2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRemember, 'Bernie or Bust'ers, the Donald is Counting on You!
Stay ideologically pure! Do not vote for a flawed candidate! Luxuriate in your moral superiority! And don't forget to build fallout shelters for when the orange-haired nutcase you help elect starts a nuclear war!
Response to fred v (Original post)
Ed Suspicious This message was self-deleted by its author.
TM99
(8,352 posts)for the better candidate to win.
But if he doesn't I am sure all of these threats, insults, and childish bullshit will go a long way towards helping to secure the necessary votes on the unaffiliated left that she sorely needs in order to win.
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)Not gonna sow much harmony playing the fear card.
TM99
(8,352 posts)It is a tried and true conservative tactic.
New Dems are not liberals to say the least.
Arneoker
(375 posts)As in, give us what we want or we stay home. And some Sanders supporters have the chutzpah to accuse Hillary supporters and the "establishment" of "blackmail tactics!"
It really comes down to what's important. If what's important is getting at least some progress, or at least holding the line, the choice in November will be very clear, whether it's Hillary or Bernie.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)an extremely important issue. This is not a stupid game. Trump exemplifies the "card" mentality regarding issues, playing his cards, countering the opponents'.
We all need to do, must do, what a dysfunctional Trump cannot: Care about the issues.
TM99
(8,352 posts)With 47% of the electorate now unaffiliated, yes, you have to compromise and build a coalition with us if you want our votes.
That isn't blackmail. That is trying to force y'all to see and accept reality. You can not win without us. Period.
What is important to y'all maybe 'at least some progress' or 'holding the line' (which is exactly what the status quo is!) but that isn't for us.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If the people aren't given someone they can vote for in good conscience, someone they think is going to be on their side, fighting for them, it's not their fault if they don't come out and vote. It's the fault of the party who put forth such a person that people can't bring themselves to vote for because they are for so many things that are simply unacceptable.
Now, those people could put forth a candidate that is not as flawed that all Dems could get behind since that other candidate embodies all that the Dem Party has stood for and then many more people will feel good about voting and will come out. Particularly the new voters who don't identify as Democrats but will if this candidate is the Dem nominee.
So if Hillary is the Dem nominee and she can't get people to come out and vote for her, for good reason, then it's her fault and the fault of all her supporters for not understanding that that's how politics works and that you cannot take anyone's vote for granted.
.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)why should anyone care about them and their temper tantrums? It really would be nice if they'd take a Time Out for a little while.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)So special.
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)affect on other people.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)$1,000,000 was recently paid for Brock's astrotufers to do just that for Clinton. Buck up there, bud. We're dealing with it-you can too.
ETA: SBS supporter who hasn't decided yet on exactly how to use my presidential vote, except that I won't be voting Clinton or any Republican, especially Trump.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Many people aren't as interested in Her Corporateness once they learn her record, is that your true fear?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
If you want Bernie supporters to come to the dark side, YOU MUST release the transcripts of your big money speeches.
griffi94
(3,830 posts)Hillary is going to win easily.
She's had a harder time with Bernie than she'll have with anybody the GOP puts up.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Everyone seems to want to forget how much work the GOP has put into fixing the vote in critical swing states like Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio.
Clinton would need OVERWHELMING turnout to overcome this.
She isn't going to see overwhelming turnout.
griffi94
(3,830 posts)since you seem to still be insisting that Bernie will
be our nominee.
Hillary will be the next president.
basselope
(2,565 posts)I am saying I HOPE he will be the next nominee.
B/c Hillary doesn't have a prayer in the general election.
MarianJack
(10,237 posts)...the Goldwater/McGovern/Mondale of 2016.
He lacks the self discipline, the mental toughness and the brains to ever be competitive in a national election against non Vermont Republicans/teabaggers. His entire life story is tailored to the exact kind of smear campaign the rightists love to run. If he is the nominee, than I'll vote for him while holding my nose, but election night would make 1972 & 1984 look like squeakers!
PEACE!
basselope
(2,565 posts)In November of 1972 Nixon had over a 60% approval rating and his disapproval hovered around 30%
Reagan enjoyed similar numbers in November of 1984.
FURTHER 1984-1986 happens to be some one of the few years in history where the majority of people though the country was "on the right track".
So in the case of McGovern and Mondale they were running against POPULAR presidents during times when MOST people felt fairly good about the country.
Sanders is walking into a completely different situation. Obama has a very stale approval rating, bouncing between 45-51% with disapprovals in the same area. Right Track/Wrong track. Those numbers hovering VERY CLOSE to the where they were during the crash of 2008.. close to 70% of the people not happy with the way things are going.
I don't give much credence to polls this far out, except for the fact that Sanders preforms better than Clinton every way possible. No smear campaign is going to change that.. no amount of "vetting".. none of it. Clinton is their dream candidate, because she gets to represent the very establishment people don't like.
She won't win. She doesn't have a prayer.
MarianJack
(10,237 posts)...especially the history of 2 campaigns that I actually worked in. Sanders is a DISASTER waiting to happen. Hillary is a President.
No amount of pro Sanders blather changes that. In 1988, Michael Dukakis was substantially ahead going into the Republican convention, also. Within a week of Labor Day everyone knew he was toast. And he was a better candidate than Sanders.
Vetting won't change things? Please!!!
basselope
(2,565 posts)Which is exemplified by the two examples you brought up and then completely bungling the 1988 election.
You don't seem to even be able to research exactly how short Dukakis held the lead and how, once he stopped trying to play to the middle, he actually cut bush's lead in half on election day, but it was far too little, far too late.
It wasn't "vetting" that doomed Dukakis, it was Dukakis playing not to lose instead of to win.
This has NEVER been Sanders MO.
No amount of "vetting" or negative ads is going to change it.
MarianJack
(10,237 posts)I lived through those campaigns, so I'll stick to reality.
basselope
(2,565 posts)There are actual numbers you can look, but you have created your own narrative for why things happened the way they did.
You don't understand history.
MarianJack
(10,237 posts)...again, you go ahead and believe what you choose to believe.
I understand history a lot better than you do!
AMF!
basselope
(2,565 posts)Your "history" ignores all the actual FACTS and based on your belief.
You had no clue Nixon had 60% approval or Reagan had the same or that the majority of the country thought we were on the right track in 1984.. you are just trying to chalk it up to the democrats choosing the wrong candidate.
You think it was all vetting and negative ads and fail to consider what the actual FACTS were.
You can't even acknowledge how poorly Dukakis bumbled his campaign or that he changed his strategy in the last 2 weeks, embraced his liberalism and significantly outpreformed the polls.. but it was too little too late.
Facts make up history.. not your deluded memory of it.
fred v
(271 posts)Honestly, now!
Biaviians
(167 posts)Hillary could lose in a variety of ways.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Biaviians
(167 posts)SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Biaviians
(167 posts)Not very nice guy.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Not quite sure how people have deluded themselves into thinking otherwise.
You think many Independents will vote for her despite their animus for and distrust of her? Some, but not a majority by a long shot.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)He could not even win the primary. I will tell you...pigs would fly before Sander won Ohio or Florida or Virginia for that matter.
pandr32
(14,272 posts)Somehow, though, it wouldn't surprise me if he tried to avoid them--maybe a fundraiser for some shady charity that promises to give all the proceeds to veterans, and then doesn't again.
Trump would not like publicly debating a brainy woman, especially one as accomplished as Sec. Clinton. Thanks to Bernie, though, he is already going to accuse her of being "unqualified" and "having poor judgement", along with a whole lot of other right-wing smears that Bernie has polished off and recycled.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)He actually APPEALS to independents who are the ones who decide the election.
He will help drive turnout, where Hillary cannot.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)regardless of who wins the nomination.
Hillary has more votes than all the candidates so apparently she helped drive turn out plenty.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)and that's what you don't get. We vote for progressives, not party's.
Hillary has more votes? Pop quiz time! How many GOP candidates were running vs how many Dem candidates were running?
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)I am one of them.
Hillary is a Progressive . The Sanders supporters can try for a "pure Progressive" in your own eyes, and you'll all have zero voice like the Tea Party is. Tghe T party is the result of not forming a team because their individual gripes aren't being instantly addressed. Too bad you didnt learn from the T bags who are now defunct from continuing on in their Conservative purity quest.
Yes HC has more votes than ANY candidate GOP or Dem, that is a fact.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)According to polls, Hillary polls very low with indy voters and no she isn't progressive, sorry but you can't be progressive while upholding moderate values. I guess you missed her describing herself as a moderate didn't you?
Sorry but you can't be progressive while defending DOMA, DADT, KXL, TPP and not fight for things like a living wage and health care for all. I'm quite sick of this little game you and your ilk play trying to redefine your candidates tarnished and permanently damaged image. History has already written her legacy and she is not trusted by the majority of America.
Hillary has more votes than anybody? #HillaryMath = 4 Dems vs 17 GOP candidates. Gee, I wonder why she does.
Spin cycle in full effect in order to control the reality that your candidate has more baggage than Samsonite can produce suitcases.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)I'm an Independent and a Progressive.
You don't get t define who is Progressive.
basselope
(2,565 posts)You can't do that in the general election
and her numbers are paltry compared to what she will need to win in November... and the votes just aren't there for her.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)She didn't suppress votes. Uninformed voters locked themselves out of the election process, and you don't know how many of those would have voted for Clinton. Give it up.
She beats every single candidate running in votes. Period.
basselope
(2,565 posts)She doesn't have the appeal and she isn't winning against all candidates and barley out of the MOE against others.
Although we only need to look back to 1988 to see what will happen.
She doesn't have a chance.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)He would have won the primary. There are Democrats who will not vote for Sanders. I would ...because I would vote for any Democrat on the ticket. But my sister and brother said they would stay home first. You think this guy is so great, judging by the primary results...others don't.
basselope
(2,565 posts)KPN
(17,377 posts)Is that what you're saying? After all the crap you Hillary supporters have been spewing at Bernie supporters about VOTING DEMOCRAT!!! Too much!!!
Not to worry though. Not a problem, Bernie's got a vast majority of the Independents wrapped up.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)However, you would be overturning the will of the voters...and yeah. I think there are plenty of Hillary supporters who would not vote for Sanders if he did something so unethical. Also, after they swiftboated him into the second coming of Stalin, he would lose independents as well. if he was electable, he would have won the primary.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)You give Hillary Virginia and Nevada???
Good luck with that.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)was asleep at the switch in 2014, yet still won in that Republican Wave year. Nevada, with its demographics, is a cakewalk.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Keep on dreaming.
The GOP ran a unpopular LOBBIEST and BARELY lost
VA goes red in November with Hillary on the ticket.
Loki
(3,830 posts)n/t
basselope
(2,565 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)You don't have that advantage in the general election.
She would actually NEED turnout. Which she won't have.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)allowed to choose the Dem candidate in the Dem primary process.
Too bad.
DEMS da breaks man!
basselope
(2,565 posts)B/c everyone knows Clinton has no viable path to victory.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)
basselope
(2,565 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)....made a platform out of saying that she will do what Bernie's doing (even when that is not what she is proposing) and failing to reveal the transcripts to her paid meetings. Any one of these issues could likely sink her. My best to you and your candidate. This thing has gone to far down the road for me. If you can't see the pitfalls I don't know what to say.
griffi94
(3,830 posts)She's got more votes than all candidates from either party.
She's got this.
This old silly talking point again.
Ignoring the fact that she is in a 2 way battle while the other side has had more candidates, they also have some states that don't vote.
In short, her getting a small number of votes in the democratic primary means NOTHING.
She can't win the GE
Amaril
(1,267 posts).....in comparison to Trump.
griffi94
(3,830 posts)a possibilty.
Trump is a caricauture.
She'll have a much easier time agains Cruz or Trump.

Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)Perfect.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)lostnfound
(17,520 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)They desperately want to give him a race he can easily win.
artislife
(9,497 posts)You can call yourselves progressives, but that doesn't mean you actually support a progressive agenda.
fred v
(271 posts)I live in the Real World, where people (myself included) are light-years away from perfection, and choices have to be made.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Is that the term for people who support corrupt neocons? I call them Republicans.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)have been pragmatic and incremental in any change that would have helped her.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I guess she will when she evolves back to the right
djean111
(14,255 posts)you made a mistake! Maybe write a book about it! What fun!
Which is what will happen, again and again, if Hillary is president.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,713 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Trump must be a "Progressive"*.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,713 posts)Any other fairy tales you want to tell?
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)insist on being 'Bernie or Bust'ers' will find out that they are just as immaterial as the PUMAs. Those PUMAs were saying the same or similar type things that the BoB'ers are saying today ... Obama needed their votes; Obama was a weak candidate; it would bring out the GOP racists; etc. But in the end, the PUMAs didn't have the power they thought they did and ended up being irrelevant when the votes were counted.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Might want to do some deep breathing and chill.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)RichVRichV
(885 posts)Remember it's always the voters fault that don't vote for them, never the candidate or parties fault that they can't earn the vote. What a wonderful racket we have going on.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)After all the shit you guys put us through, WTF do you expect? The aggressors are losing the primary, and now they're complaining that Hillary supporters are elbowing, needling and verbally striking back? Pity.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)"Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you."
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... considering the short amount of time remaining and comparing that to the months and months of fun you've already had ... well, you're really getting quite a bargain, aren't you?
It's a small price to pay, so ... suck it up.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Hello, Nurse Jackie!
The aggressors, as you describe them, are not winning Bernie Sanders the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.
The voting supporters for Hillary Clinton are, as you mention, elbowing, needling the voting supporters for Bernie Sanders.
It just goes to show that, sometimes, two sides cannot, and will not, come together.
I guess there could be other tactics.
One of them is, if your preferred candidate is leading a partys primariesand is on pace to win that partys presidential nominationit may be wise for those on the winners side to actually move on and not participate on an Internet discussion forum thread expressing why they feel pity for the individual voters on the losing side.
I think you, Nurse Jackie, would have no problem filling in for David Brock if he ever has to miss a days work on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)For everyone with a glowing transparency page.
now there is your recipe for unity, right there.
sixersixersixer
(17 posts)Or whatever gobbledydoo you came up with.
My vote is my decision. Not yours or Hillary's or anyone else. Get it?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)He might give the military unlawful orders that they refuse to carry out.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Good job at unity building....
fred v
(271 posts)The holier-than-thou preaching is relentless, and the insults hurled at anyone who dares profess support for Secretary Clinton are beyond the pale! My op was bush-league by comparison.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Not!
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Hillary is going to win and Sanders will not. Some people here need the time to get used to it and I will back off.
The anti-Hillary threads have kicked up a bit and it is a buzzkill. Ever since the hard fought NY battle things have taken a desperate turn among the Bernie or Bust crew here and I want no part of it.
Hopefully people will see the folly of not voting for the nominee.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Know that the Bernie bashing and especially the bernie supporter bashing has skyrocketed lately and has been helped by the general amnesty so over the top insults have no repercussions to the poster.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)and counting. So far she is handling Trump the Rump well.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Well if you get what you wanted, then we'll see how this great decision of yours works out.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sun May 1, 2016, 10:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Remember, 'Bernie or Bust'ers, the Donald is Counting on You!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511878725
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Nasty broadbrush personal attack on half the board, accusation of helping to elect Trump
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun May 1, 2016, 10:14 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Too many rightwing themes as it is.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Half the board is "Bernie or Bust"? I should hope not. Sorry, but this alert is clearly personal. Oh, and Bernie or Bust members deserve derision if not outright PPRing.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)and giving him credit for them. Yes, that's a winning strategy for both of them. Call the most qualified person in the race, unqualified.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)He is the most qualified so that .ust be what you mean.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,365 posts)so it would make the most sense for trump to ask bernie to be his VP.
And bernie can make the same offer the the Donald to keep the 30% of the bernie voters who won't vote for Clinton
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Plus all of GOP candidates running for the Senate are too. They know, as strongly evidenced by looking at the WI polls, that Bernie's supporters do not vote the down ticket candidates. They only voted for Bernie because most have no idea that it will take a Democrat majority in the Senate to get anything moving.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)pro-corporate and highly militaristic. I will not vote for anyone who favors the well being of mega banks and corporations over the people and I will not vote for anyone who is so supportive of the U.S. "regime-change" foreign policies that have caused so much misery and destruction around the world. Hillary Clinton is not a "flawed" candidate - she's a candidate whose record is in direct opposition to what I am looking for in a candidate for president.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)For military action in Libya, Somalia, Yugoslavia.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)....an easy path to the Whitehouse.
amborin
(16,631 posts)regime change, speaks derisively of "illegal immigrants," her biggest donor dislikes Muslims (doesn't want to "torture" them, exactly); even Axlerod called Trump a sheep in wolf's clothing
if you don't want Trump, don't nominate Hillary
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)BootinUp
(51,323 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Had to run to the Hillary group for backup. You know this not your bubble of a safe haven
Logical
(22,457 posts)You mean like the Sanders campaign?
Logical
(22,457 posts)mahina
(20,645 posts)Joob
(1,065 posts)Kittycat
(10,493 posts)How about letting voters enjoy having the chance to finish voting, and voicing the issues important to them up through the party process before threatening everyone about joining the Unity Club? Until then, it feels a bit like that club is a bat over the head.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)book:"Fear and loathing on the campaign trail"
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)out of it so I can focus on getting down ballot Democrats elected.
fred v
(271 posts)So, Bernie supporters, what kind of cheese would you like with it?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)She burned the bridge, so we're down with going our own way, whatever it may be.
Cha
(319,074 posts)wysi
(1,514 posts)... since they worked so well in the primary.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It doesn't matter in the least who I vote for in the GE...my state's not remotely in play.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)I appreciate your opening post.
I dont feel the same as you do.
I believe your thread, with no disrespect intended, does not help in any way you may have been hoping.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Response to fred v (Original post)
Post removed
Urchin
(248 posts)Who is Goldman Sachs counting on?
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,713 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)elections. Yet her supporters consistently attack independent voters as if they were loyal Democrats. Hillary hasn't even attempted to campaign for the independent vote.
Hillary's supporters were conned. She is the weakest candidate in my lifetime. And they are attacking the strongest general election candidate.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)supporters claim they don't need our votes. They don't need our efforts. Which is it ? You need them or not?
Cha
(319,074 posts)Mahalo, fred~
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)everyone. She's made it clear she doesn't really need independents, or the Bernie supporters, so IT IS NOT ON THE BERNIE PEOPLE IF SHE LOSES.
Got that? It's her and her supporters and surrogates who are responsible for her win or loss. DO NOT for one minute try to shift the blame.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Bernie does much better against the Republicans than Hillary. Post after post on DU has given the numbers as provided by an array of pollsters.
Fear Trump is, well, trumped up hoopla. We have absolutely No Reason to fear him. That's the Republican' s mess.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Because they sure aren't for unity.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I'm wary of any folks trying to sow too much disunity among the left and / or disunity among democrats.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Another is that sometimes a poster may really feel as vitriolic as what they type, lol. I'm wary of the ones who seem pissed off with every post day after day on some exact same subject.
Fortunately DU has a lot of great groups, so there's places to discuss other things. I've gotten some great advice in the mac users group, shared info in the video games & sports groups, and had wonderful times in the aa group.
So in that regard DU seems fairly resilient. That is, if people keep enjoying posting on boards like this one. I enjoy it a lot.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)She would have pretty close to 100% support. But, what we have is Hillary and she is a crappy candidate. Donald might not even get the nomination so that threat is empty unless he gets the nomination. Your problem is if the Cons don't nominate him because their elite hate him as much as our peons hate Hillary.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I think Warren would have had the same outcome. The Dem establishment was going to line up 99% behind Hillary no matter who ran against her.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I seriously doubt it.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)You are doing his bidding well.
Response to fred v (Original post)
Post removed
Response to fred v (Original post)
Th1onein This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cobalt Violet
(9,976 posts)Better build a fallout shelter if the faux yellowed hair nutcase wins too.
Go Bernie! At least he's not trying to fool us with his hair color!
bvf
(6,604 posts)that Clinton don't need no stinkin' votes of Sanders supporters.
OK.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...working together, can persuade Hillary to drop her duplicitous, insincere campaign, in favor of someone who would NEVER RUN FROM THE TERM, "LIBERAL"!!!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Response to fred v (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)He never had a chance of beat Hillary.
He doesn't have to worry about beating Trump.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)He doesn't want the job. He's only running to make his buddy look palatable.
It isn't working and neither is this tactic. Just stop.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)but Trumpie sure LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVES them!
KnR!
Gothmog
(179,859 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine that the courage of one's own convictions is an alien concept to you, regardless of how we cower behind implication-- further illustrating it as such.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Today's offer includes an extra heavy wallop of foregone conclusions.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Du's got it all.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)criticising wrongly forgone conclusions does not equate to "racist sexist keyboard-warring and complacent easily duped hell-bound slut lusting for Berniebros". Nor does it compare to false intimations of Trump-humping.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)
Let's hear it, what on this list do YOU support? And if not, why are you supporting Hillary?
All you guys have are side issues.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)Fuck this statement
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Because they knew when they unleashed 24/7 attack ad hell against him he would wither like a daisy in the desert.
But Sanders revolution left him high and dry at the ballot box so the fascist republicans second choice is now in play.....#bernieorbust!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)The irony is delicious.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)Bigger margin than Obama's victory in 2012 in my opinion. She won't lose a single swing state and will take at least one red state, topping the Democratic electoral vote from 2012.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)
Vogon_Glory
(10,297 posts)Thank you for pointing out at least one of the unpleasant consequences of a Trump presidency. Let us add giving a green light to bigotry directed at American Hispanics, further gutting of voting rights, polluted air, polluted water, and "privatized" national parks and wilderness. The recession with no benefits is just the cherries on top.
I'm not particularly left, and I'm certainly not a Marxist. Nevertheless, there's an old Marxist-Leninist term that applies to far too many Bernie fan-boys and fan-girls who want the Great Jubilee in January and who ignore what happened in places like Wisconsin, Kansas, North Carolina, and Texas when Democratic "purists" act out their tantrums and stay home: "politically immature." And I believe that "politically immature" is a dead-an accurate descriptor of all too many Bernie-philes who ought to be old enough to know better.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)for joining us here on DU.. and for the reminder
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Response to fred v (Original post)
seabeyond This message was self-deleted by its author.
Maru Kitteh
(31,759 posts)Response to fred v (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed