2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Bernie isn't a "real" Dem, why does he owe Hillary any allegiance?
If she wins the nomination, if he's not a "real" Democrat, then all the calls for him to "fall in line" are moot.
Since he's not a Democrat according to Hillary supporters, its illogical to demand his allegiance and support.
These comments that Bernie isn't a "real" Dem are silly imo. He says he's a Democrat. DWS accepted his candidacy as a Democrat, most of his supporters accept that he's a Democrat (adhering more closely to Democratic core ideals than many other "real-er"
!) Dems).
He's either a Democrat and therefore his endorsement of Hillary as the nominee (if she wins it) is logical. Or he's not a "real" Democrat and owes her nothing.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Just as any Democrat would stepping into the primary.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Someone who holds traditional democratic values, and votes with the Democrats? Or someone who adds a (D) to their name but has acted like a Republican corporatist war-monger all her career?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)"You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”
"It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party."
"The Democratic and Republican parties are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, they both adhere to an ideology of greed and vulgarity."
"I am extremely proud to be an independent. The fact that I am not a Democrat gives me the freedom to speak out on the floor of the House, to vote against both the Democratic and Republican proposals.”
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)As a lifelong democratic voter myself, I've seen it and it's really disappointing. His ideas and words have brought in so many new people that could be interested in the party, but they don't like the corporate nature of it. Sanders' positions are as liberal and progressive as any liberal politician we've had in our party for a long time. The most recent senator with his credentials I can think of would be Russ Feingold.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)out there. I personally believe we are not headed in that direction. If I saw Sanders do ANY of the work needed, to make this party better? I would be all over it. He hasn't. He has not done a damn thing to help actualize his dreaming. That is a waste of time. In the meantime Obama is moving forward. Not as hard and fast as I may like, but I am honest enough to know he is in the right direction. Clinton will be too, and maybe more aggressively.
When I see we do not even discuss our rw congress, yet act as if anything Sanders is suggesting has a chance in hell, I clearly recognize Sanders fail. He had possibilities, but he was never and not now into doing his homework.
Not good enough.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)...English isn't your first language. However, if it is, it is really difficult for me to continue to carry on any sort of serious dialogue with someone whose sentence structure, grammar and just basic overall grasp of language are so poor. If English is your second or third language, I apologize, because in that case it would be great. It's frustrating enough to read comments from Hillary supporters here when I feel like she's the antithesis of what democrats used to stand for, but to have to read a response with sloppy grammar is just a bridge too far for me.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)That's a wonderful way to rationalize his triangulation towards the Democratic party.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)I like the way you wrote the same sentence twice
PufPuf23
(9,684 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Sanders has been frank, and there is plenty for people to listen to him, and make their own choice. It doesn't matter to you. It does matter to me.
PufPuf23
(9,684 posts)I can be a "good" Democrat as a voter and stay for the long term and criticize often and loud but a Democratic pol cannot do that and stay in good status with the Party.
You cannot say what does and doesn't matter to me.
You make a habit of projecting thoughts and disrespecting others at DU
I like that Sanders is frank. Hillary Clinton has spent a career in public life being disingenuous and parsing words.
I backed into Sanders as a candidate to support but Sanders is refreshing in that he is the first Democratic candidate to get this far towards POTUS since the 1970s as a New Deal Democrat. Surprised me.
I cannot comprehend how one could call themselves a feminist and support Hillary Clinton without criticism of her history.
That is not to say one should be for GOP or Sanders or not to be a supporter but Hillary Clinton has taken some outrageous acts counter to her rhetoric regards the well-being of women and children. How can this have missed your comprehension? You may well still support Clinton and note Clinton's rhetoric has not matched her actions regards to women and children.
No pol is perfect and neither are they a blank slate.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Sanders words are not a big deal. I was replying ot the snarky comment about yippee, you can copy and paste. So no, it is not about projecting.
I am cool with Sanders being frank. And when frank, people should be able to easily get what is being said. Again, those words he used out loud do not seem to bother you. They do me. They paint a man I do not like or respect or think he is an evolved thinker.
You cannot comprehend why a feminist would support Clinton? All these months of all the conversations and you say you cannot comprehend why a feminist would vote for Clinton. See, i suggest listening. Lol. That listening, cool shit.
How have you missed that Sanders has sat right beside Clinton in every decision pertaining to the women and children but one vote. Votes leading into it, votes after has his name on it. But, you ignore it so that you can accuse Clinton of something while ignoring Sanders own participation. I do not respect that. I also see the hypocrisy of who Sanders is, as he participated, yet washes his hands clean.
PufPuf23
(9,684 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)me, that I watch so many of you do continually to shut down conversation while saying truly horrendous things about another person.
What ind of person are you, that you would ask that question? It certainly allows me to know clearly that you have no desire for reasoned conversation, at all. So do not expect a reason reply when asking someone such a stupid, disgusting question.
I get this is Sanders 101 to shut Clinton supporters up. You all have only been using it just shy of a year now.
supporting Sanders do you have a thought or care about the women and children..... just right along with the rest of them in their votes.
oh.... BTW, I tend to say people because the death of men matter to me too.
PufPuf23
(9,684 posts)Men matter to me too. I can only bear so much self-hate.
I am an individual not a "you" plural.
So we agree on some things, probably most things even. Peace.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)PufPuf23
(9,684 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You hide your petulance behind implication well.
PufPuf23
(9,684 posts)
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)which are you referring to?
Would that be the party circa 1828-1860 that favored republicanism, slavery, a weak federal government, states' rights, agrarian interests (especially Southern planters) and strict adherence to the Constitution?
Or the Democratic party of the late 1800s like the pro-business Bourbon Democrats or the 'solid south' racist Democrats?
The Agrarian Democrats of the early 1900s that put Woodrow Wilson in power?
The FDR coalition of 1932 - 1968?
The 'New Left' influenced Democrats of the late 60s and 70s?
The 'New' Democrats that has it's roots in the 60s but were most influential in 1980s - present?
The 'progressive' movement that has utterly failed to win anything?
All these groups were/are distinct. Which are the 'traditional' ones you refer to?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)That brought us out of the Great Depression, sparing millions from starving to death. Values that enabled the U.S. and allies defeat not one, but two, Imperial War Machines and keep the peace after. Values that protected rights of workers while also building the US into the worlds largest economy. Values that established civil and voting rights for PoC. Values that recognized the damage to environment humans were causing, and implemented laws and regulations to clean it up.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)to put herself in the same bag as FDR and JFK.
Bernie embodies FDR values. Hillary does not. In fact, USA has moved so far to the right on the political spectrum that Hillary would be considered a moderate republican in the 90s...
Hillary's values seem to shift after the political landscape. What do we call it again?
Weathervane politics!
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)How so? (careful, now)
Hillary's values seem to shift after the political landscape. What do we call it again?
Representing your voters?
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Unlike Hillary, he thinks of the People.
Hillary only cares about herself, power and keeping her corporate friends from Wall Street happy.
She's got nothing to offer and nothing in common with FDR.
He wants universal health care. She does not.
He wants to tax Wall Street hustlers. She does not.
She helps with arms deals with regimes that hates both women, LGBT and Atheists.
Bernie does not.
3rd way "democrats" have helped republicscammers dismantle what FDR built up.
She cares not about voters. She didn't care about the welfare of the ""Super-predators"" in the 90s, seeking punishment rather than rehabilitation. Bill Clinton never invested in poor areas, but militarized the police and treated American kids as enemies.
Hillary never cared for LGBT rights until 2013. Bernie have been an ally of the community since Day 1.
If you think that she "evolved", you are naive.
In other words, she has never been in front of GOOD policies. She has always "lead" from behind.
When asked about her close ties to Wall Street she wants others to show their first.
Well knowing that Bernie doesn't have any, and moves the goalposts to republicans as well. As if they are the ones trying ton win progressive voters.
She is locked stocked and barrow republican touting "social issues" she really doesn't care about. Her identity politics is nothing but a sham. She has the record to prove her lack of leadership, principles and poor judgment.
She runs an aggressive anti-gun campaign in CT, and praises the 2nd Amendment, pandering to gun nuts in Pennsylvania while accusing Bernie of siding with the gun industry (while she spends money on this ad with cash from NRA lobbyists),
Her taking corporate money makes her as trustworthy as a faith healer.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)You're a so-called Democrat and don't know about FDR, the similarity Bernie ha sn with him and the dissimilarities Hillary has to FDR?
Has the American educational system deteriorated that much the last 25 years?
FDRs, Bernie's and Hillary's take on Wall Street will give you a clue.
Thom Hartmann have some clips on this issue.
Wall Street hated FDR, and hates Bernie. They give money to Hillary for her to give secret speeches while she claims to be tough on them.
And if you are still confused about Hillary's stance, check out her anti-gun campaign in CT, and her pro-gun campaign in Penssylvania. She's obviously siding with the gun manufacturers against the Sany Hook victims in the latter state.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)NOT your opinion - factual, with supporting evidence.
You're a so-called Democrat and can't do that?
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)That resembles FDR regarding Wall Street?
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)And evidence that she is remotely similar to FDR with her close ties to the institutions that tanked the economy.
She said "Cut it out" in 2007. One year later, the same banks got a 700 billion dollar bailout.
Care to explain?
Care to explain how Bernie don't have any similarites to FDR? The answer is alredy in my previous post if you had the intellectual deceny to compare what Bernie has said about them and what FDR have said.
Care to Hillarysplain her shapeshifting from CT to PE regarding guns?
Love this though
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)"You aren't referring to Bernie then"
A claim without substance. Perhaps you never watched Thom Hartmann, or know much about politics, eh?
Because your kind of igniorance is stunning.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)"That means not Bernie Sanders"...
I have already given you a clue, but you haven't explained anything and yet expect that Bernie voters will fall in line after your side's Karl Rove tactics...
Sorry. You, like Hilary are failing in your quest for Bill Clinton 3.0 in the WH. Because getting allies you are not in this. But its son nice to see Hillary bots take after their Queen. Not a single honest bone ion your bodies.
So again, what di you mean with your statement?
Perhaps you should find someone who can read to interpret what i wrote to you.
I want to see Hillary's Wall Street transcripts, and some explanation how you and she can be anti-gun when you support a candidate who through her position helped the American arms industry sell guns to regimes that kills women and children.
As a Hillary surrogate, you owe us some answers. And you owe us an explanation why you think Hillary is a progressive and Bernie is not. You can give an easy how Hillary are entitled to take credit for FDR while Bernie does not.
You can explain how she is honest on Wall Street, her transcripts, her ties to the Saudis, her support for criminal military juntas, her war on black kids (super predator remarks which culminated in Tamir Rice), and her double speak regarding guns in two different states in less than 2 days..
Seems that this "lobve and kindness" meme doesn't apply to Bernie voters...Only the people Hillary bots are using to play the victim with, as well as repuoblicans, since you seem to be more than willing to play games with republicans than getting the votes from the REAL progressives.
You are ot a liberal, nor a progressived since you support a candidate who's husband sought to dismantle FDRs legacy. The fact that you aqnd Hillary are trying to hijack a legacy you are trying to destroy is almost as disgusting as your astroturf attacks online...
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)give a factual policy by policy comparison of FDR vs Bernie
NOT your opinion - factual, with supporting evidence.
You're a so-called Democrat and can't do that?
PufPuf23
(9,684 posts)Clinton represents the money and power of power and wealth.
Her political values preserve the priviledge of her corporate and wealth backers while slicing and dicing the voters to leverage the most votes.
Clinton plays to identity and values voters. As a neo-liberal, her positions are more favorable for cultural and socially liberal interest groups than the GOP. But also as a neo-liberal, Clinton's cultural and socially liberal positions are less fixed than the positions of a committed liberal.
Clinton mirrors voting blocs for votes rather than leads on principle more often than a true liberal or progressive.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)historians such as Alan Brinkley and David M. Kennedy have agreed that since such ambitious plans had no chance of success in the political climate of 1944 and FDR could not have been serious about this second Bill of Rights. Roosevelt's Democratic Party lost 45 seats in the previous midterms and lost the popular vote by over 1 million votes (3.9%).
A year after FDR proposed them, no action was taken by either him or his small congressional majority. Why didn't he propose it when BEFORE Dems lost so many seat? He didn't think he needed to.
PufPuf23
(9,684 posts)The strategy is to seed the future political battlefield to reach a time to pull them together.
Unfortunately, the time of success takes major disaster(s) to put the progress in place; some examples are the civil war and slavery, the depression and New Deal legislation, and the civil rights battles and then successes of the last 50 years.
History is longer than POTUS cycles.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)The fact remains, though, Roosevelt DID NOT propose it when he had the capital and allies to possibly pull it off. He did it when it has no chance of going anywhere - much like Bernie is doing now. He was pandering for votes.
PufPuf23
(9,684 posts)Immediately in the wake of FDR's death, folks were already trying to roll back the New Deal and the Dulles et al were paling around with Nazis for good business opportunities. That effort has continued to date originally contained in the GOP but now spread to the Democratic Party as well. Very sad.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Even when Dems gained SOME of the lost seats back in '44, the party never mentioned it.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And now DWS and Bernie say he's a Democrat. Frankly after his work supporting the Democrats for a couple decades maybe they owed him.
He's a "real" Democrat.
If he's not, then stop insisting he fall in lind behind Hillary.
It can’t be both ways.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)As far as a 2 way street (the point I think you're making) he's brought millions of millennials into the voting booth.
I hear the DNC is salivating at getting their hands on his donor and volunteer lists with millions of new names, addresses and phone numbers.
His decades of caucusing and voting with the Dems in Congress, all of that matters if we're talking about service to the party.
Beyond which Bernie says he's a Dem and DWS, the party chairwoman agrees.
But if you want to continue to insist he's not a "real" Dem then he doesn’t really owe them/ Hillary anymore than he's already provided.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)to HRC to circumvent campaign finance laws.
Money laundering!
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Tainted love.
Another great song.
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)But now wants him to think of the team? Whatever.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Tortmaster
(382 posts)... wants him to run as an independent.
BeyondGeography
(40,797 posts)Maybe start there.
Arkansas Granny
(32,264 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...and parlaying quid pro quo into a $3 billion Foundation slush fund? Those kind of benefits?
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)
uponit7771
(93,469 posts)
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)Bernie has a net worth of around $700k. That's 3 30-min speeches to Wall Street for Hillary. If he's "cashing in" with the gun lobby, he's doing a shitty job of it.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)He has worked right alongside the Dems for years and has been a Dem in everything but name only. And only now, he isn't Dem enough for you because he hasn't pledged allegiance? He's obviously been Dem enough for the Dem Senators, just not good enough for you.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)He is more of a Dem than she is. He is a Democrat. She is a right-leaning centrist.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)
monmouth4
(10,627 posts)onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I registered as a Democrat in 1966 and have never changed my registration. I now live in a state which doesn't register by party.
When I registered I didn't consider it a marriage or contract but a way to vote in primaries that require a label.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. Friedrich Nietzsche
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I don't owe Hillary anything.
Squinch
(58,172 posts)Hillary anything.
Nor does Hillary OWE him anything. If he can give her his support fine. If not, also fine. If his followers can give her their support, fine. If not, also fine. It would be great if they support her, but if they don't we will still win. These suggestions that things must be offered to them if they are to vote for her, though, are silly.
But of course Sanders is not a real Democrat. He has said as much himself for decades. I tend to believe him on that one. His visit to the party was an expediency which he was generously allowed. It means nothing to the question of whether he will support Hillary or not.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)He's not a real democrat, and doesn't deserve our support, yet still he owes us his allegiance.
Same sort of hypocrisy we use to blame independents when republicans are elected, but we don't want to give them a say in who is permitted to run with the party's support.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I would hope Bernie cares about that.
insta8er
(960 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)This is why it's hard to take some of you Bernie folks serious.
insta8er
(960 posts)paying her, banking industry, prison industry, the war industry, big pharma. Are also contributing to all or most of the GOP. This is why it is so difficult to take folks like you serious. But you know those facts, they are out there with the supporting numbers. You just chose to ignore them.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)Oh, well.
Her supporters think she can go it alone. Happy trails to them.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)There can be only one winner.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)They aren't interested in a Democratic Party that represents corporate interests and the wealthy.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)She won.. he lost.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)She can't win GE without Sanders supporters, and she's poisoned the well and burned the bridge.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Republicans will eventually rally around their nominee. Won't happen with Hillary.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The GOP is toast.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)it will be Hillary as long as the Bernie clan doesn't try to fuck it up.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,270 posts)Blaming the Sanders people won't be an option. No one will buy that excuse.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...is to alienate 40% of Dems and Indies? Good luck with that. Hello President Trump.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I know a couple die hard Dems who have thrown in the towel and won't vote for Hillary. Are the pollsters considering those? What about the turnout numbers so far which is overall down compared to 2008? Are pollsters basing all their projections on 2008/2012?
Generally, if turnout is down, that hurts the Democrat. Both these candidates are also very unlikable and divisive. Trump is more so. But Hillary is a very poor campaigner when it comes to unity.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It must be that Clinton meth.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Might be nice but not mandatory.
Autumn
(48,723 posts)IMO
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)but would be able to gift Hillary and the DNC with any supporters and money he attracted. Seems to have nipped them in the nethers. Surprise!
And "Democrat" is such a bendy word these days! Debbie Dino campaigns for her GOP buddies, and is considered a Democrat. So the field must be wide open!
WhiteTara
(31,159 posts)could be called into question. If the Democrats win back the Senate he would chair some committees.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The important question is not whether it's better for Hillary if she wins or if the Republicans do.
The important question is whether it's better for everyone else if Hillary wins or if the Republicans do.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)
boston bean
(36,853 posts)
Turin_C3PO
(16,385 posts)Seriously, I believe Hillary has the nomination in the bag but what would it hurt for Bernie to continue spreading his message and fulfilling his promise to stay in at least until all states have voted? Ideally Clinton can pivot to Trump and hopefully Bernie drops direct attacks against Clinton and then endorses and campaigns for her in June.
Sounds like a win win to me.
moriah
(8,312 posts).... have suggested those things (trying to use the Superdelegates to overturn pledged delegates after arguing fiercely that was unDemocratic) or attacked Clinton for raising money for down-ticket Dems.
From what I can tell, Bernie himself does bear some responsibility for hiring people who say those things, but I can't tell what kind of private discussions he may have since had with those people to say "I am not going to embarrass you publicly yet, but don't say that crap anymore or I'll be forced to officially repudiate it".
Since it's that conversation which very well may have happened that reflects more on Bernie's actual character than hiring people who got a little too passionate, it's a wait and see for me on how people start acting, particularly after Pennsylvania.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)If Hillary wins the nomination and she asks Bernie to be a part of her team, I hope Bernie kindly declines.
I felt this way in 2008. I thought Hillary should have said no to Obama when he asked her to be SOS.
It's all political BS. They all sling mud at each other and then pretend they're buddy-buddy? So fake.
moriah
(8,312 posts)But maybe I am wishing for too much....
LuvLoogie
(8,493 posts)You're so fake! Ew!
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)between Bernie and Hillary?
Yes, it does remind me of high school.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That is how they got where they are.
kstewart33
(6,552 posts)Bernie's not acting like a Democrat. By his own admission, he joined to gain greater "media awareness" for his campaign. He doesn't give two hoots for the party which he has criticized for many years (doesn't he have a lawsuit against the DNC?). But he registered with the party so there's a catch: he must abide by the party rules.
If he doesn't abide, he should leave the party and run as an Independent. But he won't do that because he'd lose the advantages of party membership which is the only reason he joined in the first place.
He can't have it both ways. But he seems to behave like he can.
And you wonder why the supers don't like him? Maybe it's the two-timing. Maybe it's the harassment and death threats they've received from Bernie supporters.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And now DWS and Bernie say he's a Democrat. Frankly after his work supporting the Democrats for a couple decades maybe they owed him.
He's a "real" Democrat.
If he's not, then stop insisting he fall in lind behind Hillary.
It can’t be both ways.
kstewart33
(6,552 posts)Bernie is officially and formally now a member of the Democratic party. So he must abide by the rules. And one of those rules is endorsing whomever gets the Democratic nomination. Is it written down officially? I don't know, but I do know that in our history when the Democratic party was truly Democratic (e.g., not the Dixiecrats), the losing Democrat opponents endorsed and supported the Democratic nominee.
So if he is a Democrat and we both agree that officially as a registered Democrat he is, then he endorses Clinton and supports her.
But now, he's playing the 'only if she does what I tell her' card. No go. He's not playing by the rules. He wants it both ways. He'll take the party's advantages but then create some advantages of his own even if it greatly damages his party.
I think I know a little something about politics as in my twenties, I was a paid strategist on 2 Congressional campaigns (one is now a senior Republican Senator, a turncoat many years later, but still). I predict that if Bernie does not endorse Clinton, his career in the Senate is over. Yes, he'll be there sitting in chambers, but I'd be surprised if any Democrat will work with him. Even Jeff Merkley who even now is being very careful in how he frames his support. If Hillary loses the election, the payback will be even worse (for example, the life of Ralph Nader after 2000).
What's that tacky saying? Politics ain't beanbag. Well, it's true. And in this case, them's the party rules.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I'd like to see that.
Beyond that point however, I'm not the one insisting Bernie isn't a real Democrat. There's a hell of a lot of Hillary supporters who insist on that and even Hillary has taken swings at Bernie on the issue.
And i know that saying. Politics ain't beanbag and I presume Bernie and Hillary are entering the time frame when the blows get bloodier.
I've been thinking a lot of Bernie’s position in the Democratic party if he doesn't win and I wonder if he's calculating on this candidacy being a major effort that he expects to have ignited and others will have to carry on.
If he won (always a long shot), then he has a powerful bully pulpit. If he lost, he has to have known the Clintons will destroy his career anyway no matter how graciously he endorses/works for her. You and I both know the Clintons will never forgive him for running against her (and double the sin of actually doing well).
So I think he's well aware his Congressional career is over if he doesn't win the nomination. If I were him, I'd be thinking what the hell, I'm going to do everything I can to ignite as many people as I can on these issues...
Hillary has telegraphed nothing but disdain for Bernie in the past weeks, her camp even questioning whether they'd give him any speaking slot at the convention.
And Nader was a hell.of a lot younger when he tangled with the PTB and has had to endure many years in Siberia. Bernie’s a grumpy old man - he knows whatever purgatory they sentence him to (and they will), he'll have kept his integrity to the end.
kstewart33
(6,552 posts)Now you know and I assume that there is no written rule. An unwritten rule in government is that no elected official speaks negatively about the United States in a public speech while overseas. An unwritten rule, but one that smart politicians do not break.
Nader handed the election to GW Bush, saying there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Democrats see the tremendous cost of Nader's actions. I support his banishment. But at least, Nader was not a member of the Democratic party.
But Bernie is.
Clinton will not destroy Bernie's career. She will ignore him. If Bernie hands the election to Trump, Congress will ignore him, as they mostly have in his 25 years in Congress. Bernie's actions will have destroyed his career. Clinton knows this.
I've never been a Bernie supporter but I've admired him for his commitment to his issues. However, lately I've lost respect for him because he knows that his platform will never be achieved but he is selling it to young voters anyway. You say that Bernie has integrity. My view is that he is conning his supporters. That's not my definition of integrity or honesty.
This morning on Meet The Press, Bernie was asked why he's lost primaries in the states where income inequality - his top issue - is the worst. His response: poor people don't vote. Bernie continues to display a lack of integrity, blaming the very people he so wants to help.
Bernie is not the Saint, and Hillary is not the Satan. They are both politicians with all the good and bad that comes with it.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Gore won actually. Maybe you've forgotten that. It's been overwhelmingly proven it wasn't Nader's fault not that that has stopped the false meme or his banishment to Siberia. ..
I too remember the old days of politics stopping at the water's edge but that's exactly what it is, an old saw. Gore travelled to Saudi Arabia and criticized then President Bush in 2006 iirc, Eric Cantor went to Israel and criticized Obama for his anti Israel position in 2010, Rand Paul went to Guatemala in 2014 criticizing Obama's child deportations etc etc etc.
As for Bernie running a con, well thanks for the belly laugh. No really. As a self proclaimed expert, I'm envisioning you as shocked, shocked! to find gambling er, extravagant promises by politicians to voters. I mean, that's NEVER happened before...lol. Its as though you really believe Hillary’s proposals aren't similarly pie in the sky (or that both would have zero chance of passing anything with a Republican congress).
Here's just one example of a Hillary unicorn: every one of her social and economic proposals are met with a tax credit - ACA health care deductibles? Tax credit. Businesses that institute profit-sharing plans (cost: $20 billion over 10 years)? Tax credit. Hire disabled veterans? Help for families to defray the cost of caring for their elderly members at home (a $10 billion, 10-year item)? Tax credits.
When it comes to paying for these “targeted” benefits, plus her other promises such as universal preschool, who will pay? Oh, only the richest 3%.
You know that's a total unicorn. I know it. Everyone and their brother knows it. It doesn't stop the Hillary support despite the fantasy. It hasn't stopped your support (or "respect" - small chuckle).
What it is however, is exactly what politicians do - make big, impressive promises and then get real once in office. At least Bernie is honest enough to actually say the middle class will pay more taxes (in return for no health insurance premiums). I mean really, whose running a con?
Lastly as for Bernie’s future going forward, I'd like to say you've simply missed the many decades of the Clintons' notorious vindictiveness towards their opponents. But since you've pushed your CV out there then I know you know exactly what awaits Bernie if he doesn't win the nomination.
Your denigration of Bernie’s comments on the poor on MTP illustrates your privilege. I've been poor (and at one time homeless). Surviving each day consumes every last thought. That decade was lost to me politically. While I'm glad you've obviously never been poor, I know exactly what he meant.
kstewart33
(6,552 posts)Please don't make negative assumptions about me because I don't support Bernie. I worked 2 jobs in college, and 2 in graduate school to pay the bills. We almost lost our home because we were having trouble paying the mortgage, for geez sake. It was hand-to-mouth for years. So please don't talk to me about illustrating my 'privilege.'
Gore did not win. He was not inaugurated. Bush won. And within a few years after, hundreds of thousands of innocents died in his obscene war. If one is handy, please give me a source that found that Nader did not make the difference in Bush's win because I haven't seen the analysis.
Of course, Hillary is loaded with promises. But so is Bernie. They are politicians. The difference, IMHO, is that Bernie's promises are completely unrealistic. He knows they are unrealistic. For geez sake, he's spent 25 years in Congress. He knows the numbers and how it works. But he is still promoting free college, medicare for all, and breaking the banks. None of that will work in the present Congress and after the 2016 elections. Obama barely got the ACA passed and that was with Democratic control of both houses. How is Bernie going to dismantle the health insurance industry that comprises a sizable percentage of our GDP? How is he going to get free college passed in the House, or in the Republican-controlled state legislatures that must fund 1/3 of the total cost? The Republicans own over half of the country's state legislatures. Bernie knows this.
So let's agree that we disagree and neither of us will convince the other. I respect your view especially because you are well read. You've done your homework to support your views, and so have I.
But I respectfully wish that the Bernie supporters would stop the outrage and castigating and stereotyping anyone who supports Hillary as stupid, corrupt, deranged, and whatever else that's typically thrown our way. Every time I post on this forum, I feel like I'm facing a firing squad! 
Hope you have a good day today.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And "calm down"? Could you be any more condescending?
That wasn't the tone I took from this (what I thought was a fairly respectful) discussion.
Some last points:
On Nader being falsely accused of throwing the election:
Here's a good overview. ..
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
Here's an analysis with more links to source data...
http://disinfo.com/2010/11/debunked-the-myth-that-ralph-nader-cost-al-gore-the-2000-election/
I find your conclusion that Hillary's unicorns are so much more believable than Bernie’s to be unjustified. I laid out exactly how her tax credit proposals are flawed. I've pointed out that Hillary will face the exact same Congress.
You have conveniently ignored those points and simply reiterated your views that Bernie’s unicorns are a con.
Well then it's impossible not to make the comparison that Hillary's proposals are cons as well....
Or we agree that these kinds of proposals are what candidates do and go forward from that point.
kstewart33
(6,552 posts)
jpmonk91
(290 posts)Bernie reminds me of the great FDR
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
Response to riderinthestorm (Original post)
Baobab This message was self-deleted by its author.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Anyone supporting Clinton has to somehow block out on a daily basis her support for TPP, doma, dadt, cluster bombs, Libya, Syria, Honduras, Haiti, Iraq, capital punishment, torture, dark money pacs, fracking, cuts to social security, cuts to reproductive rights, and opposition to uhc. So their morals have been placed out of sight until further notice.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Her camp has even been so disdainful as to suggest he won't get any speaking slot at the convention.
I'm sure he knows the Clintons will ruthlessly work to destroy his career in the Senate. Hell, he's in his mid 70s, they can't bribe him with a lucrative Big Pharma lobbying gig (cough, Howard Dean, cough).
So since even Hillary’s taken swipes at his not being a "real" Democrat, I think he's seen the handwriting on the wall.
The Hillary supporters here and elsewhere are convinced he's not a "real" Democrat.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts) treestar
(82,383 posts)He would do what is in his state's best interest and his.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Bernie = integrity, logic, intelligence, courage and effort.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)He ran in the democratic primary, he needs to fall in line in the democratic party.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)He's caucused and voted with the Dems his entire Congressional career of a couple decades.
The Democratic party is salivating at getting their hands on his donor and volunteer lists with millions of new names, addresses, and phone numbers, including millions of Millennials. Its a massive gold mine.
He could have run 3rd party. He didn’t (this is no small thing).
DWS understood the ramifications immediately I presume and welcomed his joining the Democratic party and running as a Dem.
Do you consider Bernie a "real" Democrat?
If not then he owes Hillary and the Democratic party nothing. If you think he is a "real" Dem, then I'd be interested in your history of calling out those who've decided he isn't, including Hillary's jabs at him.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)"Fall in line." I can't speak for Bernie, but as for me, NEVER.
Beacool
(30,500 posts)Or how does Sanders expect to move forward his agenda in the Senate with a Republican Congress and president? I would expect him to have the decency to do the right thing and support the party's nominee, if for no other reason than to stop Trump from becoming president.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)line and throw his support for a Conservative?
PufPuf23
(9,684 posts)fluffyclouds
(51 posts)The corporate dems of today do not realize this party was not a center right party until the blue dogs came along and high jacked the party in the 90's!
veronique25
(74 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The DNC and the superdelegates see themselves as formed explicitly to oppose people like Sanders and his supporters. We owe them to only a very limited degree.
amborin
(16,631 posts)
Joob
(1,065 posts)They feel scummy, dirty. Disgusting. Like a Republican. LETS IGNORE OUR PROBLEMS. WE WANT OUR CANDIDATE.
I'm only here hoping people wake up. Ignorance is bliss though.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)To run as a Democrat, was accepted as a DNC candidate and now he needs to hold up his end of the deal.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)and best for the nation to fullest of his capabilities as much as we allow.
The next couple of months will be very interesting to see how he handles himself in unchartered waters.
This is either the beginning or the end of his legacy, I think.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Even were he a "real" Democrat, it would yet still be illogical to demand he do A or B or C... as demands from DU mean little to nothing in the land of reality and non-fiction.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)He can be whatever opponents want him to be.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)as opposed to as an independent socialist or in the Green party or something. If you ask someone for a party invite then it's not unfair for them to ask you for help with the dishes at the end of the evening.
BKH70041
(961 posts)I suspect he will verbally endorse her at the convention, but I would hope it ends at that point. Secretary Clinton needs to take it from there and win or lose on her own merits.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Actually it's a pretty stupid question.