than do many very wealthy people I would wager.

African-Americans face police brutality, and we have all been made aware of it, but virtually nothing is being done to end it. In fact, when it comes to voting rights, African-Americans ARE WORSE OFF THAN THEY WERE TEN YEARS AGO.

Unions are weaker than in several generations.

We just missed the bullet on Social Security and it is constantly under attack.

Health care costs, especially the costs of pharmaceuticals, are on the steep rise.

Republicans are so cheap they will push poisoned water on school children in Flint, Michigan. They also want to increase the privatization and for-profitization of healthcare and thus make it inaccessible to the poor and many in the middle class.

Education policy, what with student loans and charter schools, is moving far to the right and higher education risks becoming the province of the intellectual and financial elites.

What in the world are you talking about when you speak of "leftward" progress in the last 9 years?

The fact that the House inevitably falls rightward to the point that pulling it even upright is pretty much viewed as impossible is nearly proof that "leftward" is not the direction in which our country has been moved by the acquiescence of the leadership of the Democratic Party, the failure of most Democrats to dare to speak up for the ideals that have traditionally been held high by Democrats.

Moving to the "middle" or "leftward" with Hillary and her corporate donors really means moving to the right, accommodating Republican craziness, and that is not what we need. Not at all.

If we want to win independents and others, we have to move left. We have to inspire them, give them hope. And left is where, as you admit, Bernie plans to take us.

Bernie presents the leftward option.

Hillary, on the other hand, presents the option of more acquiescence, more fear of the right, more corporate coziness, more disparity in wealth (unchecked), more lies about who is paying taxes, more disparity in educational opportunity, more land grabbing by the super-rich, more and more and more telling the middle class it should be just happy to survive while that tiny percentage on top take and take and take and thrive.

I do not see how Hillary can give voters any dream, any hope, any ideals, any goals, any values to vote for. Not with her current views.

Bernie will inspire lots of people who don't usually bother to vote to come out and take part.

Will Bernie be able to achieve all the goals he has set before us? Absolutely not by himself. And with our help?

Maybe. But most likely not. We are all realistic enough to know that being president does not give one person the ability to simply remake reality. That is not what we expect of Bernie.

What we expect of Bernie is that he show us the way, what can be done, pointing honestly to the hurdles in front of us, and inspiring US to jump them, to elect representatives and senators to Congress who will help us jump them.

At least with Bernie we are sharing a dream, and that is a good thing. With Hillary, there is just a boring recitation of very limited goals. Not much there at all.

Compare that to the great leaders of our past.

When Jefferson and Adams and Franklin and all of our Founding Fathers first shared their dreams, when Martin Luther King and Franklin D. Roosevelt shared theirs, the dreams seemed unattainable.

But their dreams, their unrealistic-at-the-time dreams, gave courage to others who began slowly to implement and work together to gradually realize those dreams.

Think how far we have come. Think how far we have to go, how much greater we can be if we dare as the great leaders of our history did.

In theory, we have universal suffrage (hard as the Republicans try to limit and deny it). In theory, we are allowed to have unions. We can work together to make universal suffrage and union rights reality.

We can work together to have universal healthcare as a human right (just as they do across Europe and in many other countries like Cuba).

We can work together to get big money out of our elections.

We can work together to save our environment, to reduce pollution and the poisoning of our water, air and the warming of our planet.

We can work together to better unite our country.

We can work together toward better income and tax fairness.

We can work together to reform our justice system from the local police to the Supreme Court.

We can work together to find a way to make state schools tuition-free.

We can work together to further expand the limits of our technologies.

We can do these things.

We can accomplish Bernie's dreams.

It's just a matter of will, and more and more people are willing.

Don't get mired in the negativity of the "we can't" of the Hillary campaign. This is precisely the mistake that Hillary made in 2008. And here we go again. Too limited. Schoolmarmish limited.

But that is Hillary's fate. If you accept the money from the folks who want to put the brakes on human progress, on those whose first priority is protecting what's "theirs" from the dreams of those who don't have quite so much, then you dare not dream beyond the present reality.

But always, it is those who dare to dream beyond the limited reality of the day who create progress, who move leftward, forward and into the future.

Hillary offers what she considers to be a "safe" alternative. In fact, it is regressive, a move into the illusion of a safer, slower past that never existed. Never, ever. Hillary's "safe" and "conservative" political philosophy will never succeed. Reality is moving quickly and leaving Hillary behind.

Bernie Sanders is the man of the moment, the man who, like Adams, like Jefferson and Madison, like Lincoln, like the Roosevelts (including Teddy who cleaned up the government of his time and Eleanor) were limited by their present reality, but who saw as he sees the future and knew as he knows the dreams and ideas that the future demands.

Feel the Bern!

This entire response is just one more reason that I am glad that you post here .

You are amazing, my friend!

and Democrats have completely failed to make any significant progress at all, Obama's two administrations being mostly a long list of failures, but the positive (?!) thinking of Bernie supporters is going to change this all. Once you finish getting the rest of the left out of your way and go win a couple of elections. Gotcha.

I have neither the time nor the patience nor such idiocy.

Do I have that many posts? Wow.. I had no idea.

Most are quite short.

Brevity is definitely a gift, and talent.

Why should Democrats get behind a Democratic candidate who attacks the single-payer system 81% of Democrats support with dishonest Republican fear-monger in about taxes (and neglecting to mention that private insurance premiums would be eliminated, saving the vast majority of people money) while saying that the Democratic candidate pushing for universal Medicare wants to dismantle Medicare? And who sends her child out to amplify those lies?

and we fight like hell for two years, then we put more Democrats into office. Raise and repeat as often as necessary.


There's no easy way out of situation we are in, it's going to be a lot of work. Anyone saying anything else is selling you.

Agreed, no changing minds here. You take care of yourself, there are people out there set on making this world a meaner, smaller place.

You claim you want a Democratic house and senate but when I bring up the fact your candidate refuses to lift a finger for the party I'm the bad guy for bringing it up.

Good bye!

If he wins he can replace her and her staff. Weaver has said he would.

We need the money for the party.

If he wins he will fire DWS and put his people in at the DNC.

His campaign said it would. By not raising money for the party he hurts our chances for taking the house.

WHEN he wins he WILL replace her and her staff.

And:


Tim Canova WILL boot DINO DWS's worthless Republican Lite ass to the curb in the primary.

This seems to be the underlying mantra of Hillary supporters. How depressing.

I guess its a more honest improvement over a duplicitous "hope and change" theme.

Party has been running things. We want Bernie to win, and the Democratic establishment has done everything within its power to make that win difficult.

Just wait until Bernie wins the nomination, then maybe our attitudes will change.

Right now, we give all we can afford (which is not a lot) to Bernie's campaign because we see him as the hope for America.

The money to the DNC argument is pathetically weak and irrelevant.

Why? Because the DNC is pathetically weak and irrelevant to the lives of most Americans right now.

The establishment Democrats back the TPP and do very little really to promote the interests of American workers. It's shameful. But the DNC is getting what it deserves for abandoning the interests of the American middle class and working people.

do you come across the idea that I think of you as a "bad guy"? Is it only possible for you to disagree with people you don't like? If that's the case please feel free to dislike me, just don't expect it to change my opinion or my likes/dislikes.

every time you lose an argument.
I find that rather childish.

that they have put you on ignore. Hope I'm wrong.

And we've had bigger conflicts. Hasn't put me on ignore yet.

If sanders wants to be the nominee of the party, then he has to help the party elect candidates down ballot. In many parts of the country, Sanders would kill many down ballot candidates

kills down ballot candidates how?

In Texas, socialism is a dirty word. http://www.fortbendstar.com/2015/08/05/theres-no-room-for-socialism-in-fort-bend-county/

unless you're willing to tell me that Barrack Obama is actually a socialist? But how many new voters could we bring into the mix?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwiHyYeEkrLKAhXCFj4KHVpPBiwQFggpMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2015%2Fjul%2F20%2Ftexas-bernie-sanders-speech-draws-crowd&usg=AFQjCNFYkC0uTiw5ySujELLfinJ4ejhrlg&sig2=sCBCbzipV6MJ26SGMBL1FA

Subject shows.

I'll be out of the Democratic Party in a few months, then the rest of you won't have to worry about the annoying voice from the back of the bus. Sure to make your life easier. Have a great night.

What the Socialism numbers mean is that Bernie could win the nomination only to hand the Presidency to the Republicans in a massive landslide.

And that is nothing to relax about.

telling it's self that it can't do anything so it might as well concede.

Feel free to beat me over the head with your opinion. I strongly disagree, I'll take a candidate with a scary word attached over one who has her fingerprints all over the worst foreign policy decision that the US has ever made. And I don't think that I'm the only one. But you take care now, you hear?

:large

I honestly do not think that Sanders is viable in the general election.

she'd be president. But if you're happy with the way things are now, good luck with Hillary. I think you'll need it.

Sanders is polling well in four states with 90+% white voting populations and is polling poorly in other states. President Obama won in large part because the African American vote is a key demographic in the Democratic base. Right now, Sanders is not being supported by that segment of the Democratic base or by Latino voters.

Super Tuesday will be a long day for the Sanders campaign

Maybe if the party were better managed, it wouldn't have such a hard time raising money from the American people.

Why does Hillary raise so much money from the rich?

Who is giving all this money to her?

Compare to who gives money to Bernie?

Let Bernie win and then see how much money the Party needs and where it will come from.

The Democratic Party has been gradually coopted by the the very rich. Time for that trend to end.

Most of us could care less who pays for the DNC. It has not been fair to our favorite candidate. And most of the big politicians have endorsed Hillary. Let her raise the money to support her friends.

We are out here raising money to help a candidate who represents the American people, not the big money interests.

We could care less about Debbie Wasserman Schultz's personal fiefdom.

Voters like to "balance" their representation. If left on president, then right on Congress. And vice versa.

There's every reason to believe that a nation choosing a president well to the left of mainstream might at the same time choose to ADD Republicans to Congress. This holds ESPECIALLY for those independents who might nervously vote left for a Bernie not out of conviction but because they saw the GOP presidential candidate as even less acceptable. A full third of the electorate now identifies as "independent."

So are Bernie's.

....isn't going to help get local Democrats elected.

If (big IF) he gets elected, the republican seats in both houses would probably increase and approach veto-proof majorities.

when more voters vote?

You are so wrong about that I want to see the rock you've been living under until you made this post.

While he has been a declared Independent until recently, while in Congress he caucused with the Democrats. That means he behaved as if he were one of them, and got committee assignments as if he were one. That's hardly someone with zero ties to the Democratic Party.

.....than just caucusing with them (he did that for self-serving reasons anyway, to get on committees) - ties include supporting and campaigning for and fundraising for Democrats. He's done little if anything in those areas.

She is firmly on the side of war and corporations.

I've talked to ten of our Senate candidates, and six of our House candidates. None of them are espousing a Sanders revolution. Who've you got instead?

who have the voters got?

But worry, I know you're happy with the way things are, sorry about needing improvements.

I'll support the most progressive candidate who can actually win. That's why I'm happy to support Russ Feingold; and why I supported Elizabeth Warren in 2012. But Sanders in a national election? I don't see the possibility.

until it happens. No problem, you're sure Hillary will not lose the primary and I'm sure that if that happens I will give up on the Democratic party. No sense in staying a part of an organization that works against me. DU will be much calmer for you then, if that does happen. Hope you're enjoying the games today.

...I assume you're referring to football?

The only football I watch is the type where you kick the ball with your foot.

are when I can watch the kids play.

That's the delusion Hillary is selling.



Obama pretty much cleaned up on the social agenda not leaving much for Hillary to accomplish. She has blood on her hands and loss of treasure going for her, so in that respect, she'll appeal to the Republican hawks. More war.

Hillary will play nice with WS and banksters. So she has that going for her, too. That seems important to her supporters.

Work with hawks and WS and banksters, that's what she means by continuing Obama policies.

Don't fool yourself. Neither will get their progressive goals accomplished in the next 4 years (period)

Bernie has to plant the seeds of a political revolution in his first term and hopefully we get the House and Senate back in 4 years to push his platform forward.

Hillary, meh, more of the same, but less. Like I said, Obama left her crumbs.

embarrassed the worst offenders.

He spoke directly to the people with humility but also with bold proposals.

Through the force of his personality and because of the desperation of the people and their willingness to support him, he won majorities at times in the houses of Congress.

He backed down the Supreme Court.

He had the utter support of the people of the United States.

Conservatives like to diminish and degrade FDR's accomplishments. But my mother who died not long ago in the full presence of her mind spoke of FDR often. She was a teenager and a young woman during his presidency. She remembered the misery. She remembered the wonderful inspiration that FDR was and the gifts of hope and opportunity that FDR shared with poor Americans.

We now and my mother included wish that FDR had done even more than he did for race relations and for the African-Americans especially in the South, but at least he advocated for, taught, values that later translated into readiness for a movement to support equal rights for all.

No president, no person, is perfect. We all try to achieve what we can to help our country improve during our lives. But FDR was a model for all of us to follow in that respect.

And one thing FDR did as did Martin Luther King was to share his dreams of equality and abundance for all Americans.

Bernie Sanders dares to share those same dreams with us. We need to grasp this opportunity and support Bernie as he seeks to realize those dreams.

No. Bernie will not, and especially not alone, achieve everything he proposes. Not every dream will come true in the next eight years, not every program will proceed smoothly. At 72, I know the reality of life.

But if we do not, as a nation, dare to dream -- of economic progress that we can share, of equality, of a better justice system (ours is close to medieval in my opinion), of universal healthcare, of better education, more affordable higher education, a more equitable sharing of the benefits of new technologies, more trust between government and the people, a fairer distribution of wealth, more investment in our commons as well as a better sharing of responsibility for the common good, we will cease at some point to be one nation.

As we see at Malheur, the Republican way and to some extent the moderate Democratic way leads to division, to relinquishment of the commons to a few greedy individuals and, who knows, quite possibly eventually to a sort of feudal kind of economy in which very few of us are the owners and the rest of us do their bidding.

Bernie is the one candidate with a real understanding and appreciation for the idealism that can make our country great again.

We should not settle for less than Bernie and his dreams.

If we settle for less, if we go with Hillary's very limited proposals, we will end up with far, far less and maybe over time even a more divided country.

We need high ideals and the dreams that go with them to stay united. We need to know that we are working together to achieve those ideals.

Feel the Bern!

+ a sideways 8.

You eloquently said what is in my head to a perfect response to anyone that wants to choose the "safe" candidate.

He has pulled the whole Democratic slate's discussion leftward, almost singlehandedly. Even if he doesn't win the nomination, his influence on the Party's platform will still be there.

pass his legislation.

Obama basically asked for that. He said he need help to make change happen. After his first two years when he did a lot, he really didn't get it.

The same applies for Hillary. In her case, the more progressive the House and Senate, the less her weathervane will blow off course.

Sanders is establishing himself in the early primary states. The rest of the country doesn't know him very well yet. If he wins the nomination, given what he's done so far financially online, I think he'll raise plenty of money for the party. In the interim, that can't be anywhere near his top priority.

As well, there are a variety of reasons affecting what has happened with this so far:
1. Sanders doesn't do many fundraisers or ticketed events like Hillary that tend to attract folks who can afford to give to the DNC.
2. Hillary's donors include the Wallstreeters and wealthy folks who like to buy politicians (including Hillary) who have excess money to give to the DNC. Sanders donors typically send him $30 and can';t afford to give to the DNC
3. As the DNC is essentially an extension of the Clinton campaign and has treated Sanders unfairly, Sanders supporters giving to the DNC would arguably be investing in an entity that is clearly against Bernie - so they'd be effectively or symbolically investing money that went against their own candidate at this point in time and therefore, investing against themselves. The Sanders campaign owes the DNC absolutely no favors. Their bias for Clinton that goes against their bylaws is a national disgrace.
4. Hillary has a super PAC that can help raise for the DNC while Sanders doesn't.
5. Sanders has little support from the established Democrats who help bring in DNC money because it's in their mutual interest (for themselves and their party) to do so.
So let's not be naive about why the Sanders campaign is where it is on DNC donations.

and has treated him unfairly? He shouldn't. If I were Sanders, I wouldn't give them a penny. In the present circumstances, that's betting against yourself. Get co-Chair Waaserman-Schulz and the rest of Clinton folks out of the control of the DNC that has been violating their by laws and you might have point. Until then. you really don't.

Your right, it's not an excuse. But you're wrong, because the above is it's a very, very good reason why they should give the DNC any money.

If he can't do this he has no business being our nominee.

Btw he can and will replace DWS if he wins.

organization figuratively bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders candidacy.

You're expectations are absolutely nuts under those circumstances. Thankfully, Sanders is not as big of a fool.

DWS and her politically corrupt cronies need to go now. Once there're out and we have honorable people in the DNC who follow the charter and bylaws of the DNC, then Sanders should consider helping to raise money for them. Until then, he should do exactly what any American should do when facing political corruption: don't give the corrupt organization any money.

Take care.

You do not raise money for people who are against you.

Code word for -- conservative; differential to existing power structure; prudent; well bred; conceited; supercilious.

I can hardly remember a presidential election when the Repuglicans didn't argue vigorously that the Democratic Party nominee was "not Presidential".

This country can't survive much more "realistic" public policy. We know what that means, too -- don't rock the boat; don't fight the banks or mega-corporations; always be ready for war; so-called entitlement reform; more 'free trade'; so on and so forth.

If the Democratic Party has become so risk averse, so stick-in-the-mud, so moderate-conservative, so pedestrian that an insider elitist like Hillary Clinton is all we can do ... then we are going to deserve what we get in November.

I think that would be the more appropriate definition.

As to whether Sanders or Clinton would be better at being President, well, that's the debate we're having, right?

the last clinton wh got a lot of repub things done

welfare reform destroyed the safety net

nafta killed jobs

100,000 cops added to the streets=for profit prisons staying full

banking deregulation brought on the crash of 08

i do NOT want any more clinton things getting done

What does 'presidential' mean to you?

Sorry but he is a legislator nit an executive material.

... from Repuglicans: he never had any 'executive experience'.

And Bush Jr. had two terms of "executive" experience ... and look what that got us.

("Presidential" based on the bloody history of the office is actually something no one should be.)

with only some of what they stole from the American people, was to get so greedy that their crminal corruption eventually directly affected so many people, who normally might have been a bit disgruntled but willing to just go on with their lives, to the point where people lost EVERYTHING, and almost everyone knows someone who did, and THAT has galvanized people across the political spectrum like nothing else could have done.

Iow, they did it to themselves, and now the people are more energized than they've ever been, to get them out of our government.

Those who are doing okay are unable to grasp the anger that is driving people to act on their own behalf.

They have so underestimated it they are in a huge state of denial still.

Hillary is part of the elite the people are so fed up with, she cannot win the GE because her base is so small, it just isn't enough.

The people have found the person who is and has always represented THEM, who has not enriched hmself despite his long years of public service.

In an election where the issue of most concern to the voter, on all sides, is the grossly obscene amounts of money that has hi-jacked our system, Bernie is the ONLY one people can trust.

his unicorn economic policies can only happen in China and as we all know China is not on the continent of North America or in the United States of America.

...while at the same time proclaiming that only an Independent can save the Democratic Party.

From my standpoint, it doesn't matter who is the better candidate. Clinton has the connections and the delegates and she's more likely to be the nominee. If you believe in what you say, you should be working on two fronts simultaneously: how to elect Sanders and how to process a 'Plan B' to push Clinton further to the left in the event she becomes President.

Denigrating one candidate or the other shows, IMO, a lack of principle because you (not you, specifically) are essentially saying your principles only apply to one person.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

I rather go with the candidates, whom do not take dirty money.

won't happen.

I will disagree with you there.

Many of her supporters on this site are as complete adversaries to my moral values as any Republican is.

I've always respected Bernie as a well-intentioned guy with great ideas. I just don't have any faith in him actually accomplishing anything.

He chose a certain path many years ago, and it was to operate outside the system. He has long been a voice of reason and conscience on the left, and I am immensely thankful for that. He did, however, choose a very different path than someone like Ted Kennedy, who spent his life working to get legislation enacted, even if it was imperfect.

Like it or not, our system wasn't designed to permit revolutionary change. The legislative process is convoluted and arduous, and that's very much intentional. You take the victories where you can get them and continue to build on your progress, no matter how long it takes. You build coalitions, develop allies, and get a powerful infrastructure in place. None of that happens overnight, and certainly not by a guy whose entire identity is based on going it alone.

That is why wages are stagnant no matter which party is in power.

So rare here these days. Thank you!

There's not a lot of that around here these days

I wouldn't read much into it.

Too much of a small sample size.

... don't forget to subtract a certain number of them as likely campaign volunteers or strategists...

Obviously there are some people here simply trying to frame the next argument based on the latest talking points...

It's common sense.

Hillary is not only a more qualified candidate, there is the additional bonus of her being America's first woman president.

She'll be able to reason with the "corporate powers" you speak of.

Cut it out. Was she able to reason with them then?

When an industry has paid you $300,000 for one-hour speeches, the tendency is for you to view and treat them more "reasonably", even in the aftermath of their having done the financial equivalent of blowing up the world.

Why should he? You think the proper power relationship here for the President is that he should try to get *them* to listen to *him*?

You're backing the right candidate for your Presidential qualification test. The one who went to Wall Street to defy the terrorists after 9/11.

if you elect Hillary.

I'm just one vote in that process.

The salient point is that you just said that you think that Presidents should try to get Wall Street to listen to them, rather than the other way around. And that the cozy financial relationship Hillary Clinton has cultivated with them will help towards that end. I think we've identified the crux of the problem here.

How has that gone so far? Did Wall Street listen to her when she "represented Wall Street" as NY Senator when she went down there in 2007 and told them to "Cut it out!"? History says otherwise.

I am supporting Hillary... it is not because of defeatism or the reasons you cite... I do love Bernie and want to live in his world..

my concern is elsewhere "I believe you have to fight, nothing is easy" ....exactly... and from what I have witnessed over and over is that collectively we do not have the will to continue the fight. I do not believe Bernie supporters have what it takes to continue the fight... it is very easy to be excited, work hard and accomplish a goal (electing your candidate)

continuing that work, month after month, year after year is another matter altogether... remember "Yes, We Can" well we elected President Obama and quickly enough it turned into "well, why hasn't he?" instead it should have been "well we need to work that much harder because Obama is struggling trying to overcome the Republican opposition and..."

Bernie will continue to do good work and hopefully we the people will soon enough understand, that until we are willing to sacrifice mightily for others and for the years to come, no politician, no matter how full of great ideas or wonderful they are, will do enough


until this becomes more than a meme...

There's nothing special about her, she's just more of the same.

exhaust coming from a tail pipe.

I find yours to be more defeatist .

Any talking point in a storm.

I think they are boutique voters who are well heeled enough to afford to eschew economic concerns and withstand the tyranny of a corporatist government, and focus solely on social issues.

You got that exactly right.

I suspect the "a crumb is better than nothing" mindset is the most common for those who are sticking to Hillary. For them, the corporate state already won.

Remember the flip out when a DU-er mentioned Stockholm Syndrome? It's worth noting.

follow the same old pattern of thinking they can ignore rw talk radio.

the rise of trump vs establishment GOP is proof of the power of talk radio.

and if bernie gets the nom and his supporters continue the biggest political mistake in history, like obama supporters, they will not be able to collectively say they got his back either.

dems could destroy rw radio if they stopped ignoring it- the only reason it works so well is it is invisible to them, while it kicks their internet ass.

I keep asking for an explanation as to how Sanders is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend another billion dollars. I like Sanders but I do not believe that he is viable in the general election and electablity is valid criterion for selecting candidates in the primary process

republicans because the system is too fucked up nothing will ever change. She's the best we can do. Corrupt politicians are all we have to choose from.

With that mentality in mind, why vote?

One of my key issues is the control and direction of the SCOTUS. I am living with effects of the SCOTUS gutting the voting rights act and we are all complaining about Citizens United. The next POTUS will pick three or four SCOTUS justices and control the direction of the court for a generation



I keep asking for someone to explain how Sanders can win in the general election when the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. I do not want to take a risk with the SCOTUS with Sanders because I do not think that he is electable.

ideology to Hillary than Bernie is. That chart I've posted a couple times, showing that Clinton agrees with the republicans on most issues, is probably unsettling. By supporting Sanders, I don't have to choose between my party and my principles.

We have to fight.

Their "realists". They probably would have poo pooe'd JFK when he declared we'd go to the moon. They would also have been happy with Sputnik. Stupid dreamers.

I don't find the Commodity Modernization Act to be a "good idea." I don't find blocking a pathway to citizenship for over ten million people to be a "good idea." I don't find support of the Iraq Liberation Act to be a "good idea." I don't find protecting specific industries that one likes from litigation to be a "good idea." The list simply goes on.