Attacking Clinton today is the same as campaigning for Trump

[BainsBane]

This nomination is a done deal. Bernie cannot get the ninety odd percent of the remaining delegates he would need to win the majority and the superdelegates are not going to go along with his efforts to seize power against the will of that majority. Clinton is now approximately 143 delegates away from the nomination, Bernie 950. Clinton leads him by 283 earned delegates and 3.1 million votes. That is an insurmountable lead that Bernie has not been able to erode. The Republicans have a nominee and practically speaking the Democrats do too. Anyone who looks rationally at the situation has to see that.

Given the current situation, advancing arguments against Clinton work to the benefit of the Trump campaign. I know that when I see someone post negative things about the presumptive Democratic nominee, they do so because they mean to promote the electoral prospects of the GOP. It is impossible to do otherwise in the current state of the race.

Now, I know that my making that observation changes nothing. I simply mean to say I see the attacks on Clinton, on the presumptive Democratic nominee, for what they are. Some are comfortable promoting a racist, misogynist, hate-mongering billionaire over the Democratic Party because they see some benefit to his promotion of a view of America for the few like them. That's of course their right, but let's not pretend it's because they are too "progressive" for Hillary.

___

Anticipating arguments: California. Just remember than Clinton won California in 2008 and she was far closer to Obama in delegates than Bernie has been for months now. It still wasn't enough to make her the nominee, and it wouldn't be for Bernie, even if he did pull of an unexpected win there.

[jfern]

1. The nomination isn't a done deal, and Bernie polls a lot better against Trump

[BainsBane]

2. I understand Bernie wants the corporate media to pick the candidate

rather than the votes of mere citizens, but it doesn't work that way. We have a constitution. Voting rights still matter more than corporate media polls. I know it sucks that voters have a say in their elected officials, but the framers designed it that way and then the 15th and 20th amendment added to it.

I do find it fascinating how the same people who insisted merely posting polls a few months ago was illicit have now decided that polls matter more than actual votes because a politician makes that argument.

[jfern]

9. You Hillary poll unskewers are too much.

[Dawgs]

81. Right, but if Dems pick her we will have Trump for President.

Isn't that what you're concerned about?

[Arneoker]

31. The question is who would poll better in November, after the inevitable Republican attacks

Hillary has literally been attacked for decades. Don't kid yourself, Bernie has negatives that would exploited to the hilt. He would be painted as a Big Government lover who wants to raise your taxes, and btw loves the Castros and other Communists.

[jfern]

49. There's a lot more dirt on Hillary

FBI investigation, Clinton Foundation pay to play, other general crookedness.

[Arneoker]

50. Old news and baseless rumors

Plus the old fail safe at the end. "For these and many other reasons!"

[jfern]

73. The FBI isn't spending months investigating a baseless rumor

[CorporatistNation]

65. AGREED! Telling The TRUTH About Hillar... ANd There Is PLENTY Out There Is NOT Unfair!

Example...

[Demsrule86]

69. Here is an example of a Trump supporter

bringing up old crap to attack the Democratic nominee.

[Fawke Em]

98. Here is an example of Logic Fail

Progressives don't like Hillary because she's too Republican; therefore, why would they like an actual Republican? We don't.

[Dawgs]

83. What Bernie negatives?

Everyone already knows that he's a socialist that wants to raise taxes. What else you got?

[reddread]

93. and nobody minds except for Billionaires

They would rather not.

[Demsrule86]

58. It is a done deal

even if he won all the remaining primaries...and he could with operation chaos in full swing...he can 't catch her. We do not award delegates by polls nor do we award a nomination based on a poll He lost and in less than a month, it is done. No supers will switch for Bernie. He is delusional if he thinks that will happen.

[tblue]

3. Can I vote first?

Are the remaining primaries cancelled?

My primary is in 3 weeks and I think I should have a freakin say just like everyone in every previous primary.

Let every state have its primary and then we can talk about what's what. Til then I'm still campaigning and I'm gonna vote no matter what.

[BainsBane]

6. What happened in 2004, 2008, 2000, 20012

and every other primary in your lifetime? Were they cancelled because the losing presidential candidates dropped out? Are there no local candidates seeking nomination or do you simply not think about those offices? The argument is absurd and shows the extent to which people are able to engage in the most absurd claims because a politician tells them to.

Just so I understand, you think it unacceptable for a nominee to be declared before you yourself have voted, but I'm going to assume you have no problem seeing the results of elections overturned to favor Bernie, as his entire argument for the presidency now hinges on. If you didn't, you wouldn't still be supporting him while he makes that argument, would you? On some level you must have decided that the electoral will of the majority is simply less important than Bernie.

So you'll have to excuse me if I'm not broken up about the fact that 22% of the country hasn't yet voted when Bernie's entire case for nomination revolves on overturning the votes of the 12.5 million voters who have chosen Clinton so that he can seize power while still trailing by millions of votes.

I also find it interesting that you assume that refraining from attacking Clinton means that one can't make an argument for Bernie, as though there is no argument to be made for him.

[Arneoker]

44. Exactly

By all means keep supporting the Sanders campaign, for the important issues that he is promoting. But does that include bogus scandal mongering about Hillary's emails? Are you really inspired by an America where high government officials never again have their own email servers? Or is it little things like equality, universal healthcare and securing the environment against climate change?

[NewImproved Deal]

21. Exactly.

Let's see how the current FBI Investigation unfolds before drinking the Clinton Machine's Koolaid.

[link:|

[whistler162]

30. Only if you are going to vote for the ONE

HILLARY otherwise YOU MUST STAY HOME!

[MFM008]

4. Apparently Sanders supporters

wouldn't believe the math if Albert Einstein tried to explain it.

[Vattel]

119. The math was worse for Clinton in April of 2008 than it is for Bernie today. But she continued.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. Agreed

[northernsouthern]

7. Remind me what the 1st amendment was again?

Just wondering.

[BainsBane]

8. I just exercised it

Let me guess. You're one of those people who thinks the First Amendment means no one is allowed to challenge you?

[northernsouthern]

15. Actually you tried to repress mine...

Let me guess. You're one of those people who thinks the First Amendment means no one is allowed to challenge you?

...nice attempt of trying the victim card, you would make Hillary proud since collects all of the cards.

Attacking Clinton today is the same as campaigning for Trump

You see what you are doing here is saying we can't question her, which is repressing my freedom of speech. But thanks for letting me know I am one of those, Hillary should run against the Scarecrow from the wizard of Oz, her supporters and her seem to made a career out of attacking strawmen.

[BainsBane]

18. The First Amendment applies to government

It says government can't restrict the speech of citizens. It does not say that I as a citizen am not allowed to criticize you, another citizen. Those are very basic concepts. My post in no way restricts your speech. It tells you what I think about it.

[northernsouthern]

23. Two things...

It says government can't restrict the speech of citizens. It does not say that I as a citizen am not allowed to criticize you, another citizen. Those are very basic concepts. My post in no way restricts your speech. It tells you what I think about it.

...you are asking us to not have free-speech about her because that is in your mind a vote for Trump. I responded that you seemed to not care about the freedom of speech, and you have since tried to say I was repressing your freedom, and then tried to tell be you are just stating an opinion...well I was doing just that, 1st amendment...if your candidate is hurt by facts, perhaps you should not have voted for her.

Let me guess. You're one of those people who thinks the First Amendment means no one is allowed to challenge you?

And this was a very blatant attempt to restrict my speech, perhaps another person asking for someone in the forum to "call it"...why else would you have posted it...but go ahead it is good to see how people really feel about our democracy...it is the "inconvenient truth" for many HRC supporters it seems.

[Arneoker]

54. So since you are a stalwart against hypocrisy

Would you defend Trump minions against the charge that saying hateful, racist things about Muslims and illegal aliens is divisive and wrong?

[COLGATE4]

102. Gladly. It is about the GOVERNMENT not interfering with your right to

free speech. Has nothing to do with speech between or among individuals.

[Dem2]

103. Funny

I don't know how a person uses this as some sort of justification to come to a clearly partisan political site and slander the preferred candidate as demonstrated by the voters of said preferred party.

[Laffy Kat]

10. Bernie supporter here and I agree with you 100%.

This has got to stop.

[BainsBane]

19. Thank you!

[highprincipleswork]

11. First of all, it's a done deal only in your own mind, by your own standards. It's not official, and

there actually are quite a few days left before it becomes official.

Bernie says he's in it till at least California, so perhaps you should just take a vacation till then, if it's too stressful for us to keep campaigning and working for Bernie.

After that, I personally and I'm sure many other also hope that he takes it all the way to the convention.

You're wasting good time and effort and breath on us. We believe in Bernie, I think I can safely say, and we frankly can't see how you all can be so adamant about what we see as a fatally flawed candidate.

What the Democratic Party is going to do to heal this divide is unfortunately possibly a bigger problem than what the Republicans have on their hands.

I know that we would welcome you in with open arms, though Bernie would undoubtedly still remain authentically a Progressive throughout the campaign. I wonder what he would have to do to make you more comfortable with him as a choice, if it came to that.

As far as Hillary goes, we would love for her to welcome us in also, and stick to the kind of principles she has adopted in this campaign that are close enough to Bernie's to make the case that she is a "Progressive". I'd love her to stay there, and more easily get our support and our votes and stuff. But we all have the feeling she's going to sock it to us but good by veering drastically to the right. Many of us who are true believers in principles that have been Democratic Party staples for decades may not follow her there. And she likely will have a hard time really peeling off enough Republicans to make a difference. Personally I feel that spells disaster, if she does it, for her campaign and for the Democratic Party.

But one question remains profound for me tonight. If and when she veers Rightward, how will you Hillary supporters feel? Is that where your political taste truly lies, more to the Rightward side of things? How will you feel, and will you do anything to try to convince her campaign that that's the wrong way to go.

Coming together would be relatively easy, if Democrats really acted like Democrats have been expected to act for so very long.

[BainsBane]

95. You believe in Bernie. I believe in democracy.

While Bernie believes in overturning the results of elections to install himself in power against the will of the electorate. You stand with him in those efforts, which tells me you don't have to worry about any tact to the right since you're already decided to accept the furthest right wing argument any modern politician has ever made: the abrogation of the electoral will of the people, of the majority.

Bernie's argument for nomination is immoral and unjust. In hinges on the notion that his supporters are inherently superior, that their youth and the fact they aren't Democrats makes them superior to the 3.1 million more Americans--Democrats, people of color, women, and the elderly--who have voted for Clinton. It contains within it an aggressive contempt for equal rights and an effort to impose the will of a self-entitled few over the many by any means necessary.

If you hope he takes it to the convention, that means you likewise stand against equal rights and for the self entitled few to impose their rule over the majority, which means you oppose my basic rights to equality and that of everyone but yourselves.

When Ted Cruz withdrew from the race, he said he did so because the voters had spoken. He displayed a respect for the rights of voters to choose their leaders by the ballot box that you and Bernie do not.

The race is over when Clinton gets 2383 delegates, which will be soon, before the convention, certainly on June 7. As much as Bernie thinks he alone gets to rewrite the rules elected delegates to conventions have voted on over many years, we do not yet live in Bernie's world where one man gets to single-handedly erase electoral democracy just because it suits his political ambitions. I can see you are dedicated to making that authoritarian dream of his a reality, but I and others will not submit to those efforts to subjugate us to rule by the few--which is precisely what his supporters are, a minority who feels their own rights trump those of the many millions more who have voted for Clinton. You believe in "Bernie," and you think there is something commendable about a position that advances one man's political prospects above the rights of their fellow citizens. I can think of nothing more abhorrent.

Obviously you don't care about issues like rules for Democratic nomination. You don't even respect electoral democracy and think nothing about overturning the equal voting rights to suit your own interests. I will not take lectures about what the Democratic Party is meant to be from someone who does not even respect democracy and the votes of their fellow citizens.

You keep on "believing in Bernie." I will go on believing in democracy and equal rights. Our values are diametrically opposed and absolutely irreconcilable.

[highprincipleswork]

108. No, to put it simply, with way less words, we are in it until at least one of them gets enough

pledged delegates. As to what the superdelegates do, that could be argued as part or not part of "democracy", but they are there through the rules of the Democratic Party, and they will get to have their say at the convention.

Sounds like democracy to me, or the best democracy possible with this currently fucked up Democratic Party.

Voting in California is democracy and is my right, and I'm working as hard as I can for my candidate through at least then.

You would like to try to take that away from me. That is what is truly undemocratic.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

12. "leads by 283 earned delegates"

Apparently, Bernie Bots have convinced themselves that the official rules for nomination have been supplanted by something they made up. Rather than 2383 total PDs and SDs, Bernie Bots insist that the goal is 2026 PDs, which neither Bernie not HRC likely will reach before the convention. Of course this is a delusion, but they seem to be living in a dream world they've invented.

While we're hammering home the truth that continuing to attack HRC with the same falsehoods Trump is spouting about dishonesty, corruption, warmongering, etc., let's also continue to expose the complete irrelevance of 2026 to the nomination process.

[Dragonfli]

20. Even the DNC disagrees with you on that.

[frylock]

114. Don't forget the fewer than one dozen earned federal agents currently reviewing her.

We wouldn't want to short change her.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. No, it's trying to convince her to move in a more progressive direction, which is a BETTER strategy

for her in the GE than what her overpriced beltway navel-gazers want her to do, namely chasing the imaginary middle and "Megachurch moms".


Hell, you've already got people on your side railing against "safe spaces and trigger warnings".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1950897



Hope everyone is buckled in for when the real pivoting starts.

[BainsBane]

22. "More progressive"

such as a position promoting the abrogation of the elections in order to engineer the political ascendency of someone who trails by 3 million votes. The notion that some voters just matter more than others? I'm tired of antiegaltiarian and antidemocratic goals being promoted under the guise of progressivism. According to some here, Trump is more "progressive" than Hillary, seemingly because he knows how to keep in line the inferior people.

I do not want Clinton or any politician to adopt those values that Sanders is currently prompting. He and his supporters have already succeeded in creating a new standard of secrecy for candidates financial dealings, and Trump is following Bernie's lead by not releasing tax returns. We also have the mainstreaming of NRA talking points about civil immunity for gun corporations and the idea that politicians shouldn't be expected to follow existing campaign finance law. I really don't care to see more of that kind of influence on Clinton or our government. The firm commitment to double standards and the views of the minority outweighing the votes of the majority is likely one of his lasting "progressive" legacies, and I reject them fully. So you and your fellow Bernie supporters will have to carry out your great struggle for unequal rights without me. I will fight with everything I have to ensure that corrosive influence does not spread further.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. No point in talking to you, because you end up talking to yourself every time.

"More progressive such as"-- followed by some shit I never said.

"So what you mean is" --- followed by something I dont mean.

"So what you're saying is"--- yeah, you get the idea.

Etc. etc.

You have a long paragraph of nonsense there which exists nowhere except your own busy head.

Waste o' time.

Also, every 4 fucking years we go through this thing with tax returns. Remember Romney?

[lunamagica]

28. Yes, I remember Romney. He didn't want to release his taxes because there wer thngs ther he

wanted to hide.

Is the same with Sanders?

[Warren DeMontague]

32. I have no idea.

But it's inane to argue that Sanders somehow invented this idea of not producing the tax returns or whatever the fuck, unless he's gonna add time traveler to his fiendish resume.

[lunamagica]

34. I don't think anyone is arguing that he "invented" this. At least, I have not heard anyone say it

People are just asking that he shows years worth of tax returns, like they ask of any candidate for POTUS

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Then you didn't read the post I was responding to.

It's a hot mess, and that's putting it charitably.

My point originally had nothing to do with the tax returns, it was that by remaining in the race until the convention, Sanders is not "damaging" Hillary Clinton, he's improving her chances by hopefully pushing her, policy-wise, to the left, and thus making her a better and more competitive GE candidate; whereas her advisors and the brock crowd are operating on this outdated faulty logic which says she needs to swing right towards the imaginary middle.

I don't believe Sanders is going to be the nominee, but I'm not terribly hung up on his tax returns. I suspect there's more interesting material in the billion dollars of "atypical business model" Clinton Foundation paperwork, but it all strikes me as sort of an ancillary distraction.

[jack_krass]

43. Hill-logical word salad

If your gonna try and shut people up,, try to at least make a coherent argument.

I, and presumably others, see the selection of HRC as a mistake of epic proportuons. HRC has enriched herself on corporate slop (and thereby owes favors), is a PNAC war hawk, and in most aspects, the most right wing Democratic candidate ever.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. Hi there...

It's "you're."

Yeah, so if one is going to make such a production of calling out someone else on such things as COHERENCE, the least they could do is get their own grammatical house in order.

I'm guessing you didn't bother to read it anyway, it was actually very coherent. As for your post, aside from the gratuitous insults, the rest reads like simplistic bumper sticker sloganeering. Simply stringing together one talking point after another does not make a COHERENT argument.

Just a little feedback for you this morning...

[Warren DeMontague]

72. Yes, it was a coherent attack on all the evil straw sandersmen who bedevil her imagination.

it made zero sense in context as a response to me, though.

...Speaking of 'simply stringing stuff together'.

[cui bono]

14. Supporting Hillary today is the same as supporting Reagan policies. n/t

[apcalc]

29. No it is not at all the same.

You either don't know or don't remember Reagan.

[Vote2016]

57. Reagan wasn't as much of a neocon interventionist nation builder, was he?

[apcalc]

82. Reagan didn't give a rat's ass about women's rights,

Was pro life, started us on tax breaks for the wealthy, trickle down economics, big time deregulation which helped precipitate our latest recession and bailout, was anti Union, etc

Look it up before you go spouting right wing bullshit.

[Vote2016]

94. I asked about foreing policy and whether Reagan was as much of a neocon interventionist as Hillary

[Vote2016]

55. I think more Nixon than Reagan, but generally agree. Anti-FDR in any event.

[Demsrule86]

62. No Supporting Trump

by attacking Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee is the same as supporting Reagan... Trump is Reagan...someone who will destroy the progressive movement for years...you all talk about Bill Clinton...but when he arrived on the scene, we had lost the presidency for 12 years and Congress intermittently and were about to lose the presidency again. Heck Clinton never had a majority. Perot helped win that election for us...so spare me the whining about the third way. At the time, it was the only way. Had Bush been elected, Roe V Wade would already be gone...and if Trump is elected it will be gone...attacking Hillary Clinton means you are supporting Trump in all ways. You can call yourself a Democrat or liberal if you want but that does not make it so.

[Dawgs]

84. That sounds about right.

She was also to the right of Nixon.

[JonLeibowitz]

16. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

Forgive me if I don't give a rat's ass and choose to continue to exercise my free speech in this country and on this board.

I will discuss issues, character, and record until we have a nominee (and afterwards).

[JonLeibowitz]

17. I think Sanders should campaign through June

After all, we remember how Bobby Kennedy was tragically assassinated in June right? A wise person once opined that it would be a good idea to continue campaigning in view of that possible eventuality.

[Fuddnik]

25. I think he should campaign through November.

I'll keep sending money as long as he does.

[Vote2016]

61. Why stop in November? FDR's fireside chats were a perpetual campaign for his legislative agenda and

for his progressive view of the nation.

Hillary sees the election the end goal; Sanders sees change as the end goal as the election as just one step in that process.

[JudyM]

85. That's a great analogy.

[Sunlei]

26. Expect Senator Sanders to stay in through every State primary & participate fully in our Convention.

Neither of our top Ds are quitters, gotta love them both

[apcalc]

27. I agree. These posters

Might as well be Republicans. Despicable imo that they are on a so- called Democratic site.

[reformist2]

33. If so, what are the implications for DU? This sounds really, really intolerant of free speech.

[B Calm]

35. Get a clue, the primary is still ongoing. Using your twisted logic

Hillary attacking Bernie is the same as campaigning for Trump. Get lost!

[cali]

36. Codswallop. And nothing but. These absurd "j'accuse' posts from Hillary fans

Criticizing Hillary is not synonymous with boosting trump.

Your op is sticky, cheap guilt shit

[ChairmanAgnostic]

41. The tubes are filled with this meme.

I guess the Brock memo went out.

[Vote2016]

37. Nonsense. When did all those superdelegates you've counted vote? Ask President McCain about how a

vigorous Democratic primary paved the way for his general election victory. Clinton ran a rough and dirty campaign in 2008, with racial and religious smear attacks, but Sanders is treating Clinton with kid gloves and focusing on policy issues.

If you are like virtually everyone else, you expect Hillary to pivot right for the general election (that is, you acknowledge her fake left in the primary is simply a ruse to falsely promote herself as sharing progressive values she doesn't truly share), then Sanders is providing her a foil to pivot against.

Sanders is doing Hillary a service, and the continued campaign is does nothing but strengthen the party. The end of the primary is the beginning of the switch in focus from policy issues to personsl attacks on Bill and Hillary's private lives and past public transgressions. You should not be so eager for that switch because it will be ugly.

[coyote]

38. Supporting Clinton today is the same as campaigning for Trump

Trump will wipe her ass clean in November. Bernie is the strongest candidate to go against Trump.

[Sky Masterson]

40. Asinine

.

[Vattel]

42. Obama had the nomination wrapped up in April of 2008. But Clinton stayed in the race

until after the last primary.

[B Calm]

45. So using BainsBane logic, Hillary was campaigning for McCain.

[Vattel]

47. And the irony is that, even though her staying in the race was not campaigning for McCain,

she kinda did campaign for him: "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," Clinton said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002." Clinton was referring to Obama's anti-war speech he delivered in Chicago before entering the United States Senate.

[Demsrule86]

64. When she reached the point she could not win the primary

She conceded. She was much closer than Bernie is ...and had won the popular vote as well. She had delegates in Michigan and Florida that were not seated as punishment for violating the DNC rules ...talk about unfair! Sander has lost period. There is every indication, he is hurting the general and he should get out...certainly the idea of going to the convention and putting his name in consideration as the nominee is a terrible idea. The supers will not overturn the will of the voters ...and certainly not for Sanders whom I am sure they detest at this point. Hopefully, he is ready for retirement because stick fork in him, he is done.

[Dawgs]

89. Hillary disagrees.

"I'm not calling myself that (the presumptive nominee)," Clinton said. "I know there are some contests ahead and I respect Sen. Sanders and whatever choices he's making. And I have a lot of empathy about this, Anderson. You know, I ran to the very end in 2008."

[Bluenorthwest]

107. Uh, no. In May 2008 Hillary made a detailed case for staying in the race until the end, she cited

not only Bill Clinton's nomination but also the death of RFK in June of the 68 Primary. California voted early in 08, Super Tuesday. This year, CA is in June.

Clinton Remark on Kennedy’s Killing Stirs Uproar

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYEMAY 24, 2008
Continue reading the main story
Share This Page

Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save

BRANDON, S.D. — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Her remarks were met with quick criticism from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, and within hours of making them Mrs. Clinton expressed regret, saying, “The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy,” referring to the recent diagnosis of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s brain tumor. She added, “And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.”

Still, the comments touched on one of the most sensitive aspects of the current presidential campaign — concern for Mr. Obama’s safety. And they come as Democrats have been talking increasingly of an Obama/Clinton ticket, with friends of the Clintons saying that Bill Clinton is musing about the possibility that the vice presidency might be his wife’s best path to the presidency if she loses the nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html

So basically, she was allowed but Bernie is not?

[Demsrule86]

121. She won the popular vote and the delegates from Florida and Michigan were not seated

So she made a case for herself...she also said she could win the GE and maybe Obama couldn't. The Supers said no. She then conceded...way before the convention...she put Obama's name in for a vote by acclamation at the convention...made no demands or threats as Sanders has... and worked her ass off to elect Obama...in 12 Obama was in trouble and Bill Clinton saved his ass. He was invaluable. I was there as a volunteer; Bill explained over and over why Obama deserved re-election.

[Vattel]

118. No she was worse off in terms of pledged delegates in April than Bernie is now.

[Demsrule86]

120. Link

At the end of the primary Obama had 1661 delegates and Clinton had 1592. 69 delegates separated them...and she won the popular vote...and Florida and Michigan which she won were not seated. It was much closer. She had reason to stay in. Bernie does not.


http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/

[Vattel]

123. Unless I am mistaken, what you are saying doesn't contradict what I am saying,

although it all gets a little complicated because of the Michigan and Florida fiascos. After the May 6 primary in NC, Obama had a 164 pledged delegate lead with only 217 remaining. Clinton would have had to have won over 80% of those 217 remaining delegates to overtake Obama in pledged delegates. That was a bigger challenge than Bernie faces now. Of course, that doesn't count the Michigan and Florida delegates, because at first the DNC was saying that there weren't going to be any of those. But by April it was clear that there would be no revote in those states. So unless the DNC had decided to completely screw Obama over by, say, giving him no delegates in Michigan (where he got no votes because he wasn't on the ballot) and giving Clinton the majority, even in April she had no realistic chance to catch Obama in pledged delegates and after the May 6 primary the fat lady had pretty much sung.

Note: She kept saying that she was winning the popular vote, but that was characteristically dishonest, partly because Obama did better in caucus states where there was no popular vote and partly because she included the Michigan vote totals where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.

[GreatGazoo]

46. Attacking Clinton from the Left helps her look Centrist

Hillary's campaign hasn't asked Sanders to stop, and she didn't stop in 2008.

She doesn't need your help dude. She has done all of this before and has a billion dollars cue'd up to take down Trump.

Get with the program please.

[baldguy]

48. I'm not so concerned about Sanders fans supporting Sanders

But when they try to make up "scandals" out of whole cloth, using long-debunked talking points from the VRWC, and hand Donald Trump his best lines against Clinton for free, they step over the line.


As of this moment, and from now on, the leader of the "Not Hillary" Party is Donald Trump. And as long as Sanders continues his campaign, he's acting as one of Trump's minions.

[B Calm]

60. And as long as Hillary continues her campaign, she's acting as one of Trump's minions.

See how that works! The fucking campaign is still ongoing, get lost!

[baldguy]

67. Trump & Sanders are tag-teaming Clinton, and she's still beating them both.

But that doesn't change the fact that Trump & Sanders are using the same false attacks, the same RW talking points, with almost the same wording. Trump & Sanders are partners in this, and Trump is the one on top.

[Demsrule86]

66. Plenty of Trump minions

on this forum.

[baldguy]

70. .

[Demsrule86]

51. Yes it is

Posting right wing smears from right sources means you are on Trump's team.

[CharlotteVale]

52. If she can't beat Trump that's on her.

[Thinkingabout]

59. Even Sanders is saying Hillary can beat Trump in the general election

It is on Democrats to beat Trump.

[MrMickeysMom]

53. NO cigar... Nice try, but it's not even true

[vintx]

63. You're too generous. It's a pitiful try.

But it's obvious why so many of her supporters seem to have ZERO confidence in her ability to defeat Trump and beg for people to stop criticizing her.

The cognitive dissonance must be downright painful at this point.

[Jackilope]

71. Canadian Breakfast?

A friend of mine uses that term for the act of swallowing back ones own vomit as it comes up.

There is something legitimately wrong, it should come out, but you are asking us during a primary season to swallow it as to not make a rather weak candidate look bad.

No. The DNC is dysfunctional and the party is contaminated. HRC has issues of her own creation. Those issues aren't going away be it a D or an R or an I bringing them up.

[mcar]

74. K&R

[silvershadow]

75. No amount of words can change this primary to a general. Onward

towards the next contest.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. That's so supermely shitty. My State is voting NOW, you bully, you suppresser of democracy.

Reagan loving Hillary Fans despise democracy, no surprise as Reagan hated it too. Reagan was also a giant racist, by the way. Your fucking hero adores a racist who called Mandela a terrorist.

CA votes next month. They count. You just want to count the Reagan Red States, for you are a Reaganite.

[reddread]

87. indeed it is, they sure want to suppress votes anyway they can

and for good reason

[Zen Democrat]

77. Bullhockey. She's not the nominee. Not even the presumptive nominee.

[Bluenorthwest]

78. Hillary on May 23 2008 -Explaining in detail why she's staying in the race. You asked for it, you go

it. A demonstration of your own double standard. But only you can tell us what motivates you to treat one sort of candidate so differently....

[99Forever]

79. Bullshit.

But that won't stop the Perpetual Victims Club from whining about it.

[aikoaiko]

86. Meh. This is the basically the same argument we've heard since August.

It will be ok.

[Armstead]

88. I'm feeling the Bern more than ever

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511939175

[Beowulf]

90. For the longer range purpose of establishing a movement

beyond 2016, he will stay in the race through at least the convention. His campaign has always been about the ideas and moving the political discourse leftward. It's not about Hillary, it's not about Trump. If he's not the nominee, I expect he will not campaign FOR Hillary, but he will campaign aggressively AGAINST Trump.

[timmymoff]

91. Be sure you realize

that attacking Hillarity is really what most would call stating her record. They (Clinton Apologists) consider it an attack on Hillary to state her record. Kind of like Harry S. Truman ( paraphrase) I'm not giving them hell I'm telling the truth and it feels like hell. That's her problem her record is atrocious, but hey, It's her turn!

[oasis]

92. Once you get sold on pie in the sky, it's too hard to let go.

[Fawke Em]

96. Bull shit.

She deserves criticism and should continue to receive it. She may have a "D" after her name, but she's not a progressive.

[panader0]

97. I get it now. All of HRC's prolems are the fault of observant people at DU?

Have I got that right?

[marmar]

99. I guess when your candidate-of-choice is as fundamentally flawed as Hillary Clinton.....

...... this is all you're left with. PsyOps against those supporting her primary opponent.

[Gothmog]

100. K&r

[Logical]

101. FFS, now hillary has no faults? Or you just want us to not complain about them? Nt

[tonyt53]

104. Most Bernie supporters never bothered to register to vote, or vote if that had registered.

Now they have jumped on a bandwagon that has a speaker that says free college tuition and free healthcare as it's opening line. His base is mostly white younger males - the politically naive. To them, this is a rush. By this fall that rush will have faded and they wouldn't show up to vote for Bernie if he won the nomination. Bernie himself has gone full attack mode against the DNC and Hillary because his base, and it seems his wife, has demanded it. Bernie, his wife, and many of his followers do not care about this country. They care only about getting their point across. Sounds exactly like the teabaggers.

[timmymoff]

106. Most hillarity supporters choose to ignore her record

and vote on that very ignorance of her record. Yay GOP lite

[frylock]

115. Pure unadulterated Brockaganda.

[SMC22307]

122. LOL

[EndElectoral]

105. What a stupid analogy.

[Binkie The Clown]

109. Attacking Bernie today is the same as campaigning for Trump

Since Bernie beats Trump by a much bigger margin that Hillary, who is virtually tied with Trump in may key states.

[amborin]

110. Brock! and False! HRC will lose to Trump; Bernie Wins by Wide Margins & Is Very Close Behind in Pled

Pledged Delegates

[Orsino]

111. Engaged voters, on the other hand, can take it another way.

Candidates are not set-and-forget. They need to be lobbied constantly. An awareness of our candidates' flaws should be engaging us to work on them and make them and their platforms the best they can be. We could even--gasp--stay engaged throughout a presidential term, to keep our president focused on us.

But anyone who planned to just wait for 2024 can certainly take criticism the way you recommend.

[Hiraeth]

112. Attacking Sanders today is the same as campaigning for Trump.

Trump and Clinton are friends they will be happy for either one to win.
Neither of them want Sanders in the White House.

This is the dog and pony show.

[ThePhilosopher04]

113. They are good friends. They're from the same pot.

America loses if either becomes President.

[Autumn]

116. If she proved that she had sound judgment and would take a stand on issues that

is not constantly evolving, if people trusted her and if didn't do stupid shit that resulted in an FBI investigation she would probably not be "attacked" as you call it by so many by democratic and Independent voters. Bur as it, is all that is on her. Her actions. Wake me up when a democrat or a Bernie supporter actually campaigns for Trump because you don't seem to know what the definition of campaign is.

cam·paign
kamˈpān/Submit
noun
1.
a series of military operations intended to achieve a particular objective, confined to a particular area, or involving a specified type of fighting.
"a desert campaign"
synonyms: military operation(s), maneuver(s); More
verb
1.
work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal, typically a political or social one.
"people who campaigned against child labor"
synonyms: crusade, fight, battle, push, press, strive, struggle, lobby
"they are campaigning for political reform"

[DebDoo]

117. Clinton continuing to run, in the face of indictment, is the same as handing Trump the keys to the w

White House. And denying the reality of her indictment doesn't make it any less true, no matter how much you want it to.