Something that loyal democrats might not understand...

[tom-servo]

... Many Bernie Sanders supporters see a vote for Hillary Clinton as a vote for big money in politics. Basically a vote for the central "wrong'" in our system of government. Loyal Democrats see "Democrat" policies as superior to the republican counterparts, but Bernie Sanders supporters see the corrupting influence of money as the central "evil", and all other problems with our political system as derivatives of this one overshadowing problem.

I think this is the reason that many Bernie Sanders supporters will sit the election out if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. Agree or disagree with the basic premise as you will... the fact remains that there are many who see it this way.

[redstateblues]

1. Hard to believe a true progressive wouldn't realize the danger Trump

poses. I do think Hillary will get more Sanders supporters than Obama got HRC supporters in 08. Polls bear that out. It will be enough to win the GE. Will the progressives turn out in the mid terms or will there not be enough ideologically pure candidates running to suit them? Only time will tell- I have my doubts.

[redstateblues]

3. BTW. Welcome to DU. Another new Bernie convert?

Amazing how many new Sanders supporters have popped up spreading negativity

[tom-servo]

9. I've been watching DU off an on for a long time...

... I'm just a lurker by nature. Bernie Sanders is a unique candidate. Thanks for the backhanded welcome.

[JRLeft]

56. Most of HRC supporters are void of facts.

[seekthetruth]

58. So that's all we are?

Spreaders of negativity?

Didn't know my core values were so negative.

You don't even know me..... wtf.

[Marr]

142. That's pretty much all they do.

They seem to see politics as a sort of social club... or maybe a sports team. You will rarely, if ever, see them talk about policy.

[seekthetruth]

149. Well, honestly

All I do is talk about policy. Just to me, on the policies that are fundamental (economics, foreign policy), I am very opposed to Clinton. When it comes to social issues (less the death penalty), she's in line with my views for the most part.

If someone attacks her character, it's due to the actions and judgements she's taken. But if those individuals are name calling or just being assholes, like blaming her followers, then that's wrong.

I don't think she's a bad person, I just simply disagree that she is what the country needs.

If you call that negativity, then I can't help you view it otherwise because it's my opinion. Of course, you're entirely free to have yours, and I will definitely respect it, but I won't agree with it (I.e. "fall in line).

[mathewsleep]

111. Well, that's a fine how-do-you-do!

[Fawke Em]

113. You should take our state off your avatar.

Your negativity embarrasses me.

[Sheepshank]

148. interesting isn't it?

Showing up to bash Hillary in the last month or so before California? There's nothing like a pretend concern poster attempting to add disillusionment to a bulletin board lol. The recent uptick in "never give up, new Sanders Surrogates" in high posting mode. Very excited when they get past that magic 100 post mark.

[tom-servo]

150. Aside from the obvious insults here...

... I'm just expressing my opinion before the chance to elect Bernie Sanders is gone for good. I'm still amazed the democratic party is going to look this gift hose in the mouth. Though I do understand the draw to elect the first woman president.

[Sheepshank]

152. UH HUH

[tom-servo]

8. It's possible...

... I hope it is enough to win the general election, but though there are many things Hillary Clinton does represent, the rejection of big money in politics just isn't a believable one.

[Jitter65]

46. These facts or factors have been existence for most of Democratic party history. That they

weigh so heavily at this time tells me that Hillary-hate and sexism are playing a major role in this primary.

[Fumesucker]

64. There hasn't been a POTUS who cashed in *before* their administration

The tradition has been for former Presidents to cash in after office, Hillary has reversed the usual order and it raises eyebrows, particularly on those who look askance at the influence of money in politics.

[Jitter65]

75. Nothing like being ground-breaking and extraordinary. Most were already wealthy from birth or

privileged by being white males. I like women who forge a new path. Obama and Hillary broke the previous mold.

[surrealAmerican]

78. ... or, just maybe, we've reached some sort of tipping point ...

... due to the staggeringly large quantities of money involved since Citizens' United.

[Fawke Em]

114. It's not sexism.

Hillary Clinton is under a CRIMINAL investigation. There are questions about her using her role as SoS to pad the Clinton Foundation's coffers. She triangulates on social issues and she's an outright neocon on issues of war.

None of this has anything to do with her gender.

[BlueStateLib]

158. Not true

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral - it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.
https://oig.state.gov/whats-new/9811

[tom-servo]

166. It is possible that sexism...

... has played a role in why Hillary Clinton has struggled in both of her runs for nomination. However, I know that my opinions aren't based on sexism. Maybe as a women she has also been forced to go harder right, be more hawkish, to be taken seriously?

[lagomorph777]

133. Hmm, shall I choose Trump's random wars, or Hillary's deliberate wars?

No thank you.

[Exilednight]

147. something you left out about those polls you mentioned.

In 08 Obama brought a very large number of first time voters and young voters.

This primary season, the only age group that Hillary has consistently won is 65 and over.

Sanders has consistently won the 18 to 30 vote am D over 80% of first time voters.

Here's the rub, Obama managed to get people to vote twice for him in '08, once during the primary and again in the GE.

The question now becomes: can Hillary convince all those first time voters which voted for Sanders in the primary to vote for her in the GE?

[tom-servo]

4. So I guess you didn't read the post.

[tom-servo]

10. Heh, sorry...

... I assumed you meant in the opposite way.

[AtomicKitten]

11. took back my recommendation too

[tom-servo]

14. Because of a misinterpretation?

[AtomicKitten]

19. okay I'll give it back

Have a good evening.

[tom-servo]

23. Thanks.

[larkrake]

57. That happens alot Tom, they hear the fridge open and come running- fresh meat ua know

[AtomicKitten]

73. Funny thing is I actually agreed with him.

He misunderstood what I wrote; you can sorta tell that by his response above. No meat involved.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. I have been a loyal democrat longer than Clinton. n/t

[tom-servo]

12. Does my argument make sense to you?

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. I think big money in general is the central problem with, not just politics, but our society.

In my opinion, every problem can be traced back to "big money" i.e. wealth concentration, but it's the one unassailable issue.

I think many "loyal democrats" agree with the Sanders view. If your loyalty is to more than just a logo, some elections are worth sitting out.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

That holds especially true when we know of that bad conduct before electing her.

[tom-servo]

17. That's an excellent point...

... there are also many loyal democrats that also feel this way. I feel this way...though I'm not sure I'll sit the election out. However, I can understand those who choose to.

[lancer78]

48. The President

Is NOT the most important or powerful public servant. The Speaker of the House is.

[JDPriestly]

53. Me too. Born while FDR was president, and I never forget it.

[bkkyosemite]

7. Wrong again....so many are wrong. It's about honesty, integrity and really showing he

cares for years, for the middle class and the poor............decades of the same steadfastness.........................you can't fake that!

[tom-servo]

13. That is true...

... he is seemingly the most honest candidate I have seen get this far.

[rbixby]

121. My concern here, and it always has been

Is given the amount of opposition that Obama faced, both due to his race and due to his slightly left of middle political stances, would someone who's much further left of center be able to actually get any traction, or would he just get bulldozed by congress at every turn? I love Bernie and I love what he stands for, but are we setting ourselves up for another 4 years of government inaction due to a congress that opposes the president because he's actually a 'socialist'?

[Maedhros]

131. And that's different than a Congress that opposes the President because she's a Clinton?

I actually think the Republicans might work with Bernie more that they would with Hillary - which is actually quite strange, since she's much more ideologically compatible with them.

[BillZBubb]

16. That and she's crooked as a snake.

Hard to vote for someone you are convinced is corrupt.

[tom-servo]

18. Yeah...

... corrupt in a way that many politicians are. I'm not sure how Bernie Sanders managed to avoid it. I think there are many politicians that genuinely want to do well by their electorate, but are forced to learn the ways of corruption in order to get anything done. It would be nice if we "the people" could help them in some way.

[lancer78]

49. He avoided it

by moving to a small state (both in size and population) with cheap media markets. He therefore did not have to go around to big donors with his hand out.

[tom-servo]

89. True...

... I think the particular state helped as well. Vermont is very progressive.

[scscholar]

20. I don't think most people are convinced of that...

since no proof has come out that proves that.

[Marr]

144. Polls show that people don't trust her. /nt

[Demsrule86]

21. I call it spoiled and selfish behavior

My five year old goes to time out for it...because they think Trump is better? Sometimes you have to do the best you can...hope we can save them from themselves because what some Bernie supporters don't get is that all liberal progress ends if Trump wins...with four picks for the courts and control of all branches of government . It is done. It would take years to even get back to where we are today...many of us won't live to see it. They think Hillary is bad? Wait till Trump attempts to deport millions, watch homosexuality be criminalized once more, civil rights gone, social security, 40 hour week, loans for college kids...all gone...lots more too.

[tom-servo]

22. Trump would be bad...

...unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that sees an honest politician in Bernie Sanders that can't be bought and "the rest of the two-faced talking heads". Regardless of the subtleties, these people will just not bother to come out in November.

[seabeyond]

24. He sold his vote to Democrats in '91. What do you mean he can't be bought?

He swore he would never be a Democrat and it would make him an hypocrite and here he is. Clinton comes out ahead on the truthful scale continuously up against Sanders.

So, you can believe whatever you want but it doesn't make you correct.

[tom-servo]

25. How actually "honest" Bernie Sanders is...

... isn't the real point, though I think he is significantly more "principled" than Hillary Clinton. The point is that he stands up and says things very few politicians are willing to say, without apology and with very little guile. People notice that.

[seabeyond]

30. So the honesty part doesn't really matter? Ya, he stands up and yells, without

Being able to back it or having done his homework. That would work really well as a president to just react and spout out a reply because he was really feeling something without any diplomacy. Sounds simply brilliant as head of the state.

[tom-servo]

33. Heh, slightly over-stated don't you think...

... I said it wasn't the main point. I didn't say he wasn't actually honest. He certainly seems to be the most honest politician to get nearly half the democratic primary votes in my lifetime.

[seabeyond]

98. He may "seem" to be the most honest, but we create our illusions. As I said, Clinton consistently

out scores him. Honesty matters, integrity matters, until it doesn't serve any more. It is used as a weapon to beat Clinton over the head, until talking about the lack of honesty with Sanders then, it is not the main point.

I get that.

[lancer78]

50. Sanders and Trump

are two different sides of the same coin. They say what they think and damn the consequences. People in America like that. Trump just got lucky by having a lot more opponents who actually had support. If HRC had to split her votes with Biden or a few more viable contenders, then Sanders would be the nominee right now.

[seabeyond]

100. Yes, we have become a reactive society. A nation of rants, screams, saying whatever comes to mind.

I get the people are comfortable in that, that they find it "refreshing", but it is no more honest even though it sounds honest in that it is insulting and attacks, that makes us feel righteous. Doesn't make it right. Often, reactive is a problem because it is not right. So while supporters bask in Sanders reactive stances, they also stand in ignorance because they are not receiving well thought out. Sanders sells his people short. His people should demand a higher quality.

[Fawke Em]

117. He actually has plans for all of his points.

But you keep soft-peddling that lie that he doesn't.

[seabeyond]

118. Not really, kinda sorta, big picture, a little.

[flor-de-jasmim]

60. So Hillary working in the D party after supporting AuH20 means...??

Look, times change. Parties change. Circumstances change. Fundamental values of right and wrong? Not so much, and when a politician appears to change his/her mind on core values--not just once, but back and forth, that is worrisome. No matter the candidate, no matter the party affiliation.

In the case of Bernie in 1991 vs 2016: the least one can do is recognize that the D-party is VERY DIFFERENT (in some ways dramatically so) from then.

[brush]

153. Do you remember who you supported in high school?

Last edited Sat Jun 4, 2016, 12:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Clinton came from a republican family and. influenced by her family, first supported Goldwater as a high school student.

Once leaving home as a college student switched to the Democratic Party after hearing MLK speak.
she supported McCarthy and McGovern.

My point is, many high school kids are influenced by their parents and are often more conservative than college students because of that.

Once on her own, Clinton made her own decisions about who she supported politically. After law school, Hillary didn’t join a big law firm in Washington or New York. Instead, she went to work for the Children’s Defense Fund. Later she ran legal clinics representing disenfranchised people. She co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, one of the state’s first child advocacy groups.

The Goldwater girl bash doesn't really hold water but many Sanders supporters repeat it to discredit her but don't bother to talk about who he supported when he was an actual adult not under the influence of his parents — try Trotsky.

[jfern]

37. What's selfish is to support someone who only ties Trump in the general election

Bernie beats Trump by around 10 in general election polls.

[Demsrule86]

136. I don't base my votes on questionable polls

However, if you think that will change the supers mind...let me remind you that Hillary who was less than 100 delegates behind made the same argument...and Obama was polling badly in key states at the time...and the Supers said no...she did the right thing and conceded and endorsed...this is a test of character for the Bern...does he have any?

[jfern]

137. So the polls are questionable if you don't like them?

Hillary never polled much better than Obama in the general election.

[RandySF]

26. Then, please, be my guest.

It will save trouble for all parties. But don't think for a minute there are enough Bernie-or-Busters to to tilt the election. The bitter-enders are irrelevant.

[tom-servo]

27. Hope you're right.

[JDPriestly]

54. Don't count on your assumptions. There are probably more Bernie or Bust voters

than Hillary supporters realize.

Many more.

And there are even more voters who just find Hillary superficial and boring and who just won't bother to vote for Hillary. They aren't Bernie or Bust voters. They are just essentially voters who don't care enough to vote for Hillary but who would care enough to vote for Bernie.

In other words, don't assume that the total vote for Hillary and Bernie will go to Hillary in November. Hillary is just not the kind of inspiring candidate who makes that happen.

Obama was.

[LeFleur1]

28. Of Course Bernie Supporters See A Vote For Hillary as a Vote For Big Money in Politics

They've been told that for years by the Republicans. OR if they just got into politics they've been told that all during this campaign. If they don't look things up for themselves, they would be brainwashed into believing it as so many Republicans (and those who allow other to tell them what to think) are.

Bernie has never, ever been able to do the good for people that Hillary has done. Check out the facts for a change.

[RandySF]

29. .

[Armstead]

69. That graphic seems like a strangely Rushian attack on Liberalism

I hope I'm misinterpreting the intent of this.

[tom-servo]

31. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate...

... trumpeting that from the roof tops, and I'm pretty sure he actually believes it.

[larkrake]

59. Im sorry, I dont see any good she has done

and Bernies amendments have deflected a great deal of harm, but Im replying to a closed mind, I know better, time to go to bed

[Armstead]

71. I'm 64, been "lookinng things up" for decades....and that only confirms my support for Sanders

If you don't think Big Money has screwed up our political system on all levels -- for both parties -- than I'd suggest you do some looking up at reality.

You can't get into bed with the likes of Goldman Sachs and Monsanto and serve the best interests of the majority public at the same time. You can't adopt the basic principles of the Reagan revolution and be a liberal on core issues. It is a total contradiction of values and goals.

Even Clinton claims to agree on the corrupting influence of money in public, although her committment to actually doing anything about it is open to interpretation.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

“We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans. Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee.”
HILLARY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

[tom-servo]

92. Yeah, she usually talks about the issue...

... in carefully crafted terms.

[Trajan]

108. Republicans told us that?

What malarkey ..

Provide a bona fide citation, right here and now ...

Have you spoken to David Brock this morning? ... Did he tell you to say that?

[JesterCS]

143. Are you delusional??

A Goldwater girl is better than Sanders?

[jamese777]

32. Barack Obama...

raised the most money ever raised by a presidential candidate. Not many people who are centrists or left of center sat out 2008 and 2012 elections.

2008 Fundraising
Obama: $744,985,625
McCain: $368,093,763

2012 Fundraising
Obama: $715,677,692
Romney: $446,135,997

Totals from opensecrets.org

A Donald Trump presidency will not benefit those who see a corrupting influence of big money in politics; it would accentuate the reality that a $6.5 billion-aire can self-fund and buy the office for possibly the next eight years.

[tom-servo]

35. Yes Trump would be bad...

... I'm just not sure nominating Hillary Clinton is going to help.

[tandem5]

34. "Democratic policies" with a capital D is sufficient in specifying that you are

referring to the Democratic party and not to the democratic process. You often see Republicans on Sunday TV panels referring to us as the Democrat party as a way to disassociate us from democracy or being democratic. Perhaps this is done out of bitterness in their thinking that "Republican" doesn't have a strong association to American government. Of course the irony is that we live in a republic and do not engage in direct democracy.

That said, in a republic there will always be forces, large and small, corrupt and genuine, attempting to influence the few representatives of our larger populace. The best way to combat corrupt influence is with calm, steady, dispassionate resolve. The resolve to always vote in every election and the resolve to be as informed as possible. This is the best chance at having representatives that actually represent us in all branches of government.

The large, charismatic figures at the top of the ballot are like sugary cereals at eye level in a supermarket. Real incremental change happens at all levels so look down the ballot: Congressional and senate races, state and local initiatives, state and local government positions, judge appointments, education bonds, infrastructure bonds, etc. So be there when there is no excitement. Be there when you're repulsed. Be there when the election year is not a multiple of four. Just be there.

That's what I understand as a loyal citizen.

[jonmac511]

76. thank you

This is, by far, the best post I've ever read on DU. You have hit the nail squarely on the head. To not vote is doing the very thing that has led to the problems we are currently facing as a nation. I'm a huge Bernie Sanders supporter but his not being the nominee will not keep me from voting because of every reason you posted. Change can still occur, and will occur. Not voting makes sure that what occurs is going to be the exact opposite of what we want. As a progressive living in GA, it would be very easy to say my vote won't matter but that's why republicans win because too many say, and do, exactly that.

[tom-servo]

94. That's a good view of civil responsibility...

... but the figure at the very top, does get the most attention. It would be nice if that figure aligned more with the citizenry than special interests.

[jfern]

36. That's not even half of why I oppose her.

[StevieM]

38. Electing Hillary as president will get Merrick Garland confirmed to the Supreme Court.

And it will get Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer replaced by like-minded justices.

That will get Citizens United overturned.

And that will reduce the role of big money in politics.

[tom-servo]

41. I assume you mean by "replaced" by like-minded justices...

... and I'm not sure overturning Citizens United is enough, but it's a start. I'm also not sure Hillary Clinton will win against Trump.

[StevieM]

42. Yes, I did. Thanks for the heads up.

We can never know for sure whether our candidate will win the election or not. We can only do our best to make sure it happens.

[tom-servo]

44. I'd prefer a better candidate, one with a wider appeal.

[sandyshoes17]

68. I'm not convinced of that

She could put a corporate friendly judge like Roberts and Alito, but are soft on social issues. She does owe a lot of favors. Just saying.

[StevieM]

132. I don't believe that this is a reasonable conclusion. It is a good example, in my mind, of how

Bernie supporters insist on seeing the worst in Hillary and believing that she will not be like other Democratic presidents.

I think it is crazy to suggest that Hillary's nominees will not be like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayer, Elena Kagan and Merrick Garland.

[onenote]

39. Loyal Democrats being those who recognize the threat Trump poses

to the groups Democrats have been loyal to through the years and that have been loyal to Democrats: women, ethnic and religious minorities, the disabled, and others who are particularly vulnerable to the putrid swill being peddled by Trump

Its interesting that you draw such a clear distinction, albeit unintentionally, between "many Bernie Sanders supporters" and the people who fit the definition of loyal Democrats.

[tom-servo]

43. Yeah, it is an interesting distinction...

... but I obviously mean the set of Bernie Sanders supporters who would consider sitting it out. Some of these democrats may have previously considered themselves "loyal" to the party. No democrat can deny that the party has changed significantly, and I think it is on the brink of changing again, either by shrinking or growing.

[Vote2016]

40. I don't think many are going to sit the election out. There are great down-ballot races to support.

Many will simply write-in Sanders or vote Jill Stein at the top of the ticket and vote for down-ballot Democrats.

If Hillary was a true progressive as she claimed in the primary, there wouldn't be such a platform and rules fight, she would pick a progressive running mate, and there wouldn't be talk of "pivoting" to distance herself from her progressive promises made during the primary.

Because Hillary will double down on her untrustworthyness by betraying those promises, she'll further fracture the party and lose in the Fall. President Trump will suck, but all things will pass and we'll run a progressive candidate in 2020 and win.

[840high]

61. Your first sentence describes

what I am going to do. Many more like me.

[VulgarPoet]

86. That's my conundrum in a nutshell.

Why am I going to vote for someone who I know when someone tries to hold their feet to the fire, they'll lie through their teeth to get out of the grip, and then go on with what they were gonna do anyway.

[Maedhros]

45. I guess the big question is:

Is one loyal to the ideals, or loyal to the label?

[tom-servo]

95. Well stated.

[highprincipleswork]

47. New Democrats, which includes anyone who has become Democrat under the influence of Clinton policies

and philosophy don't even understand that once upon a time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for practically 60 years straight, as well as having more than our fair share of Presidents.

In the abysmal years since Ronald Reagan and the weak tea, DLC, Al From, Bill Clinton policies that followed, we have had majorities in Congress for only six of the last twenty years. And President George W. Bush And the Tea Party. And Donald Trump and assorted craziness like that.

Clintonian economics and policy has been a disaster, and stands to become an even worse disaster this year.

[Lil Missy]

51. Bernie lost. If you won't vote, fine. Hillary will still win the GE without you. n/t

[tom-servo]

140. Hope you're right.

[JDPriestly]

52. K&R. So true.

[larkrake]

55. I can agree with that to a point, but not just big money - shes just a bad candidate

[840high]

62. Yes she is.

[bjo59]

63. And for this Bernie Sanders supporter, a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a person who fully

aids and supports the overwhelming devastation wrought by the US and its various surrogates across the Middle East as part of the "great game" of geopolitics. For me, to visit such horrors on other people for the gain of wealth and power is utterly immoral. It sickens me that my taxes support this and I will not sanction it with my vote.

[barrow-wight]

65. See it however you like.

You've got two more weeks to keep saying it.

[ebayfool]

66. People are aware of that. They don't require your posting it on every damn thread.

[tom-servo]

96. Has DU already called out the nominee being supported in two more weeks?...

... I didn't see that.

[JesterCS]

145. Member since: Tue May 17, 2016, 01:30 AM, hello Troll n/t

[beachbum bob]

67. the "many" will turn out to be a insignificant number

and if those people sit out the election which could elect a trump...then THEY have a lot of the RESPONSIBILITY for trump.....to me they shame themselves if they ever really supported sanders in the first place

[Henhouse]

70. Many Sanders' voters are anti-Hillary...this is not news...

I would ask you not to sit out the election but, giving the nomination to the guy in second place is not an option. So, we are at an impasse.

[NCTraveler]

72. Lots of truth there and you stated it very well.

It's not often that the economics only group is spoken about in the manner you have. They normally don't like being labeled as such but you have done it well.

[Sancho]

74. Before you sell your vote to Bernie or drop out of voting...check out the other side of the coin...

https://www.quora.com/What-dirt-is-there-on-Bernie-Sanders/answer/Mark-Hughes-1

You may or may not "agree" with the author (who claims to vote for no one in primaries), but many of the issues with Bernie are just as serious and undesirable as the generalized "anti-money" that this OP professes is the problem.

If people want to sit out the election, they can - and that is a common occurrence in US elections - particularly with young people. That may be one reason the GOP wins more elections than they should.

[tom-servo]

97. So you think lack of participation is the cause...

... and not a symptom?

[Sancho]

134. Yes...

It's been that way a long time.

[jack_krass]

77. Hillarys attacks against Trump university are innefective

When she's been feeding at the trough of Goldman Sachs,(who has harmed and defrauded millons more people than TrumpU) for years to the tune of 100s of millions.

Bernie can much more effectively and credibly make these attacks.

[bigwillq]

79. Hillary represents everything that's wrong with politics

IMO

[left-of-center2012]

80. Will the Bernie bashing stop in two weeks?

Or will the haters just try to disguise it as support for HRC?

[sibelian]

82. It will increase 100-fold.

This site has nothing to do with political analysis, it's a group bonding programme.

[VulgarPoet]

87. Please, he will be the Goldstein to the DNC's Two Minutes Hate. nt

[Skinner]

81. I understand that.

And I understand why it might lead someone to support Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary.

What I don't understand is why someone who cares about the corrupting influence of money in politics would possibly sit out the general election. Just one example: Adding a liberal justice to the Supreme Court would tip the balance in favor of campaign finance reform, and would let Congress pass laws restricting money in politics. Meanwhile, adding a conservative justice to the Supreme Court would guarantee that the court remains hostile to campaign finance reform, would definitely overturn any new campaign finance laws passed by Congress, and might even overturn the remaining laws we have on the books.

If you care about the corrupting influence of money in politics, the choice we face in the general election appears to me to be a no-brainer. Since obviously I am missing something here, could you please explain to me how adding a conservative justice to the supreme court helps further the cause of campaign finance reform?

[Cosmic Kitten]

84. BECAUSE: Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

Hillary represents the Oligarchs.
Trump is an Oligarch.

Sanders is opposed to the Oligarchs.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.

In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

Neither Hillary nor Trump will do a goddamned
thing to help Average citizens.

When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.

They conclude:

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

It's a fucking Dog & Pony Show
with two sets of Oligarchs fighting
for control.

The Sturm und Drang over appointments
is a charade as the Oligarchs will get
EXACTLY who they want for each position.

The only REAL choice is between
Bernie Sanders and the Oligarchs.


https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

[randome]

85. You don't get to define the choices, however.

You can express your opinion, sure, but it's pretty damned clear that voters think there are more choices than the two you've outlined.

Because they aren't voting for Sanders, are they?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[onecaliberal]

105. ^That^ x10000000

[tom-servo]

103. Not everyone views their vote...

... as a move in a chess game. I think it is over-stated to say that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for healthy campaign finance reform, but, of course, I wouldn't argue that having more conservative justices improves its chances in any way. Republicans seem to like the corrupting influence of money more than Democrats.

[Skinner]

110. You did not answer my question.

Could you please explain to me how adding a conservative justice to the supreme court helps further the cause of campaign finance reform?

[tom-servo]

116. I thought I answered it...

... adding a conservative justice does not help. I'm just not sure the Supreme Court can do all that much about the central problem.

[Skinner]

123. LOL. If you think the Supreme Court can't do very much, you are completely wrong.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly gutted our campaign finance laws:

Buckley v. Valeo (January 30, 1976) The Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment.

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (June 25, 2007) In 2007, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the McCain–Feingold Act’s prohibition on corporate electioneering communications—defined as broadcast ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election that named a candidate and were targeted at the relevant voters—was unconstitutional.

Citizens United v. FEC (January 21, 2010) In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on January 21, 2010 struck down the 60-year-old federal prohibition on corporate independent expenditures in candidate elections.

McComish (Arizona Free Enterprise) v. Bennett (June 27, 2011) In August 2008, plaintiffs challenged the “matching funds trigger provisions” of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, which provided participating candidates with additional funds if a non-participating opponent or outside group spent above a certain threshold. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the “trigger provisions” violated the First Amendment rights of non-participating candidates and independent spenders.

McCutcheon v. FEC (April 2, 2014) The Republican National Committee and donor Shaun McCutcheon brought suit to challenge the $74,600 aggregate limit on contributions to non-candidate committees and the $48,600 aggregate limit on contributions to candidate committees in a two-year election cycle. On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down the aggregate limits.

[tom-servo]

138. Those are all good examples of how the court can negatively impact campaign finance reform...

... thanks. It's possible that better legislation wouldn't make a difference to an obviously hostile court. However, I'm really not the one you have to convince. There is also more to Big Money corruption than just campaign finance.

[BillZBubb]

119. It is NOT a given that Hillary would appoint justices opposed to Citizens United.

Obama's recent nominee, Judge Garland, has a history of supporting the Supreme Court decision. Who knows how he would vote if on the court? He is a strong believer in following Supreme Court precedent.

There is no guarantee that any Hillary nominee would be different. She herself has been a big beneficiary of corporate financing. I suspect she's not as averse to big money politics as you seem to believe. It certainly, given her history, won't be that big a priority for her--despite what she might say on the campaign trail. (Disclaimer: I don't believe a word she says, so I'm definitely biased).

In addition, whoever the Democratic winner is would face the constraint of a republican Senate limiting their picks. I have no doubt Hillary would be willing to limit her selections to less liberal candidates to get a pick approved. Citizens United will be low on her priority list.

[Skinner]

120. Do you think Trump's supreme court picks will be MORE LIKELY to overturn citizen's united? (nt)

[BillZBubb]

122. Of course not. But arguing that Hillary's picks will is highly speculative and open to doubt.

If there was an assurance they would, this particular SC argument would be more convincing.

[Skinner]

125. Unless we get a time machine, we can't ever know what the future holds.

But it is a near-certainty that Hillary Clinton would appoint more liberal justices to the Supreme Court than Donald Trump would. As near to certain as you can get in politics. Throwing away your only opportunity to appoint a justice to the liberal wing of the court because there exists a tiny sliver of possibility it might not happen makes zero sense.

[Ghost Dog]

129. Surely there is still an alternative opportunity, Mr. Sanders,

who would also be more likely than Trump, and than Ms. Clinton, to appoint genuinely liberal Supreme Court judges, and who would appear, if nominated, also to be more likely to beat Trump in the GE?

[shanti]

159. hillary is NOT liberal

and i don't think for a minute that she'd appoint any liberals to the SC. no way, that argument is null to me.

[Skinner]

160. Questions: In your opinion...

Is Bill Clinton liberal?
Is Barack Obama liberal?

Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg liberal?
Is Stephen Breyer liberal?
Is Sonia Sotomayor liberal?
Is Elena Kagan liberal?

[shanti]

162. the first two and last of the supremes

NO. the others, i don't know, but we're discussing hillary, not them.

[Skinner]

163. I'm not sure I understand your answer. The wording is confusing to me.

Could you indicate by name which are liberal and which are not?

[shanti]

164. clinton, obama, kagan - NO

They are NOT liberals. i can't believe you even mentioned bill clinton and liberal in the same sentence...but i understand. doesn't change my mind on bernie though.

[Skinner]

165. My point is this:

You do not consider Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to be liberal, just like you do not consider Hillary Clinton to be liberal.

But between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, there have been four justices placed on the court. Out of those four, we can infer from your answer that you consider three of them to be liberal.

My point: Sometimes presidents you do not consider liberal actually do place liberal justices on the court. By your standard the record seems to be 3 out of 4 which is not a perfect record but still better than we can expect from our Republican opponents.

[SmittynMo]

83. This morning,,,,,

I'm not a morning Joe fan, but he said today, that if Bernie wins CA, it will be like a "political earthquake".

I happen to agree with his statement. People are fed up with establishment politics. And now the Clinton's are freaking out, pulling up in NJ, and flying their asses to CA to try to save the state. Good luck with that as it's probably too late.

As for voters not showing up in November if Bernie is not in, I am in total agreement with your statement. I am still "on the fence" when it comes to this, for the very reasons you state above. I have been telling HRC supporters this for weeks. They think it's bullshit, and people will show up. I can tell you this. If what we believe is true actually happens, the dems will hand the presidency to Trump, due to low voter turnout. Yet another reason not to vote, right?

Let's just get over this shit, and put Bernie in there. All polls indicate Bernie trounces all over Trump in the GE. Hillary cannot say the same thing. It's so simple. You want to win? Elect Bernie. You can't go wrong!!!

[B Calm]

88. Most Bernie supporters have known this primary was a sham from the get-go. If Hillary

(despite having everything handed to her) pulls this squeaker out, she will have to adopt much of Bernie's platform to win our votes. Totally up to her.

[tom-servo]

141. That would help her...

... if she could convince people she was sincere about it.

[Orsino]

90. I doubt that there will be many such...

...but that is likely to be their reasoning.

Almost any voter has to hold his/her nose, and in the case of a new voter engaged by a unique candidate, that enthusiasm may not easily transfer to another.

[Dem2]

91. Such a limited and self-defeating perspective

Why can't you see the sheer folly of putting all of your eggs into one basket, ultimately enabling EVEN MORE big money in politics by showing that you're weak and petulant, a voter no politician can rely on.

[sibelian]

93. It is not given to POLITICIANS to rely on voters, Dem2.

That's not their job.

[Dem2]

99. Imagine trying to herd 100,000,000 cats

If people don't have any desire to work for a common goal (winning, but with a little sacrifice along the way), then the fascists will win and we'll all be enslaved. All or nothing never has and never will be a winning strategy on the Presidential level. One can pick off individual House seats using this strategy, but ultimately that's a very limited power base the way our system is designed.

[sibelian]

135. I see that you are unconvinced.

I'm not sure your understanding of the system in which you live is entirely complete.

[Renew Deal]

101. What is Bernies passable plan to change it?

And is it more likely to pass and survive in court than single payer, free college, etc?

[reddread]

104. versus Hillary and Trump's plan?

jesus. it burns.

[Renew Deal]

107. Exactly

[tom-servo]

109. I think Bernie Sanders, like many of us...

... wonder if it's too late already, and I think he hopes that speaking its name every chance he gets might help the only group that can do something about it (the general population) see the actual problem.

[leveymg]

102. The system is fundamentally broken but it is still the only way to get to work. So you ride it.

I don't think your conclusion follows from the premises. Most of us will vote, anyway. But, the question is whether HRC will even be on the ballot. My gut tells me the Convention will pick Warren after Hillary departs.

[CrowCityDem]

106. We understand. You think purity trumps actually making progress.

[Fawke Em]

112. We won't "sit it out."

We plan to either write-in Bernie or vote Green at the top of the ticket should it be between Trump and Clinton.

I do plan to vote for several down-ticket Democrats running in my state and locally.

I just can't hold my nose enough to vote for an oligarch or a fascist.

[DookDook]

128. This is my wife and I as well. We vote in every election, even the weird off ones.

We are lucky enough to be within walking distance of our polling place so we enjoy a nice walk. We won't be sitting out the election, we'll be voting for the candidates that best represent our viewpoints. So that will either be Bernie Sanders at the top of the ticket or green.

I'll also be voting for any down-ticket Democrats, but that's Democrats not 'Thirdwayers.'

[jwirr]

115. Yeah well loyal Democrats have been voting us into austerity

and over the cliff of corporatism since the 1980s. I am no longer interested in playing the game. I cannot afford it.

I may or may not vote for Hillary but it will not be because I think she is going to help me or my family in any way. She never has.

[B Calm]

124. I fear were in big ass trouble if she doesn't drop out before the convention.

[Marrah_G]

156. I agree

Too much baggage and if an indictment comes after the convention then we are screwed.

[RKP5637]

126. That said, what will we see with a Trump presidency?

[tonyt53]

127. If they sit it out, then they aren't Democrats. They are only in it for "me". Simple as that.

[tom-servo]

139. I think that's an unfair assessment...

... when a system leaves people powerless, it shouldn't be surprised when those people choose not to try.

[Marrah_G]

155. You are wrong about that

[me b zola]

130. I will not be sitting out the election. I will be voting for Bernie

But the rest of your post hit the mark.

[JesterCS]

146. Write-IN FTW n/t

[Faux pas]

151. If it comes down to it

we need to start a national Write In for Bernie!

[Marrah_G]

154. I will only vote for her as a vote against Trump

I do not support her and I will not be happy to see her as our nominee. In fact I think if she is, she will lose this election.

However, if she is the nominee I will abide by DU rules and keep my feelings to myself.

[One of the 99]

157. The word is "Democratic"

Loyal Democrats see "Democrat" policies as superior

Not "Democrat" as you put it. Only RWers use "Democrat" instead of "Democratic".

[hobbit709]

161. Loyalty is a two way street.