Post removed

[LexVegas]

1. Sorry...we didn't buy the BS. The better candidate won....by a lot.

[Armstead]

2. I'll add that to the "flame away" column.

[peace13]

5. You using that to refer to the Senator...

Is part of the problem. DU endorses this type of name calling. It's low and immature. It's disturbing and disgusting!

[Mr Maru]

15. You mean like corporate whore? Or Corpratist? Or "tools of the oligarchy?"

There was plenty of name-calling all the way around. Both sides.

[pinebox]

31. "Buy a lot" is the perhaps the better term when referring to Hillary.

[CrowCityDem]

3. Less than half of less than half of less than half of voters. Bernie; America's chocie!

[Armstead]

4. Your math is weird. But if that's what floats your boat, carry on

[CrowCityDem]

7. Less than half voted. Roughly half voted D. Less than half picked Bernie. That's about 8% of the US.

[Goblinmonger]

19. Of those that voted Dem, Sanders got 45% of those votes. Roughly.

So, by your math, Clinton got a whopping, what, 10% of the US.

Scoreboard! I guess. Or something like that.

[CrowCityDem]

26. It's more than Bernie, and she's not claiming to have a 'revolution' behind her.

[brush]

30. Nope! Your figures are wrong. He got only 35% of Democratic voters

His larger vote count, actually 43%, not the 45% you claim, came from independents and other non-Democrats who were able to vote in open primaries.

So he didn't do that well, in fact, the 57% to 43% figure is a near-landslide, that threshold being 60% to 40%.

It wasn't that close at all. He lost by 3.7 million votes.

In 2008 Hillary actually had slightly more votes than Obama. He had more delegates. Now that was what's called a close race.

[rjsquirrel]

8. Let's figure

Approx 120 million divided by 2 = sixty million

60 million divided by 2 is 30 million

Divided by two is 15 million.

So both Clinton and Sanders received less that half of less than half of the approximate total electorate.

So you're right the original claim added one extra "less than half."

The bigger point is that primary voters are highly motivated and tend to be ideologically driven and well informed. Scaling up for the general means capturing less passionate and less politically and less informed and less ideological voters, not well represented by the primary electorate.

I personally have never believed 60 million people would vote for a self-described socialist revolution, meaning I didn't think Bernie's passionate supporters scaled the way he said they did.

But the "fraction of the general electorate" argument on offer here is spurious and on this I will defend Bernie supporters. Donald Trump drew 14 million votes, a new record for the GOP primary and between Clinton and Sanders' totals.

All moot of course at this point. Bye GDP!

[NurseJackie]

6. Glad to hear it.

[uponit7771]

9. OK, Armstead... is this just to get in another jab before the deadline? Come on man...

... we're supposed to be teaching the world to sing and shit

[Adrahil]

10. I disagree with your candidate choice....

but I'm glad you are on board with beating Trump.

Let's beat Cheeto Jesus.

[Mr Maru]

17. CHEETO JESUS

[Garrett78]

11. Systemic change happens from the bottom-up.

1) Clinton wins big
2) Clinton wins by a small margin
3) Trump wins

Which of those scenarios is most likely to help enable the masses to lay the groundwork for progressive change? I think the answer is clearly #1, especially since #1 also means Dems have won more of the down-ticket races than they would in the other scenarios. Trump winning would send a horrible message (particularly to POC, women and the international community). A narrow victory for Clinton would give her administration even less reason to push for progressive legislation.

I know you said you'll be voting for Clinton, so the above is more for the benefit of others.

More to the point of your thread:

I get that there's a valid leftist critique of the Democratic Party and of the US political system as a whole. I really do. But I also think our individualistic culture overemphasizes the power and influence of individual actors, while underestimating systemic forces. Sanders was never viable and his was a message campaign (and, as a result, his campaign could promote a platform that never would have been realized), but even if he were to become POTUS, his administration would either end up operating in similar fashion to the Obama Admin or he'd be completely stymied.

And our instant gratification culture has an unrealistic expectation of how (and how quickly) systemic change happens. I don't invest much energy in national politics, as I think local politics and local organization are key to bringing about systemic change. Bottom-up, not top-down. Planting seeds in the collective consciousness, recognizing that the extent of change I'd like to see won't be fully realized in my lifetime (some--young and old alike--simply can't accept that, so they cling to unrealistic expectations, which is not the least bit constructive).

As for money in politics, campaign contributions don't have as much impact on election results or even legislation as many believe. The big money in politics problem is the way politicians are getting rich while in office (by having access to insider stock knowledge, by pushing legislation that increases the value of land they own back in their home state, etc.).

[TCJ70]

20. It never hurts to have a solid advocate at the top...

...as it stands, we'll get a wishy washy, prone to war advocate at the top. I know what I'd rather have...

[joshcryer]

12. Have you ever supported Democrats?

Like ever?

[randome]

13. Other than GOP vs Democrats, I would never presume to 'know' who is a better choice.

Especially when Clinton and Sanders are in agreement on most issues. Since the voters have already settled this question for us, what is the point of lamenting the past when there is work to be done in the present?

[laserhaas]

14. Woo Hoo

You said it and I doo'd it

[Arazi]

16. Applause!

[YouDig]

18. Can you go to hillaryclinton.com and point out what part of her agenda is "Corporate/Wall St Owned"?

I don't get it. I get that that's the meme, but I don't get what the basis of it is.

[rgbecker]

23. Hillary is ready to go Fracking. Doesn't seem to mind giving oil Corps tax breaks.

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/hillary-clinton/bernie-sanders/on-energy-and-climate

[midnight]

21. If you believe single payer health care is doable, then Sanders is your choice...

[rgbecker]

24. Won't be doable with a leader who doesn't want to do it.

Bernie is not afraid to teach and preach again and again to point the way. Clinton, slapped down once by the insurance corps, becomes salesman for their program. Mandatory purchase of private insurance! Can you imagine?

[midnight]

32. Talk about your captive customer base-mandatory purchase of private insurance…

[MisterP]

25. things will continue as before: money will walk over three hundred million boys and girls

boots on the ground in Iran
people telling us we've never had it so good as the lights go out

[Faux pas]

27. If it comes down to it

I'll be writing in the candidate of MY CHOICE and it ain't hrc.

[LoverOfLiberty]

28. I used to think you were a serious contributer

but now I see you are just another shit stirrer who would rather continue on with the primary wars than actually helping to elect a Democratic president.

[rbrnmw]

29. to quote our current POTUS

"don't boo, vote!"

[Orsino]

33. How about we lobby to make our presumptive nominee a better candidate?

Fewer of us working to do so doesn't sound like a successful strategy.