HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » It kills me to come to a ...

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:12 PM

It kills me to come to a gathering place for democrats

Last edited Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:01 PM - Edit history (1)

and see Hillary constantly criticized.

She isn't our enemy.

She ran the most progressive candidacy in DECADES.

She is NOT TRUMP.

She is not an oligarch

She is not a supporter of the oligarchy.

She has been besmirched by rw regulars and nuts and lefties too.

I am so god damn sick of it.

She would have probably made the best president of our lifetimes. And this is a political loss beyond anything we could have imagined.

But by all means, keep on guessing on how Bernie would have been better and beat asswipe Trump, with nothing to back it up but criticism of Hillary.

i am so god damn sick of it.

She won by approx 3M votes.

Russia interfered.

The FUCKING FBI interfered in our election.

DAMN, it wasn't because she alienated white people!

ETA I want to thank all the DU members who have rec'd this! THANK YOU!

542 replies, 53108 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 542 replies Author Time Post
Reply It kills me to come to a gathering place for democrats (Original post)
boston bean Dec 2016 OP
Hekate Dec 2016 #1
boston bean Dec 2016 #6
SharonAnn Dec 2016 #29
calimary Dec 2016 #124
Hekate Dec 2016 #137
sheshe2 Dec 2016 #163
Gothmog Dec 2016 #356
sheshe2 Dec 2016 #362
Gothmog Dec 2016 #404
DFW Dec 2016 #165
brush Dec 2016 #188
LisaM Dec 2016 #197
betsuni Dec 2016 #198
stevenleser Dec 2016 #340
aikoaiko Dec 2016 #275
stevenleser Dec 2016 #339
aikoaiko Dec 2016 #370
stevenleser Dec 2016 #376
aikoaiko Dec 2016 #379
stevenleser Dec 2016 #380
aikoaiko Dec 2016 #381
stevenleser Dec 2016 #382
aikoaiko Dec 2016 #383
Gothmog Dec 2016 #510
aikoaiko Dec 2016 #515
Gothmog Dec 2016 #516
aikoaiko Dec 2016 #517
Gothmog Dec 2016 #523
aikoaiko Dec 2016 #525
Gothmog Dec 2016 #526
StevieM Jan 2017 #538
Lucinda Dec 2016 #304
Gothmog Dec 2016 #355
Cha Dec 2016 #372
Gothmog Dec 2016 #500
Pathwalker Dec 2016 #502
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #2
Arkansas Granny Dec 2016 #3
boston bean Dec 2016 #5
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #13
StevieM Dec 2016 #84
Arkansas Granny Dec 2016 #129
we can do it Dec 2016 #11
boston bean Dec 2016 #15
yeoman6987 Dec 2016 #16
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #252
duffyduff Dec 2016 #20
boston bean Dec 2016 #24
dionysus Dec 2016 #27
Ghost OF Trotsky Dec 2016 #284
we can do it Dec 2016 #35
liquid diamond Dec 2016 #309
Kuhl Dec 2016 #325
Gothmog Dec 2016 #524
Cowpunk Dec 2016 #287
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #301
Cowpunk Dec 2016 #387
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #391
Gothmog Dec 2016 #358
Gothmog Dec 2016 #357
RKP5637 Dec 2016 #4
we can do it Dec 2016 #7
uponit7771 Dec 2016 #8
Nonhlanhla Dec 2016 #9
boston bean Dec 2016 #12
obliviously Dec 2016 #134
brush Dec 2016 #191
we can do it Dec 2016 #56
Exilednight Dec 2016 #10
elleng Dec 2016 #17
lapucelle Dec 2016 #32
Exilednight Dec 2016 #34
lapucelle Dec 2016 #44
Exilednight Dec 2016 #59
boston bean Dec 2016 #61
Exilednight Dec 2016 #66
boston bean Dec 2016 #75
Tanuki Dec 2016 #81
Exilednight Dec 2016 #116
Tanuki Dec 2016 #127
Exilednight Dec 2016 #203
brush Dec 2016 #192
Exilednight Dec 2016 #202
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #254
Charles Bukowski Dec 2016 #272
Exilednight Dec 2016 #280
Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #307
sheshe2 Dec 2016 #95
Exilednight Dec 2016 #115
sheshe2 Dec 2016 #118
Exilednight Dec 2016 #199
synergie Dec 2016 #439
Exilednight Dec 2016 #443
synergie Dec 2016 #488
murielm99 Dec 2016 #135
Exilednight Dec 2016 #200
betsuni Dec 2016 #206
lapucelle Dec 2016 #224
Exilednight Dec 2016 #230
lapucelle Dec 2016 #233
Exilednight Dec 2016 #243
boston bean Dec 2016 #389
Gothmog Dec 2016 #360
Exilednight Dec 2016 #378
boston bean Dec 2016 #390
Exilednight Dec 2016 #395
Gothmog Dec 2016 #397
Exilednight Dec 2016 #400
Gothmog Dec 2016 #412
Exilednight Dec 2016 #421
Gothmog Dec 2016 #423
Exilednight Dec 2016 #428
Gothmog Dec 2016 #430
Exilednight Dec 2016 #432
Gothmog Dec 2016 #436
Exilednight Dec 2016 #446
Gothmog Dec 2016 #447
Exilednight Dec 2016 #454
Gothmog Dec 2016 #451
synergie Dec 2016 #434
Exilednight Dec 2016 #435
Gothmog Dec 2016 #437
synergie Dec 2016 #438
Exilednight Dec 2016 #445
Gothmog Dec 2016 #448
synergie Dec 2016 #482
synergie Dec 2016 #487
George II Dec 2016 #442
Gothmog Dec 2016 #396
Exilednight Dec 2016 #398
Gothmog Dec 2016 #413
Exilednight Dec 2016 #420
Gothmog Dec 2016 #424
Exilednight Dec 2016 #427
Gothmog Dec 2016 #429
Exilednight Dec 2016 #431
synergie Dec 2016 #440
Gothmog Dec 2016 #441
Exilednight Dec 2016 #444
Gothmog Dec 2016 #449
Exilednight Dec 2016 #468
Gothmog Dec 2016 #469
Exilednight Dec 2016 #472
Gothmog Dec 2016 #473
Exilednight Dec 2016 #475
synergie Dec 2016 #483
JustAnotherGen Dec 2016 #491
Gothmog Dec 2016 #492
synergie Dec 2016 #484
synergie Dec 2016 #467
Exilednight Dec 2016 #470
synergie Dec 2016 #485
Gothmog Dec 2016 #474
synergie Dec 2016 #486
Gothmog Dec 2016 #489
JCanete Dec 2016 #346
JCanete Dec 2016 #167
SammyWinstonJack Dec 2016 #174
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #177
JCanete Dec 2016 #215
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #289
JCanete Dec 2016 #345
Amaril Dec 2016 #419
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #425
JCanete Dec 2016 #456
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #457
JCanete Dec 2016 #458
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #459
JCanete Dec 2016 #460
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #461
JCanete Dec 2016 #462
Gothmog Dec 2016 #361
JCanete Dec 2016 #369
Gothmog Dec 2016 #394
JCanete Dec 2016 #401
Gothmog Dec 2016 #405
JCanete Dec 2016 #406
JustAnotherGen Dec 2016 #408
JCanete Dec 2016 #411
Gothmog Dec 2016 #414
JCanete Dec 2016 #418
Gothmog Dec 2016 #422
George II Dec 2016 #416
JCanete Dec 2016 #417
Gothmog Dec 2016 #450
JCanete Dec 2016 #452
Gothmog Dec 2016 #453
JCanete Dec 2016 #455
Gothmog Dec 2016 #463
JCanete Dec 2016 #464
Gothmog Dec 2016 #465
JCanete Dec 2016 #466
Gothmog Dec 2016 #471
JCanete Dec 2016 #480
Gothmog Dec 2016 #490
Warren DeMontague Dec 2016 #476
lapucelle Dec 2016 #334
JCanete Dec 2016 #344
lapucelle Dec 2016 #347
JCanete Dec 2016 #348
lapucelle Dec 2016 #349
JCanete Dec 2016 #350
Gothmog Dec 2016 #493
JCanete Dec 2016 #495
Gothmog Dec 2016 #496
JCanete Dec 2016 #497
Gothmog Dec 2016 #498
Kuhl Dec 2016 #326
lapucelle Dec 2016 #333
Kuhl Dec 2016 #336
Gothmog Dec 2016 #499
Kuhl Dec 2016 #503
Gothmog Dec 2016 #504
Kuhl Dec 2016 #505
Gothmog Dec 2016 #506
Kuhl Dec 2016 #507
Gothmog Dec 2016 #512
Kuhl Dec 2016 #513
Gothmog Dec 2016 #514
Kuhl Dec 2016 #518
Gothmog Dec 2016 #520
Kuhl Dec 2016 #521
Gothmog Dec 2016 #522
JCanete Jan 2017 #536
Gothmog Jan 2017 #534
Gothmog Jan 2017 #541
Gothmog Dec 2016 #494
George II Dec 2016 #331
WilliamH1474 Dec 2016 #41
stevenleser Dec 2016 #76
boston bean Dec 2016 #101
Hekate Dec 2016 #140
WilliamH1474 Dec 2016 #157
pnwmom Dec 2016 #171
stevenleser Dec 2016 #246
pnwmom Dec 2016 #170
karynnj Dec 2016 #270
stevenleser Dec 2016 #283
Kuhl Dec 2016 #327
karynnj Dec 2016 #341
StevieM Jan 2017 #540
JHan Dec 2016 #117
WilliamH1474 Dec 2016 #161
JHan Dec 2016 #269
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #43
baldguy Dec 2016 #184
Gore1FL Dec 2016 #212
baldguy Dec 2016 #216
Gore1FL Dec 2016 #251
baldguy Dec 2016 #257
Gore1FL Dec 2016 #263
baldguy Dec 2016 #265
Gore1FL Dec 2016 #266
TonyPDX Dec 2016 #250
Gore1FL Dec 2016 #267
truebluegreen Dec 2016 #290
baldguy Dec 2016 #328
truebluegreen Dec 2016 #329
baldguy Dec 2016 #330
truebluegreen Dec 2016 #338
jack_krass Dec 2016 #73
Lil Missy Dec 2016 #149
Exilednight Dec 2016 #220
Lil Missy Dec 2016 #322
pnwmom Dec 2016 #169
Exilednight Dec 2016 #221
pnwmom Dec 2016 #222
Exilednight Dec 2016 #232
pnwmom Dec 2016 #236
Exilednight Dec 2016 #244
pnwmom Dec 2016 #260
Exilednight Dec 2016 #268
pnwmom Dec 2016 #276
Exilednight Dec 2016 #281
pnwmom Dec 2016 #288
Exilednight Dec 2016 #299
SunSeeker Dec 2016 #14
apcalc Dec 2016 #18
iluvtennis Dec 2016 #33
bucolic_frolic Dec 2016 #19
BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #21
liquid diamond Dec 2016 #313
BlueMTexpat Dec 2016 #392
LakeArenal Dec 2016 #22
StevieM Dec 2016 #70
Emilybemily Dec 2016 #23
dionysus Dec 2016 #25
MFM008 Dec 2016 #26
betsuni Dec 2016 #28
BlancheSplanchnik Dec 2016 #30
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #31
Nonhlanhla Dec 2016 #36
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #48
boston bean Dec 2016 #51
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #53
boston bean Dec 2016 #122
George II Dec 2016 #38
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #47
boston bean Dec 2016 #52
Post removed Dec 2016 #67
boston bean Dec 2016 #68
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #69
boston bean Dec 2016 #71
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #72
boston bean Dec 2016 #74
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #86
boston bean Dec 2016 #94
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #100
boston bean Dec 2016 #103
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #105
boston bean Dec 2016 #107
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #109
boston bean Dec 2016 #111
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #126
murielm99 Dec 2016 #136
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #143
murielm99 Dec 2016 #150
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #153
murielm99 Dec 2016 #154
think Dec 2016 #155
sweetloukillbot Dec 2016 #195
think Dec 2016 #209
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #159
Coolest Ranger Dec 2016 #182
TonyPDX Dec 2016 #501
NBachers Dec 2016 #172
BainsBane Dec 2016 #384
fleabiscuit Dec 2016 #386
JustAnotherGen Dec 2016 #409
think Dec 2016 #145
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #158
sweetloukillbot Dec 2016 #196
think Dec 2016 #213
BainsBane Dec 2016 #385
George II Dec 2016 #332
George II Dec 2016 #373
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #57
boston bean Dec 2016 #60
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #77
boston bean Dec 2016 #78
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #90
boston bean Dec 2016 #91
Gothmog Dec 2016 #364
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #371
Gothmog Dec 2016 #399
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #402
Gothmog Dec 2016 #403
George II Dec 2016 #189
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #225
George II Dec 2016 #99
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2016 #104
George II Dec 2016 #190
Coolest Ranger Dec 2016 #180
Uponthegears Dec 2016 #201
Coolest Ranger Dec 2016 #207
Uponthegears Dec 2016 #218
Coolest Ranger Dec 2016 #181
Gothmog Dec 2016 #363
obliviously Dec 2016 #133
Hekate Dec 2016 #142
obliviously Dec 2016 #144
Hekate Dec 2016 #146
Coolest Ranger Dec 2016 #179
George II Dec 2016 #37
boston bean Dec 2016 #42
bowens43 Dec 2016 #39
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #46
sheshe2 Dec 2016 #102
obliviously Dec 2016 #138
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #141
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #151
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #228
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #229
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #234
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #237
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #238
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #242
leftofcool Dec 2016 #185
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #227
StevieM Jan 2017 #539
WilliamH1474 Dec 2016 #164
JudyM Dec 2016 #256
lapucelle Dec 2016 #352
BeyondGeography Dec 2016 #176
m-lekktor Dec 2016 #219
lapucelle Dec 2016 #393
JudyM Dec 2016 #255
Charles Bukowski Dec 2016 #278
Paladin Dec 2016 #40
humbled_opinion Dec 2016 #45
boston bean Dec 2016 #49
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #50
boston bean Dec 2016 #54
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #63
boston bean Dec 2016 #65
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #83
boston bean Dec 2016 #85
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #96
boston bean Dec 2016 #97
InAbLuEsTaTe Dec 2016 #108
boston bean Dec 2016 #110
PatsFan87 Dec 2016 #112
WilliamH1474 Dec 2016 #168
duhneece Dec 2016 #214
StevieM Dec 2016 #80
stevenleser Dec 2016 #92
TonyPDX Dec 2016 #249
stevenleser Dec 2016 #253
LonePirate Dec 2016 #55
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #62
YoungDemCA Dec 2016 #226
Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #310
Larkspur Dec 2016 #509
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #58
truebluegreen Dec 2016 #291
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #292
truebluegreen Dec 2016 #293
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #296
truebluegreen Dec 2016 #297
KamaAina Dec 2016 #64
RBInMaine Dec 2016 #79
ananda Dec 2016 #82
boston bean Dec 2016 #87
NobodyHere Dec 2016 #88
boston bean Dec 2016 #98
Guilded Lilly Dec 2016 #89
stevenleser Dec 2016 #93
sheshe2 Dec 2016 #106
Jakes Progress Dec 2016 #113
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #205
TreasonousBastard Dec 2016 #114
boston bean Dec 2016 #119
HassleCat Dec 2016 #120
jimlup Dec 2016 #121
boston bean Dec 2016 #123
jimlup Dec 2016 #125
boston bean Dec 2016 #128
jimlup Dec 2016 #130
Coolest Ranger Dec 2016 #175
jimlup Dec 2016 #194
Coolest Ranger Dec 2016 #208
jimlup Dec 2016 #211
DownriverDem Dec 2016 #131
obliviously Dec 2016 #132
Cha Dec 2016 #139
Tatiana Dec 2016 #147
OnionPatch Dec 2016 #240
Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #312
fleabiscuit Dec 2016 #148
Post removed Dec 2016 #152
RazBerryBeret Dec 2016 #156
Liberal_in_LA Dec 2016 #160
McCamy Taylor Dec 2016 #162
JCanete Dec 2016 #166
NBachers Dec 2016 #173
barbtries Dec 2016 #178
Gothmog Dec 2016 #183
SidDithers Dec 2016 #186
Littlered9560 Dec 2016 #187
democratisphere Dec 2016 #193
baldguy Dec 2016 #204
Coolest Ranger Dec 2016 #210
La Lioness Priyanka Dec 2016 #235
jack_krass Dec 2016 #261
baldguy Dec 2016 #264
truebluegreen Dec 2016 #294
hollowdweller Dec 2016 #217
randr Dec 2016 #223
HassleCat Dec 2016 #277
truebluegreen Dec 2016 #295
stevenleser Dec 2016 #303
HassleCat Dec 2016 #308
stevenleser Dec 2016 #311
HassleCat Dec 2016 #314
Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #315
stevenleser Dec 2016 #317
Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #319
stevenleser Dec 2016 #320
Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #321
Midwestern Democrat Dec 2016 #323
stevenleser Dec 2016 #335
Midwestern Democrat Dec 2016 #342
stevenleser Dec 2016 #343
mcar Dec 2016 #231
Stuart G Dec 2016 #239
still_one Dec 2016 #241
lostnfound Dec 2016 #245
KPN Dec 2016 #247
LaydeeBug Dec 2016 #248
Shemp Howard Dec 2016 #258
stevenleser Dec 2016 #262
Crunchy Frog Dec 2016 #316
stevenleser Dec 2016 #318
revmclaren Dec 2016 #259
ancianita Dec 2016 #271
Ghost OF Trotsky Dec 2016 #273
mtnsnake Dec 2016 #274
Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2016 #279
Rex Dec 2016 #282
La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2017 #528
Post removed Jan 2017 #529
La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2017 #530
Rex Jan 2017 #531
La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2017 #532
SCantiGOP Dec 2016 #285
Larkspur Dec 2016 #286
Hekate Dec 2016 #353
Larkspur Dec 2016 #426
Hekate Dec 2016 #433
Larkspur Dec 2016 #508
Hekate Dec 2016 #519
Larkspur Dec 2016 #527
aikoaiko Dec 2016 #298
Arazi Dec 2016 #300
NanceGreggs Dec 2016 #302
StevieM Jan 2017 #537
NanceGreggs Dec 2016 #305
Hekate Dec 2016 #354
YoungDemCA Dec 2016 #359
NanceGreggs Dec 2016 #374
Gothmog Dec 2016 #365
betsuni Dec 2016 #366
liquid diamond Dec 2016 #306
Kuhl Dec 2016 #324
stevenleser Dec 2016 #337
Kuhl Dec 2016 #367
stevenleser Dec 2016 #368
Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #351
Post removed Dec 2016 #375
TonyPDX Dec 2016 #377
Orsino Dec 2016 #388
Cosmocat Dec 2016 #407
JustAnotherGen Dec 2016 #410
Fiendish Thingy Dec 2016 #415
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2016 #477
SylviaD Dec 2016 #478
SidDithers Dec 2016 #479
Gothmog Dec 2016 #511
Lil Missy Jan 2017 #542
betsuni Dec 2016 #481
theglammistress Jan 2017 #533
LaydeeBug Jan 2017 #535

Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:14 PM

1. Amen, Boston Bean. Something is not right when that kind of thing continues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:24 PM

6. Some days are ok, and then others it is just as raw as Nov. 9.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 09:36 PM

29. She would've been awesome as president. No one's perfect, but she would've been awesome.

I still feel the loss as if it just happened last night. And I'm angry at all the Democrats who begrudgingly said they would "hold their nose and vote for Hillary'. That gave lots of people who might've voted for her a reason to think she was seriously flawed and the might've voted third party or not voted as a result.

America's loss of this woman as president is enormous and may well damage America forever.

We've got to stop bringing down our candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:27 PM

124. Seriously. At the risk of stirring something up, Bernie would NOT have won.

If he'd been our candidate, he would have been CRUCIFIED by the GOP. Kurt Eichenwald of Newsweek reported that he SAW the bad guys' opposition research on Bernie, that they kept very close and quiet about. Eichenwald says the file the GOP had on Bernie was almost two feet thick. They would have unleashed the hounds and eaten him for a mid-morning snack.

"I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart."

(snip)

"The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance."

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

I HATE seeing Hillary STILL getting beaten up and blamed by what seems like everybody everywhere, including the incoming "President," Vladimir Putin and his little orange puppet friend. Just HATE it! Dammit - I want all the naysayers to stop beating up on her! Just makes me want to SCREAM!!! She did an EXCELLENT job on the campaign. She worked like a dog! She reached out to everybody. She had details and well-thought-out plans for everything. She understood the issues. She knew her stuff. She knew the turf. She knew the players - domestically AND globally. She is still a national treasure. She does NOT deserve all this shit (SHUT THE FUCK UP, Andrea Mitchell!).

It almost makes me cry - to think of what could have been. The loss of that talent, those brains, that steady hand, that class and dignity, that poise and composure and grace under fire, and the constant drumbeat of lies about her that people swallowed whole, without even bothering to chew - it's fucking INFURIATING. All that talent and capability and experience that we'll NEVER get. That America will NEVER get, to keep us stable and steady in rough and unstable times. It's lost to us. I doubt she'll run again. Hell, who would want to go through that punishment and torture - again??? I hope she has a happy and productive life in the private sector, and I hope she bills near-millions in speaking fees and book deals.

And I hope she's around to see all those who turned their backs on her have a forcible "come to Jesus" moment someday soon, and realize the gem they had in the palm of their hands, that they kicked to the curb. Because they were mad or wanted to lash out or some other lame, stupid-ass irrational idiot reason. I hope the "Don't Blame Me. I Voted for Hillary" bumper stickers start popping up everywhere from coast-to-coast. I hope she's around long enough to see herself vindicated. As far as I can see, there are at least 62 million people in this country and every last useless member of the fucking useless news media who owe her - and the rest of us (nationwide AND planet-wide) - a BIGTIME apology.

I won't hold my breath, though. That moment will come. Hell, in many respects, it's already here. And yet, I fully expect many of them will remain in denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #124)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:20 AM

137. Absolutely fantastic rant, calimary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #124)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 02:18 AM

163. sadly they will never forgive her for being a woman.

that is a fact.

love you calimary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #163)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 02:57 PM

356. Being female hurt her

I am so sad that there is still a glass ceiling in this country

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #356)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 03:23 PM

362. I hear you Gothmog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #362)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 01:01 PM

404. I am also sad at this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #124)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 03:12 AM

165. When we were in the USA this past year, my German wife caught this immediately

While watching the primaries, she said, "how come your (i.e. America's) Republicans and your right wing media are silent on Bernie Sanders, who, being to Hillary's left, should be their political mortal enemy? It comes across as if they want to run against him, so they are spending all their energy trying to destroy Hillary instead, and he is helping weaken her for them, so that they have a chance even if he isn't the nominee."

If someone from Germany who doesn't follow American politics anywhere as closely as we do can spot that after casual observation, than it shouldn't have been overly difficult to figure out for people who do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #165)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 08:59 AM

188. Spot on. The repugs held their fire on Sanders but went all in after Clinton? Not rocket science

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #165)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 09:32 AM

197. I know. That was so obvious.

It really sticks in my craw that people didn't pick up on that (though I don't agree he was that far to Hillary's left - he just labelled himself that way).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #165)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 09:32 AM

198. It's obvious to the objective common sense observer.

I think pretty much everyone outside of the U.S. sees it. I live in Japan and prime minister Abe and the CEO of Softbank immediately rushed to New York to kiss Trump's buttocks. Embarrassing. Idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #165)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 11:06 AM

340. Yes, that all was pretty obvious. There were a few candid statements from the GOP, but clearly

 

the internal message within the GOP was, don't say anything about this guy, at the very least he will help us by hurting Hillary, and if we are lucky and he is the nominee, we win this one easily.

Kasich himself said that he thought if Bernie was the nominee that the GOP would win 50 states. I think that estimate is high, but 40-43 states would definitely have been a strong possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #124)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 06:22 PM

275. Some people trust Eichenwald's opinion about Bernie winning -- others do not.


Eichenwald has acted as Clinton defender throughout the primary and campaign. It is not surprising that he still is after the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #275)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 10:30 AM

339. You hardly have to rely on Eichenwald's description of GOP oppo research. Other factors are

 

Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2016, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)

similarly fatal to Sanders' chances. For instance, in Pennsylvania as well as Virginia, Florida and the rest of the south, Hillary crushed Sanders as if he wasn't even there during the primaries. Of these states, Hillary lost all to Trump but Virginia which was very close but she won.

Hillary crushed Sanders in those states because to be even remotely competitive in those states in the primary or General Election, a Democrat has to have considerable enthusiasm in the African American and Latino demographics. Sanders couldn't compete with Hillary because he didn't have that enthusiasm on his side. It's pretty easy to interpolate that into Sanders losing all of those states against Trump if he had faced him in the General election.

If that is true, and no one has remotely come up with a counterargument to that, Sanders starts off the race giving up over 270 electoral votes to Trump even if we give Sanders Michigan and Wisconsin. But as I have said to other folks, the problems for Sanders would only start there. If you have no way of competing in a state, your opponent can reallocate resources they would have used on that state, time, money, etc., to other states. So Sanders being non-competitive in Georgia, the Carolinas, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania would have meant Trump could reallocate a ton of resources to the rust belt and places like Nevada and other close states meaning Sanders would probably lose additional states that Hillary won beyond Virginia and may have lost one or more of Wisconsin and Michigan as well.

That's all before you get into Eichenwald's description of GOP opposition research and before you factor in that 50% of the country consistently says they will not vote for a self described Socialist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #339)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 04:39 PM

370. First, let me say that I am not sure Bernie would have won, but here is my counterargument.


I see you doing what a lot of pundits are doing -- applying a conventional model of GE voting to an unconventional year.

Those conventional models predicted that Hillary would have won handily and Bernie should have been broke and out before O'Malley. With the exception of poll numbers surveying GE pairing during the primaries, no one saw Hillary losing.

I think you're dismissal of Bernie being competitive in the southern states is conventional. 1) You mention that Bernie didn't do well in the southern primaries, but that is due in part to white people being committed to the Republican primaries. We learned in the primaries, especially the open primaries, that white people were turning out for Bernie in surprising numbers. 2) Black folks were warming up to Bernie. During the course of the primaries he went almost unmeasurable amounts of black support to about 30%. Some Black Lives Matter leaders and even Ta-Nehisi Coates declared their support for Bernie toward the end. I'm confident that if President Obama (and to a lesser extent John Lewis) came out with a full-throated endorsement the black votes would have been there, mostly. When Bernie was getting dangerously close to Hillary in national polling about midway through, it took an Obama 'endorsement" in an interview to stop the momentum. I can't find it right now, but I'll look for the interview. You may rememeber it.

Regard the Latino vote, Hillary didn't have it nailed down as much as pundits through. Almost 30% went for Trump. It shows that a sizable group were looking for someone else.

So yes, Bernie might have done better than Hillary in some southern states and may have won one or two.

If that's true and the likelihood of Bernie winning some or all of the rust belt states that flipped for Trump, one can see a Bernie victory.

I know, I know. You can say that all if this is imaginary thinking, but then again so was Trump winning the primary and GE until it happened. White people voted in squirrely ways this round.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #370)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 06:51 PM

376. It wasn't an unconventional year. Nothing about it was unconventional.

 

The year mildly favored change but not much. People like to point to the polls being wrong. The polls were rarely wrong during the primaries except where the polling agencies and pundits themselves said they didn't have a lot of historical data to help them figure out turnout and models.

During the general, we know from past elections that polls can have trouble when a dramatic last minute event changes the dynamic of the race, like this time with Comey's double interference in the last 14 days, once two weeks out and once three days out. The difference between the final polls and the G.E. is that some percentage, probably around 1-2% of folks who were going to vote Hillary changed their votes and some 2-3% or so stayed home, as a result of Comey.

There was nothing special about this election beyond that, no magical sauce that would have given Sanders the election. Your theories are more wishful thinking than based on facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #376)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 09:53 PM

379. My take on the election was that change was key factor

Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2016, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)

On the Republican side, the primary voters rejected mainstream Republicans who had long histories of hate and prejudice toward Obama and progressive causes.

On the Democratic side, the primary voters gave Bernie 45% of the pledged delegates, a lefty who has been outside the Democratic establishment for decades, against a long-time Democrat who was arguably the most qualified candidate ever.

I think there is plenty of evidence that change was a strong sentiment in the electorate.

I know many people are saying Comey or the wikileak of campaign emails changes people, but I just don't see it.

I just don't see the impact in polls at the end of the race in the national polls
[IMG][/IMG]

Or in Michigan (Clinton up by 6 pts)
[IMG][/IMG]

Or in Wisconsin (Clinton up by 6.1 pts)
[IMG][/IMG]

Or in Penn (Clinton up by 4.1 pts)
[IMG][/IMG]

The trendlines cross in Ohio beginning in Sept and Trump was steadily ahead 2 weeks before the Comey letter.
[IMG][/IMG]

Do you have access to polling numbers showing something different?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #379)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 10:08 PM

380. Exactly like I said, polling in general elections has trouble with last minute events like Comey.

 

Partly because they are trying to hit a moving target and partly because the information about a candidate may not change preference as much as it may change folks decision on whether to vote on election day.

It was barely a change election. If people really wanted change, O'Malley would have gotten much more traction as the only candidate who hadn't served in Washington on the Democratic side and Trump would have had an easier time winning the primary and election versus a very establishment Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #380)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 10:22 PM

381. I can see we are not going to convince each other, but the polls don't show sifts inthe last 10 days


I'm surprised you think O'Malley was a change candidate because he struck me as Clinton-lite. He is a a traditional Democrat with traditional Democratic solutions from a traditional Democratic city and traditional Democratic state with a strong DC employee population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #381)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 11:33 PM

382. And that is because as I keep telling you, the polls have trouble showing that when there is a major

 

event in the last few weeks of an election.

Think about it this way. You get to the end of a campaign. Most folks have not only decided for whom to vote, they are heavily invested in their candidate. They really don't like the "other party's" candidate. Then something comes out about your candidate that makes you wonder if you should vote for them. You still hate the other candidate. You aren't going to vote for them but you don't feel as enthusiastic about voting for your candidate either. 95%-98% of the folks who think like this, by the way, are still going to vote and vote for the original candidate they chose, but 2-5% will stay home. When polling agencies call to make their last surveys, they may miss a lot of these stay home folks when calling their small slice of the electorate. If they do reach one or two of them, they still have a preference for the original candidate, the only difference is the likelihood of them voting, but that may not come out in the survey. The polls may show nothing or may show the slightest of dips but it will not be as pronounced as what is really going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #382)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 11:55 PM

383. Ok I see what you're saying now.


You're saying polling won't detect depressed voters in the last few days or weeks. I'll think about it. I thought you were saying there wasn't enough time to detect any changes in flipped votes. It would be nice to see some data on that, but if it is invisible to polling then I don't know how one would quantify that effect.

It's hard for me to imagine that the Comey letter or Campaign-DNC emails would have much of effect beyond the larger, well-established issues. Bernie supporters already accepted that the DNC was working with the HRC campaign to some degree and the Comey letter was far less inflammatory that previous Comey pronouncements, but it is possible that it played out as you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #379)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 11:57 AM

510. No one in the real world relied on silly match up polls

Here is a good thread talking about these polls http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511038010

The reliance on these polls by Sanders supporters amuses me. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one in the real world believed that Sanders would be the nominee and so no one wasted time vetting Sanders. Sander got a free ride and was never vetted http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Trump would have destroyed Sanders in the general election

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #510)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 01:04 PM

515. Except they accurately described what happened to HRC in the GE this time.


An inconvenient fact for you and 538 for sure.

Maybe it was just the broken clock effect or maybe this election was unconventional enough that conventional modeling just wasn't telling us what we needed to know.

I'm not one to say Bernie would have won or not for sure, like you. All I know is that HRC lost and we will have a President Trump for 4 years.

Even as our candidate alienated potential swing voters by calling them deplorable, she recognized that a significant number were unhappy with our economy.
"But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."


These are the Trump voters Hillary couldn't convince to vote for her, but with whom Bernie had more credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #515)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 01:11 PM

516. No-in the real world these match up polls were worthless because Sanders was not vetted

No one in the press believed that Sanders had any chance of being the nominee and in fact Sanders was effectively eliminated when Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected Sanders on Super Tuesday. Clinton's lead in pledged delegate was so substantial after Super Tuesday that in the real world, similar candidates would have dropped out but these candidates were actual members of the Democratic Party and were not running solely for media coverage.

Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.


The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads. Sanders was never vetted and the above polls are worthless

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #516)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 01:21 PM

517. Maybe not. Trump had the biggest opposition research file ever -- even video -- it was not enough


Again, conventional metrics failed us this time and you're still looking at the GE through that lens.

People like you trot out the socialist label, but that was already out there when national matchup polls were taken. Eichenwald's, the esteemed journalist of the Bernie could never win crowd, fine reporting of the oppositional research file amounted to "trust me it was bad" and then mentioned things we already new.

But again, maybe you're right and Bernie would have lost, but all we know for sure is the HRC lost and nothing predicted it accept the primary era matchup polls.

Conventional wisdom is only meaningful during conventional times.

There is much point in having this discussion anymore. I'm open to the idea of alternative endings to this GE and you're not. You are party loyalist for sure.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #517)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 05:36 PM

523. I like living in the real world

In the real world, Sanders was rejected in the primary by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Rejecting the votes of these groups would have doomed Sanders in a run against Trump. The fact that Hillary Clinton had more than four times the lead in pledged delegates over Sanders compared to the lead that President Obama had over Hillary Clinton in 2008 is a fact that shows how bad a candidate Sanders was.

Sanders lost the nomination because he was a weak candidate who made promises that he could never delivered on. Sanders so-called revolution was a flop. Sanders' plans for adopting his proposals depend on these new voters. Here is how Sanders thinks that he will be able to force the GOP to be reasonable http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what

Bernie Sanders has made some very big promises when it comes to his legislative priorities: He says he’ll make college free, pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and institute a generous single-payer national health insurance program. And when he’s asked how he’ll turn these promises into reality, he says that he and his supporters will help bring about a “political revolution.”

That’s a phrase Sanders uses often, but what does he mean by it? Sanders has said that if he wins the presidency, his victory will be accompanied by a “huge increase in voter turnout”—one that he thinks might end Republican control of Congress. But Sanders acknowledges that the House and Senate could, in spite of his best efforts, remain in GOP hands come next January.

Given that likelihood, Sanders offers an alternate means for achieving his political revolution. He says he knows that a Democratic president can’t simply “sit down and negotiate” with Republican leaders and forge a series of compromises. Anyone who's observed the GOP’s behavior over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency would not dispute that, and in any event, no compromise with Republicans would ever lead to single-payer anyway.

So what then? How would a President Sanders get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to pass any of his big-ticket items? This is the model he proposes:

What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]

And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change.

The rest of the DK article debunks that concept that Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell could be influenced by these new voters but we never get to this issue and Sanders himself admits that he will not bet elected without this revolution. So far we are not seeing any evidence of this revolution. Again, Sanders's whole campaign is based on this revolution and so it is appropriate to ask where these new voters are?

Again, where are these millions and millions of new voters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #523)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 06:52 PM

525. The real world where Trump beat HRC the most qualified candidate ever

And you're so sure that Bernie would have lost.

I should explain that when I talk about Bernie winning the GE am presuming that he had won the primary with votes. And he did not and I wish my fellow Democratic primary voters and caucusers had agreed with me. I am not talking about undoing the votes of those who supported HRC regardless of their POC or gender status.

You ask where the revolution is and where those voters are? I think they are waiting for a party to nominate a leader who is credible to them.

Your framing of the pledge count is funny. You still have such a hard time with how Bernie won 45% of the pledged delegates against the most qualified candidate ever.

I applaud your loyalty. It will come in handy some day.

And with that I'm out of here because I have parties to attend. Happy New Year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #525)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 08:59 PM

526. Trump had a great deal hope including from Sanders

Bernie won most of his delegates in undemocratic primaries. We eliminated the primary part of the Texas two step this cycle and I will be pushing for the elimination of caucuses in other states. Sanders was rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters and relied on undemocratic caucuses for a significant portion of his so-called wins.
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-message-for-hardcore-bernie-stans/

Hillary Cinton won the nomination because of democracy. She received more than 57% of Democratic votes cast. Bernie Sanders virtually only won caucuses, which are the least democratic aspect of the primary process. And most of those he won only because she decided to save her money for the General election. He won very few primaries, except for his “home states” and Michigan and his clock was cleaned in virtually every other state that mattered. Demographically, he only won white liberals. The fact that YOU think he made it close, or only lost because of “Super Delegates” is a hallmark of your delusion. Bernie Stans largely didn’t seem to notice that she reached out to you repeatedly and you bit her hand off, making you more like Republicans than you should be comfortable with.

Sanders could not win the popular vote and was in the process only due to caucuses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #376)

Thu Jan 5, 2017, 01:07 PM

538. Great post. This point needs to be made: 2016 was not unconventional or

a "change election," like 1980 or 2008.

It was a year of McCarthyism. The fake email scandal was the most successful fake scandal in history. And it was built on the back of the Republican betrayal of our country following Benghazi when they chose to exploit it and make up lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #124)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:31 PM

304. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #124)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 02:56 PM

355. Trump had a two foot thick book of oppo on Sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #124)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 05:59 PM

372. Thank you for this, calimary!

"The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance."

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #124)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 04:44 PM

500. Great post

Sanders would have been destroyed by the GOP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #124)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 06:34 PM

502. Thank you for this post, Calimary.

Very eloquent, and total truth. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:14 PM

2. I feel very cheated. Like This is a personal loss

 

Not a political loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:17 PM

3. It feels like a betrayal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:23 PM

5. It is an extremely personal affront to me as a human being.

And to see people here dragging her through the coals after what actually happened, is just a redux of the offense, over and over and over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:30 PM

13. Yup.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:45 PM

84. I am still sick over this whole thing. It was such an evil victory for the GOP.

And I can't believe the way that Arkansas forgot the Clintons and how dedicated they were to that state. Was there any positive talk about the Clintons down there? Does anybody remember their achievements?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #84)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:40 PM

129. Arkansas has gone from blue to deep red in just a few years time.

The religious right holds sway here now. People have become so polarized that they can't remember or won't admit the positive effect that the Clintons had on our state. Hillary was very instrumental in improvements to education. I know that my children saw great benefits from that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:26 PM

11. I feel like everything I believe in has been stolen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to we can do it (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:33 PM

15. I feel like women are reviled. To vote that fucker in....

I've never felt so fucking raw about it as I do now.

To pick that sick fuck over her.... People must really hate women. It's a sad testament.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:42 PM

16. Don't worry 2020 or 2024 the repugs are gearing up kellyanne Conway to be the

 

First president. They are already saying she broke the glass ceiling with regards to running the first successful winning campaign. Good grief! Life is sick sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 03:37 PM

252. Now there's a scary thought!! Don't think there'll be anything left for Satan's Bride to destroy after the Fuhrer-Elect is done ransackin the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:47 PM

20. No sane, intelligent person could have picked Trump.

 

All he had was channelling his supporters' inner bigot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 09:03 PM

24. ayep!

being a woman in that environment is chilling...

I am questioning everything I have taken for granted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 09:09 PM

27. And black people. And dems in general. For some reason the rethugs have a special

hate saved up for anything clinton...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 07:41 PM

284. Well, y'all were getting a bit uppity

 

I mean if we're going to Make America Great Again, how can we actually treat any non whites, non heterosexuals or women or non Christians as equal Citizens? MAGA is such barely disguised code for the rule of property owning white Christian heterosexual males that satire isn't even possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 09:58 PM

35. It's disheartening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:17 AM

309. Come on.

 

Hillary being a woman and Berniebro hate had nothing to do with her loss. It was her emails that did her in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liquid diamond (Reply #309)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 07:33 AM

325. Gender is on the list of reasons why she lost..

 

... But I suspect it isn't close to the top of that list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #325)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 05:37 PM

524. I strongly disagree with your analysis and conclusions

Gender played a large role including with many Sanders supporters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 07:49 PM

287. Therein lies the problem.

Many Hillary supporters are taking this whole thing very personally. Many Bernie supporters felt same the way after his loss. Many still do. I'm not trying to belittle your feelings. You have the right to feel that way, but when people start talking about banning dissent, it worries me. To me, this looks like yet another iteration of the conflict between party loyalists and dissenters on this site. The site's owners have made it clear throughout the years that both views are welcome. The rancor will quiet down eventually as it always does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cowpunk (Reply #287)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:35 PM

301. He lost because he got fewer votes

 

She lost after getting more

Hence my feeling cheated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #301)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 08:34 AM

387. Oh, I see.

Your pain is legitimate, theirs isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cowpunk (Reply #387)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 11:05 AM

391. lol. No my feeling cheated is different from

 

My pain at losing

I supported HRC in 08 and did not feel cheated when obama won.

Helps that I am a rational human being

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cowpunk (Reply #287)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 03:00 PM

358. Sanders got less than 43% of the vote in the primaries

Sanders did not come close to getting enough votes.
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/a-message-for-hardcore-bernie-stans/

Hillary Cinton won the nomination because of democracy. She received more than 57% of Democratic votes cast. Bernie Sanders virtually only won caucuses, which are the least democratic aspect of the primary process. And most of those he won only because she decided to save her money for the General election. He won very few primaries, except for his “home states” and Michigan and his clock was cleaned in virtually every other state that mattered. Demographically, he only won white liberals. The fact that YOU think he made it close, or only lost because of “Super Delegates” is a hallmark of your delusion. Bernie Stans largely didn’t seem to notice that she reached out to you repeatedly and you bit her hand off, making you more like Republicans than you should be comfortable with.

Sanders would not do well without caucuses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to La Lioness Priyanka (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 02:58 PM

357. I have the same feelings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:18 PM

4. K&R! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:24 PM

7. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:25 PM

8. YES !!! THERE'S NO GUESSING WITH COMEY !!! The polls numbers went down after Comey and its

... measurable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:25 PM

9. What breaks my heart

is that I agree with you that she would probably have made one of the best presidents of our lifetime.

This loss is personal to me as well, as a woman and a feminist who so very much wanted to see her succeed. And I feel cheated, not only because I think the Electoral College is nonsense, but also because I know she would have probably won the EC if not for the interference of the FBI (and the Russians). Add to that the fact that the ...person... who will be occupying the presidency next year is a racist, misogynist, immature, psychopathic narcissist who neither deserves the office, nor is fit to be in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:28 PM

12. you've hit the nail on the head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:06 AM

134. Nails are outdated

Stainless steel screws are used now, please try and catch up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obliviously (Reply #134)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 09:02 AM

191. Is that silly insult even necessary? Try contributing something useful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nonhlanhla (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:28 PM

56. Mine's broken, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:25 PM

10. i disagree with some of your premise.

i believe Obama ran the most progressive GE campaign in decades.

I believe Bernie ran a more progressive campaign than Hillary. She lamented that many if Bernie's ideas were too much too soon and that working around the margins of existing law in small increments was the way to go.

In an election of change that didn't work out for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 08:42 PM

17. I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 09:51 PM

32. Obama ran a progressive campaign, but, by and large, did not advance a progressive agenda.

Sanders ran an unnecessarily negative campaign. It didn't win him the nomination, and damaged Hillary immeasurably in the eyes of young voters who didn't know her record. The media loved watching Hillary get punched from all sides and did their part to stoke the flames. I firmly believe that history will not be kind to any of the players in this year's game, except for Mrs. Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 09:55 PM

34. We will have to agree to disagree on all acounts.

I found Obama's foreign policy to be more progressive than Hillary's in '08. I was quite dusappointed when he named Hillary SoS.
Hillary did more damage to Obama than Bernie did to Hillary. Hillary sunk to some pretty low lows in 08.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:22 PM

44. We will have to disagree.

I worked for Hillary during the primaries in 2008 and then for Obama in the general. During the primaries there were sharp elbows on all sides, but nothing like the virulent negativity that led a large of bloc of voters to abandon both the candidate and the platform this time around. It was a scorched earth approach, and there was no going back. Sanders painted Hillary as the enemy in no uncertain terms. It provided the Republicans the ammunition to hit hard from the left as well as from the right.

As for Obama's more progressive approach to foreign policy, it may have been true in theory, but, to be frank, my feeling for the last eight years is that Obama has been largely indecisive and has proven to be as easily rolled by our enemies abroad as he was by the Republicans at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:29 PM

59. Bernie had scorched earth policy? One word for you from '08: PUMAs.

Obama overcame PUMAs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:31 PM

61. Hillary gave her full throated support prior to the convention.

She didn't linger giving her supporters hope she would contest the convention.

Claiming everything was rigged against her.

Please now, please let's deal in reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:35 PM

66. I am dealing in reality. Many of her supporters blame Obama for her not winning in 2016.

Talk about holding a grudge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:40 PM

75. that's a new one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:43 PM

81. I haven't heard that from anyone. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tanuki (Reply #81)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:07 PM

116. you should read more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #116)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:32 PM

127. Perhaps you would oblige by posting something one could read to support your assertion.

Unless you are just here to insult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tanuki (Reply #127)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 09:40 AM

203. Post #115

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #116)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 09:05 AM

192. Seriously? You're still holding a grudge from the 2008 campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #192)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 09:38 AM

202. What are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #116)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 03:41 PM

254. Read the same thing just recently, forget where.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #116)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 05:26 PM

272. You should lie less.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Charles Bukowski (Reply #272)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 07:09 PM

280. What did I lie about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tanuki (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:06 AM

307. I certainly have seen that sentiment expressed here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:50 PM

95. Link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #95)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:06 PM

115. Here you go.

https://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/rage-won/
This is what I think sealed her fate:

The real coup happened 8 years ago when the finance industry decided to save itself and threw all of its weight behind a very weak Democratic candidate. The recession was too long, the stimulus too little, the ACA too expensive and stingy for many people. Obama compromised too much, accommodated the Republicans too often. It was by design.

Often, when the Obamas and Clintons were campaigning together, I thought it might be a mistake. Yeah, he’s got a certain cool. Michelle is eloquent. But they tied themselves at the hip.


Go ahead and read the comments section and see how many agree with her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #115)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 11:14 PM

118. Thanks but no....

It is just a trash Democrats and Obama in particular link. I don't read things like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #118)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 09:35 AM

199. you asked for proof, and there it is. That is a 100% pure pro Hillary site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 10:42 AM

439. Seems like it's the same "reality" as Donald, "many people" are saying

 

things I want to believe despite having nothing but my false beliefs to back up my statements.

Be less like Donnie, will you? At least in your incarnation on a Democratic site?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #439)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 12:11 PM

443. I've provided links upthread.

Btw: the poster of that site is a member of DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #443)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 03:17 AM

488. It's a long thread and you have many posts, few of which contain facts.

 

Please post your links here.

Please make sure it's not some blog with comments and an actual credible source. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:14 AM

135. I was accused of being a PUMA

here on DU, all while I was out working hard for Obama. Before the primary results I did support Hillary. That was my right.

My work was recognized in the real world. The Obama campaign thanked me. This PUMA shit was never real.

Yes, Bernie had a scorched earth policy. He is still out spewing horseshit and pimping his book. He is not a Democrat. He is running for his Senate campaign as an independent, so he does not deserve any special handling with kid gloves by me or anyone else who has spent a lifetime trying to elect Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #135)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 09:37 AM

200. The PUMA thing is real. Many are still out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #200)


Response to Exilednight (Reply #59)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:26 AM

224. Clinton led her coalition to the table.

She made the stakes clear, we understood them, and we did the right thing for the greater good. It wasn't Obama who accomplished that; it was Hillary. I was there. I remember.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #224)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 11:58 AM

230. PUMAs are still out there. To pretend otherwise is ignorance at best and intellectual dishonesty at

worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #230)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:10 PM

233. I never said there weren't still PUMAS out there, but we seem to agree it's marginal

especially since you are the one who said they had been "overcome".

Sanders was unable or unwilling to marshal his coalition and inspire his followers sufficiently to insure that the most progressive platform in decades evolved into actual policy. It was a test of leadership, and Sanders failed.

And with that, allow me to put you on ignore. It's Christmas, and I'd rather not get into a pissing war with a stranger. On holidays, that's what I have family for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #233)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 01:24 PM

243. They weren't marginal. Obama found other avenues to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #243)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:45 AM

389. May I suggest you review third party voting in 2008 compared to 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 03:05 PM

360. Trump used Sanders quotes and arguments to great effect in the general

Sanders had no chance of being the nominee after Super Tuesday but continued his campaign which hurt Clinton. Here is a good example Sanders really hurt Clinton I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign

The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #360)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 07:28 PM

378. So your argument is

that it's Bernie's fault that she was unable to rebuff the attacks made on her during the primary? If it is, then she has no business in politics. The art of politics is controlling your environment.

A smart politician knows how to turn these attacks around. An incompetent one does not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #378)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:48 AM

390. No that is not the argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #390)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:25 PM

395. Then what is the argument.

IF your claim is that she was beat up by Bernie in the primary, that's on Hillary. She should have been able to control her environment and rebuff the attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #395)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:33 PM

397. Sanders was treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign which tied her hands

Sanders was not vetted and was in fact treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

Sanders was treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign because of the amusing over-reactions of the Sanders supporters in the primary process. It appears that you are upset that Hillary Clinton did not use all of the oppo research that was available. Sanders was a weak candidate and would have been destroyed if the oppo research was used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #397)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:37 PM

400. That explains nothing of relevance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #400)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 01:50 PM

412. Actually, it does explain a great deal

Sanders was not vetted during the primary process. The Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves and no one in the press believed that Sanders was going to be the nominee and so there was no need for vetting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #412)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 03:09 PM

421. Proof?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #421)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 03:29 PM

423. In the real world Sanders was a very very weak candidate

Look at the absent of any vetting of Sanders. Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who had zero chance of being the nominee. The Clinton campaign was never worried about Sanders and so treated him with kid gloves. The press ignored Sanders because they knew that he had no chance of being the nominee. The GOP ran ads to help Sanders in the primary because he was such a weak candidate. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1266681

In the real world, Sanders was allowed to coast and was not vetted. If Clinton had gone after Sanders it would have been easy to destroy him. Again, there is a ton of good oppo on Sanders. The Trump campaign oppo book was two feet thick with great videos of Sanders talking about communism and related topics that would have been used to destroy him with mainstream voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #423)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 07:34 PM

428. Where's your proof that Hillary treated Sanders with kid gloves against her will?

Stop trying to change the subject. You said that Hillary treated Bernie with kid gloves because she had no other option. If you want me to believe it, then provide me inarguable facts that showed Hillary had no other choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Gothmog (Reply #430)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:48 PM

432. That's an oped piece, not news. Any real proof?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #432)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 10:24 AM

436. I was a delegate to the National Convention

At both the Texas State Democratic Convention and the National convention, Clinton delegates were told to be nice to Sanders delegates no matter how poorly informed the Sanders del elates were because Sanders supporters would go nuts if there was any unfavorable discussion of Sanders. There were some sanders supporters screaming obscenities at the national convention and their credentials were not pulled because we had to treat these supporters with kid gloves.

One example that stands out to me was the booing of Congressman John Lewis at the National Convention by the Sanders delegates. Congressman Lewis is hated by many Sanders supporters because of some comments about Sanders not being a meaningful participant in the civil rights protests. On the JPR board, the booing of Congressman John Lewis was applauded by the posters on that board. Do you really want to defend the booing of Congressman John Lewis by Sanders supporters? Do you think that this conduct was appropriate?

The National Convention was a challenging event due to the Sanders supporters' over reactions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #436)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 12:40 PM

446. Okay, that's her delegates. I'm asking about her.

No one handles her, she's the decision maker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #446)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 01:20 PM

447. Clinton did not attack Sanders for two reasons

First, there was no need to in that Sanders had no chance of being the nominee. Jewish, African American and Latino voters all rejected Sanders. Sanders got 43% of the vote in the primary and had no chance of being the nominee in the real world. After Super Tuesday, Hillary Clinton had a sufficient delegate lead that it was clear to everyone that Sanders had no chance of being the nominee. Hillary Clinton ended up with more than four times the pledged delegate lead compared to the delegate lead that President Obama enjoyed in 2008.

Second, it was clear that Sanders supporters over-reacted to everything. here is an example http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-bernie-sanders-supporters-20160415-story.html

Shawn Bagley thought he knew what he was getting into when he was elected to become one of California’s so-called superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention, and energetic debate with other activists was part of it.

What Bagley had not anticipated was being jolted out of bed by a 2 a.m. phone call from an angry Bernie Sanders supporter. The caller accused Bagley, a retired produce broker from Salinas, of stealing democracy from the citizenry.

“Why is Bernie Sanders letting these people loose on us?” said Bagley, a Hillary Clinton backer who says he was branded corrupt, immoral and thickheaded over the course of some 200 social media posts and phone calls from Sanders fans. “He lost my vote at 2 a.m.”

Sanders supporters are known to be a spirited bunch. But as their frustration mounts over their candidate’s failure to significantly cut into Clinton’s lead, no small number of them are lashing out in ways that are not particularly helpful to his campaign.

Sanders delegates over-reacted to anyone who did not treat Sanders as a saint. There was no need for Clinton to go out of her way to attack Sanders given the extreme over-reaction of Sanders

BTW, you have refused to answer my questions Do you approve of the way that Sanders delegates treated Congressman John Lewis at the national convention?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #447)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:07 PM

454. Stop trying to muddy the waters. Did someone keep her against

her own free will from attacking Sanders?

It's a simple yes or no question, and if they did then provide the evidence.

I'm a 110% positive that she made a choice not to attack him since she had nothing of substance to attack him with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #446)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 01:34 PM

451. Here is another good example

The Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood both endorsed Hillary Clinton. Sanders supporters responded by trying to defund and attack PP and HRC for such actions http://www.democraticunderground.com/110735248 Given these over-reactions, the Clinton campaign decided to treat Sanders with kid gloves.

Do you approve of the Sanders supporters attempts to attack and defund Planned Parenthood?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #428)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 01:47 AM

434. She didn't attack him, not on his gang rape essays, his child sex one etc.

 

She could have, if the vile invective you folks were using against her was based in reality. That she did not lay a glove on him, is the inarguable fact that she did indeed use kid gloves on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #434)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:09 AM

435. That doesn't answer my question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #435)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 10:25 AM

437. Do you approve of the booing of Congressman John Lewis by Sanders delegates at national convention?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #435)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 10:33 AM

438. But, it does. You just don't like the answer.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #438)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 12:33 PM

445. There was proof she was gagged against her will? where is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #445)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 01:25 PM

448. Read the posts again-no one said that Hillary Clinton was forced to be nice to Sanders

Again, Sanders was a very weak general election candidate who had no chance of being the nominee. There was no need for Clinton to attack Sanders in that Sanders had been rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Sanders only appealed to a mainly white base and that is not sufficient to win the nomination.

Second, Sanders supporters were over-reacting already even when Sanders was not attacked. See the examples posted above.

Finally, Sanders did not return the favor and did attack Clinton. Trump had fun using Sanders attacks in the general election Sanders had no chance of being the nominee after Super Tuesday but continued his campaign which hurt Clinton. Here is a good example Sanders really hurt Clinton I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign

The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #445)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 12:54 AM

482. It's weird how far you've dragged those goal posts to deny the basic truth here.

 

Bernie was not touched, he was not attacked and he had many referenced skeletons in his closet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #445)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 03:14 AM

487. Since this is a claim you and only you have made, perhaps you should ask yourself

 

this question, as the onus of proof is on the person making the claim, and this is 100% something you came up with on your own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #428)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 11:58 AM

442. Did you read the platform written in July?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #378)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:28 PM

396. Sanders had no chance of being the nominee and ran a campaign designed to hurt Clinton

Sanders had no chance of being the nominee after super tuesday. Clinton had a delegate lead after super tuesday that Sanders would not over come. Sanders misled his voters when he claimed that he could win and stayed in long after a candidate who was really a member of the Democratic Party and who cared about the Democratic Party would have dropped out. Hillary Clinton had more than four times the pledged delegate lead compared to the delegate lead that President Obama had over Clinton in 2008. Clinton conceded promptly after conventions and worked to elect President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #396)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:36 PM

398. That's a nice rant, but it doesn't explain why

Hillary could not put the issue to bed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #398)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 01:51 PM

413. To put the issue to bed would mean not treating Sanders with kid gloves

Sanders supporters had unrealistic expectations concerning Sanders and so would have over-reacted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #413)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 03:08 PM

420. That's on Hillary.

No one said to treat Sanders that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #420)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 03:31 PM

424. You are wrong-Sanders supporters would have gone nuts is Sanders was treated like a real candidate

There was a ton of oppo research and if used against Sanders as if he was a real candidate, his supporters would have been very upset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #424)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 07:29 PM

427. I keep hearing about this research, but no one can produce it.

If it existed, then Hillary should have used it.

No one tapes Hillary's mouth shut. She had a chance to end all the controversy about her speeches and she chose not to.

Unless you can provide proof that she was gagged from going after Sanders, your argument holds no merit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #427)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:41 PM

429. The research was available for use but Hillary Clinton had to treat Sanders with kid gloves

The Sanders supporters over react and were not realistic. Any criticism of Sanders was met with amusing over reaction

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #429)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 09:46 PM

431. Prove it exists and link up to it, and please provide proof that Hillary was gagged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #431)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 10:58 AM

440. It's been proven numerous times, it's why so many of you were alerting and hiding people during

 

the primaries. I'm sorry that you seem to need "proof" to engage in critical thinking here, and that you failed to do your research or read any of the few articles that were out there about Bernie, since no one bothered to vet him and so many here lost their heads in outrage when his avowed essays were referenced.

That she did not attack him on his published works is proof that she did not attack him. If you need proof of the essays that he has admitted to writing, I can google that for you, if you like, despite the reaction of a certain faction when I dared to post it months ago. Apparently I was silenced long before you could learn for yourself, and you never bothered to investigate the candidate you had given your devotion to.

Had Bernie been the candidate, the GOP would not have been running pro-Bernie ads (as they did in Iowa), they would have excoriated him, with his own words and it would have been ugly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #440)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 11:33 AM

441. There was a great deal of material to use on Sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #440)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 12:28 PM

444. Critical thinking is based off of known variables, none of which

have been introduced.

No one put a gun to Hillary's head and told her to shut up.

If this playbook exists, then it would have been used to go after his Senate seat.

The dumbest argument out there is that it's not used because he's a popular senator from Vermont and they don't care about his seat. Republicans care about every Senate seat, and will fight tooth and nail to get them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #444)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 01:28 PM

449. Do you tire of being wrong?

Sanders was treated with kid gloves by the media and Clinton because Sanders was a very weak candidate who had been rejected by the base of the party-i.e, Jewish, African American and Latino voters.

You are ducking the question as to whether you approved of the way that Sanders delegates over-reacted and treated Congressman John Lewis. I wonder why you do not want to address this issue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #449)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 08:44 PM

468. Actually, I just get tired of people who make accusations with only hear-say evidence.

Your posts to make points are like "I heard from my mom's stylist best friends sister that Bernie eats puppies for lunch".

You provide no real evidence, just what others have to say about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #468)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 08:52 PM

469. It is so very amusing to see a layperson try to use terms that they do not understand

I note that you have not responded to the fact that (i) Congressman John Lewis was booed at the national convention by Sanders delegates for really bogus reasons, (ii) Sanders delegated attacked and tried to defund Planned Parenthood due to its endorsement of Hillary Clinton and (iii) Sanders delegates attacked and harassed super delegates

You might want to look up the term hearsay before you use it. Thank you for the laughs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #469)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 08:58 PM

472. I note that you have yet to prove that Hillary was gagged against her will from attacking Sanders.

The art of politics is controlling your environment.

Hillary threw everything she had at Obama in 2008, but none of it stuck because he knew how to turn it around. This has always been Hillary's achilles heel. She doesn't know how to put away criticisms without making herself look bad while doing it. She attacked Obama in '08 and he comes back with "it's the silly season of politics". McCain tries to make him look unstatesmen type when he postpones his campaign, Obama comes back with "I can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time."

If Sanders was so damaging to her campaign, then why couldn't she put any issue he raised to bed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #472)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 09:02 PM

473. Re-read the material on this thread

Your attempt at analysis is wrong yet again. Facts are good things. Ignoring the facts presented will not make them go away.

Are you going to respond to the examples of Sanders supporters over-reacting??? There are a ton more examples. I am enjoying your refusal to deal with these facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #473)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 09:10 PM

475. There are no facts that you presented. NO ONE TOLD HILLARY TO STAY SILENT!

She's her own person. All you have is what someone else said, just like the "playbook" that exists against Sanders. If it was there, they would have used it. Everyone knows that she was trying to "appear" presidential by ignoring Sanders and focusing on Trump. In the long run, it didn't work.

If Sanders was such a pain in her ass, then she should have took him out early. But she didn't because she couldn't.

If you have actual evidence from someone who said "Hillary, stay silent or I'll sink your career", or something to that effect, then post it.


If not, then you haven't much of anything useful to add to this discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #475)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 01:27 AM

483. So she exercised her judgment and chose not to attack an easy target

 

and you're literally screaming about what exactly?

Why would any of us have evidence of something you've made up and that which you and only you have asserted. It's your point, you created it, back it up or admit that you lack a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #475)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:38 AM

491. Who cares - time for 2017 elections!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #475)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:47 AM

492. Again misusing legal terms and ignoring facts are not helping your case

I am amused that you do not want to talk about the examples of Sanders supporters over-reacting anytime that Sanders was not treated as a saint. These examples are called facts in the real world and ignoring these facts will not make them go away. Again, Hillary Clinton never needed to "take Sanders out" because sanders had zero chance of being the nominee. Sanders had been rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters and did not have the support of the base.

Second, it is clear that any attack on Sanders would provoke some extreme reactions. Again look at the facts cited above that you want to ignore. Planned Parenthood was attacked by Sanders supporters over an endorsement. Super delegates were stalked and harassed by Sanders supporter for not ignoring the will of the base of the party. Congressman John Lewis was booed at the national convention due to perceived slight to sanders. Sanders supporters would have gone totally nuts if Clinton had used any of the available oppo on Sanders

Again, ignoring facts will not make these facts go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #468)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 01:30 AM

484. I get tired of people who launch strawman arguments, move the goal posts

 

and then demand repeatedly that someone produce evidence of something they themselves have made up whole cloth. It's even more tiresome when they try to use phrases they cannot spell and cannot use correctly in context.

Your posts are like: I demand you provide proof that Bernie eats puppies for lunch, because that is what I'm going to pretend you said, cause reading is hard!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #444)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:44 PM

467. Ignoring known variables doesn't help when one is attempting to pretend

 

one this thinking critically.

The facts have indeed been introduced, and I offered to google them for you, since it appears that you either lack the skills or the ability to do so yourself, and my posting of them was so very upsetting to you and your friends.

Oh, so now someone had to physically threaten Hillary to prove that she treated her opponent with the same kid gloves the GOP did, in their drive to have him be the opponent?

The playbook very much exists, and it will be used to go after his Senate seat, he was allowed by the Dems to go unchallenged because he ostensibly went along with the Dems. His antics through this season and the results he contributed to have made that something that will not be happening again.

That is indeed a pretty dumb argument you put forth, like your others, it lacks any understanding or knowledge of politics, or critical thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #467)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 08:52 PM

470. Yeah, that's why I cash paychecks from the DNC from 2006 to 2009.

You know - the years we took back the Senate, House and Executive. I'm a real no nothing at politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #470)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 01:33 AM

485. Yeah, sure I believe that. I mean you just said, it's not like you provided proof

 

or anything. Um, yeah, a guy who can't differentiate between "know" and "no" sure knows a great deal, especially when he just says stuff on the internet after haranguing others about proof, while providing none.

Your posts do not show much knowledge of things, not critical thought, not rhetoric, not spelling, nor truth telling. Your posts speak volumes, they don't speak of someone who knows anything about politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #467)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 09:03 PM

474. You are using facts against someone who wants ignore these facts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #474)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 01:37 AM

486. But he "nos" so much about politics, he cashed checks and was solely responsible for

 

Obama's win, and lots of others, he's super "no"ledgable, he said so, and that's proof and not 'hear-say" at all!

Facts are hard for these people, they really do challenge their worldview. It's like with the CONs of an era not so long ago (a year or so?), denial of facts, embracing nonsense and lots of pretense to credentials and qualifications that their posts make plain they do not have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #486)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:15 AM

489. I am also amused by that post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:53 PM

346. It did not provide the republicans the tools to hit hard on corporate influence. Most Republicans

 


and Democrats have a tacit understanding that you don't go after each other with "follow the money." Too many glass houses. Trump on the other hand, is an insane egomaniac that couldn't be reined in by anybody. The hypocrisy flowed through him without a hint of self irony. That's the shit he got away with because of a corporate media and a democratic party that didn't really hammer him on his own corruption; and worse, have never uniformly called out the media for the propaganda machine that it is. Playing nice with the money got us what it always does. Second place.

And you don't think we need a message that addresses big money's ties to our politics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 03:29 AM

167. I don't think it was unecessarily negative. It took going all the way to the convention for Clinton

 


and the DNC to start taking Sanders seriously at all. And his message is a non-starter if we pretend like the other party takes money but we don't. That would be a fucking laughable level of hypocrisy, that would doom the message. We need to get out of that business, and drawing attention to it is the only way to do that.

It could have been less painful had the establishment reacted appropriately, quicker, rather than to smugly attempt to shut that voice down.I'm sure Sanders would have bowed out if they had given him something to show the people that his message had won over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #167)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 05:42 AM

174. +1000000!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #167)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 06:03 AM

177. The exact inverse argument could be made...

 

the writing was on the wall back in APRIL, and Bernie Bros still thought there would be a contested convention and everyone would rally around Bernie. One could make the EXACT same argument that he hurt her in the general by not bowing out when it was mathematically impossible for him to win.

She beat him by every metric.

Russia hacked the rest. And they would have hacked Bernie too, so this resurgence of BB's is a bit telling, since each and EVERY Bernie supporter I know voted for Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #177)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 10:31 AM

215. That's not a different inverse argument. Its the same argument. I'm saying had the DNC not

 


been so smug and actually realized earlier that they should make some changes and invite the Sanders portion of the party to the table, I think Sanders would have taken that as a win. Remember, the only thing he ever got in the race to do was to move Clinton to the left. He didn't think he was going to get near as far as he did.

As to the hacking. If Russia messed with our machines I'm with you. If they just stole compromising information and produced fake news, it just wasn't that damning. What was damning is our own corporate media. What was damning is that we got beat by the money we keep thinking we need to compete. We are getting played for suckers. But yes, that money and those establishment ties did help Clinton to beat Sanders in every metric. Was that in itself an accomplishment worthy of note? That was to be expected.

And allow me to introduce myself as one of many Bernie supporters I know, who voted for Clinton. I don't think I know any Sanders supporters who went for Trump actually. That said, I don't have a problem with Sanders message registering with dumbasses. It means that without pandering to them or dropping any of his social or economic agenda, he still pulled in people who would ordinarily never be in favor of voting in a person that was going to push for legislation that helped the poor and minorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #215)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 08:13 PM

289. The Sanders portion of the party WAS invited to the table...

 

the problem was, they couldn't take *yes* for an answer. The problem was, even though the writing was on the wall for him back in APRIL, his supporters continued to brow beat and insist they were going to sway the convention. It was bitter.

I am glad you voted for Clinton, but I am not making it up that not one single Bernie supporter that I know voted for Clinton or a third party candidate. They voted for Trump.

Signs in their windows and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #289)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:36 PM

345. You'll have to show me what being invited to the table looks like. Saying "drop out and trust us" is

 


total BS and you have to know that. Or give me examples that I missed during the primary. I'd love to be educated on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #289)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 03:02 PM

419. Oh, absolutely

When the message to Sanders' supporters that came from the Clinton Camp was "We don't need or want you." how could we not feel oh-so-welcome at the table.

That shit was said........and said again........and again........and again. After I received my first & only hide in my 10 years here for popping back at someone who said effectively that, I started putting everyone who said it on ignore. After the election was over, my ignore list was 100+ strong.

I voted for Clinton. I also don't know any Sanders supporters -- online or in the real world -- who voted for Trump. The ones I know either voted for Clinton or didn't vote at all (which was stupid). I also know several Republicans (I live in a predominantly red area) who refused to vote for Trump or Clinton, but said they would have voted for Sanders in the GE.

Politics is ugly. Candidates are in it to WIN, and they are going to cite the reasons why their opponent is a less viable choice. That's how it works. One of the things that really irked me about Clinton's campaign was the expectation that she should be given a pass -- that no one should bring up her negatives -- real or perceived -- and that Sanders shouldn't have challenged her in the first place. That ISN'T how it works.

After the Wasserman-Schultz BS came to light, I fully supported Sanders taking it to the convention. WE -- meaning Democrats -- are supposed to better than that, and WE should be able to expect better than that from our leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amaril (Reply #419)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 03:46 PM

425. 80% of your platform was adopted...AND Sanders supporters were

 

really,truly holding out for a brokered convention, or a contested convention...etc...when Bernie could not have won. It isn't nearly as bad as Comey and Russia, but it wasn't for nothing.

You all didn't recognize your seat at the table, because you wanted to RUN the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #425)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:19 PM

456. again, show me what that looked like. I don't remember the overture, and I certainly

 

don't remember anything concrete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #456)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:26 PM

457. You don't remember because you were too busy lamenting...and berating...To wit:

 

“We got 80% of what we wanted in this platform,” top Sanders foreign policy adviser Warren Gunnels told CNN.

http://ktla.com/2016/07/10/democrats-adopt-many-bernie-sanders-demands-in-partys-new-platform/

Honestly, you were too busy making the perfect the enemy of the good to see that this had happened, and that Hillary DID INDEED reach out to Bernie, and his supporters. I love me some Bernie, but THAT part of it is certainly on his hard cores who made this much harder than it needed to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #457)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:29 PM

458. 07/10/16. you are talking about what we got after Sanders stayed in the race. Guess what!

 


I totally agree with you. What are we arguing about again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #458)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:53 PM

459. your inability to remember that.

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #459)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:06 PM

460. what? No we aren't. The conversation was about whether or not the DNC should have

 


adopted some of Sanders' message far before the convention, and why they smugly thought they didn't have to. The conversation, or at least my part in it, was that if people are frustrated that there was anger at the convention and bad blood, that maybe they should be looking to Clinton and the DNC for holding out like they did.

My whole point was that Sanders had to stay in the race to get those concessions, so I'm going to have to call BS on you saying that I totally forgot about those concessions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #460)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:09 PM

461. No. It wasn't. See post 345.

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #461)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 04:19 PM

462. take the context of the whole conversation. I'm sorry that you got misled by me saying "during the

 

Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2016, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)

primary." You have shown me that 15 whole days before the convention--which yes, technically was during the primary--Sanders and the DNC had finally come to an agreement. That agreement was almost certainly structured with how Sanders threw his weight behind Clinton and moved to have all of his delegates tallied to her during the convention.

I was kind of talking about that whole stretch between April up until that point when the DNC was only making an effort to make Sanders the candidate of Bernie Bro's, driven by delusional self interest, when they could have just been more progressive already.

Here's the actual quote of mine from the post before 345.

"I'm saying that had the DNC not been so smug and actually realized earlier that they should make some changes and invite the Sanders portion of the party to the table, I think Sanders would have taken that as a win."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #215)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 03:16 PM

361. I was at the National Convention and your analysis is wrong


I was a delegate to the national convention and many of the sanders delegates believed that Sanders could take the nomination away from Hillary Clinton at the convention. I was in the delegation where a good number of the younger sanders supporters walked in locked in arm to arm to demand that the Clinton delegates condemn Clinton and vote for Sanders. These delegates were somehow told by the Sanders people to go ahead and try this stunt. Again, I heard repeatedly that Sanders did not want to be too hard on his supporters and that we were told to be nice to the Sanders delegates and hope that they came around.

Sanders never truly attempted to reason with or deal with his supporters at the convention because he did not want to lose their support for future races. I know this in part because the Clinton team and whips were monitoring all of the Sanders meetings and reporting back to the Clinton "whipping infrastructure" (a term that I learned in Philadelphia and love). Some of the Sanders supporters were totally out of control during the last two nights of the convention and the sanders campaign would not revoke the credentials of some really foul mouth Sanders delegates on the last night. We were fortunate in that the Sanders supporters used an unlocked/non-password protected list server to plan their stunts and the Clinton whips would warn us in advance when a demonstration was coming.

I saw the consequences of Sanders campaign first hand at the convention. A great deal of effort was used to keep a group of Sanders delegates from disrupting the convention. Sanders evidently thought that a text message was sufficient.

After the convention, I found a number of Sanders supporters who were block walking for local candidates going out of their way to encourage Stein votes. One sanders supporter actually bragged about this practice at a young democrats meeting attended by one of my daughters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #361)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 04:35 PM

369. You are fond of leading with "You are wrong," and then not addressing anything I said.

 


Why didn't the DNC and Clinton make concessions to Sanders earlier? From the convention on, Sanders threw his full support behind Clinton. That could have happened earlier, and perhaps by the time of the convention, all those things that you are griping about might have been far less irritating to you. As if dissent at a convention means jack and shit in the big picture anyway.

The effort made then and now to paint all Sanders supporters with the color of the loudest most obnoxious of us was always transparent, by the way, and it is exactly the kind of shit that started right about the time the DNC thought it could embarrass Sanders into dropping out, rather than to recognize the appeal of his message.

Why didn't they just adopt the things they adopted anyway, sooner? That would have gone a long frikken way to uniting the party, and they probably could have gotten Sanders to fall in behind Clinton in April.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #369)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:22 PM

394. Again your attempt at analysis is simply wrong

I am amused that your feelings are hurt but your analysis is simply wrong and sad. You were not there. One of my friends was a co-chair of the rules committee and that committee worked until 2AM Sunday morning to resolve issues with the Sanders people. When I left to go to the convention, Clinton delegates were warned to expect up to five floor/roll call votes due to Sanders' demands. Those roll calls were averted and even then the bernie supporters were not happy.

Again I was at the delegate breakfast where a number of young sanders supporters came in after winning all of the concessions and demanded that we condemn Hillary Clinton and overturn the will of the voters in our state by voting for Sanders. It was not a fun time. I was pleased to see the older sanders supporters apologized for the actions of these young sanders supporters. The labor people who were supporting Sanders were really upset.

As for painting Sanders supporters as BOB, I was there and there were a large number of Sanders supporters who fit this description. My daughter and I were yelled at by Sanders supporters at the convention (it was not a fun experience).

Sanders never had a chance of being the nominee. Sanders lacked support from Jewish, African American and Latino voters. Hillary Clinton had more than four times the lead in pledged delegates overs Sanders compared to the lead that President Obama had over Hillary Clinton in 2008. Sanders won less than 43% of the vote in the primaries and his only real victories were in non-democratic caucus states. The fact that so many concessions were made to a non-viable candidate was sad and wrong in my opinion.

Again you were not at the convention. I was. Your attempt at analysis is wrong but amusing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #394)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 12:40 PM

401. I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong, and it is amusing to me, and pathetic, and sad,

 

all at once..

seriously...feelings hurt? I am frustrated, because one thing you seem utterly incapable of is posting anything that means a damn thing, which does give me the impression that you probably do work with the DNC, so kudos.

I wasn't talking about whether there was a contingent of frustrated Sanders supporters at the convention. I was talking about far before that. I was talking about how the first isolated incidents of " Bernie bros" became the single image that kept getting pounded by the media and the Brock faux media, far before the convention. I was also talking about how those concessions that you think were so "sad" that were the only concrete things that Clinton campaigned on...the only things that got me excited for voting for her...could have been arrived at far earlier than the convention avoiding a lot of the stuff you were so offended by, and yet you keep talking about the convention itself as it occurred, as if that refutes any fucking thing at all...

I am all for being proved wrong. I'm even thick skinned enough to be called wrong. But if you're going to do it.....maybe address the things I actually said rather than going on your own tangent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #401)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 01:18 PM

405. The fact that you think that you are correct is amusing but is not based on facts

Math is an important concept and you do not realize that Sanders had no chance whatsoever of being the nominee. The Clinton lead following Super Tuesday was too large for Sanders to over come. At the end, Clinton had four time the lead in pledged delegates over Sanders compared to the lead that President Obama had over Hillary Clinton in 2008. The fact is that Sanders lied or mislead his followers following Super Tuesday. In past contests, the candidates were all real members of the Democratic Party and so they conceded when it was clear that could not win. Sanders was not a true member of the Democratic Party and kept his campaign going based on misrepresentations to his supporters. In past campaigns, the candidates who were members of the Democratic Party and who cared about the Democratic Party conceded and worked from day one to elect the nominee. That did not happen in 2016,

The fact that Sanders did not concede at the same time as Clinton. I was at both the 2008 and 2016 Texas Democratic State conventions. The differences were amazing. Hillary Clinton had conceded three or four days before the convention and so the credentials fights and other disputes went away. In 2016, we had a very disruptive and non-unifying convention with Bernie bros being very nasty. That carried on to the general election. I know of several bernie supporters who bragged in meetings of the young democrats (where one of my daughters was present) that they got voters to vote for Stein while blockwalking for other local candidates. I doubt that this was an isolated incident.

Sanders platform was based on unrealistic promises that he could never delivered on and as a result Sanders supporters had unrealistic expectations through out the process. I saw this at the DNC.

The fact that you do not want to address these facts amuses me. Math is important in the real world.


I am sorry that you feelings are hurt. I continue to be amused that you think that you are right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #405)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 01:24 PM

406. Again, addressing nothing that I said. Not a single thing. Do you talk around things for a living?

 

I could engage you on any topic you brought up instead...

but then you'd probably respond with something entirely unrelated, led by "Your analysis is wrong and amusing."

I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're fucking with me, not actually missing the point as widely as you appear to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #406)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 01:40 PM

408. Not to throw gas on the fire - not my intent

But I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to convey here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #408)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 01:50 PM

411. in my last post? Or throughout the thread? The last post has to do with the way my conversations go

 


with Gothmog. I say something, Goth tells me in no uncertain terms how wrong I am, and then proceeds to prove it to me with entirely disparate information. I wasn't saying much else there except that it was apparently pointless to try to have a conversation.

If you're talking about any other part of our discourse, you'll have to be more specific about where you're getting lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #411)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 01:52 PM

414. I am not the only one amused on this thread

Again, if you use facts or make a valid argument, I will be happy to address. I cannot address your hurt feelings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #414)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 02:32 PM

418. So you weren't happy to address anything I've said so far? Is that why you talked about entirely

 


different shit? I guess just saying "wrong," works as an argument in itself if you are either Trump or Gothmog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #418)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 03:25 PM

422. Use some facts or present something other than feelings

I disagree with your feelings. If you have facts, use them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #401)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 02:02 PM

416. As a desciple of Sheldon Cooper, I caan't resist this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #416)

Tue Dec 27, 2016, 02:13 PM

417. hehe, semantically, I think you can be more or less wrong though. Wrong on part of something

 


is different from being wrong on a lot of something. Sure, if you are wrong at any given point, then you are grammatically speaking, wrong. But given the complicated range that a conversation covers, I think that more wrong says something different than wrong.

That said, I was saying it all in snark given the nature of me and Gothmog's conversations, and how one of us tends to kick the posts off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #417)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 01:29 PM

450. Again, I use facts on these threads and you want to talk about your feelings

Facts are what matter and your personal feelings and opinions are not relevant in the real world

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #450)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 02:57 PM

452. ugh..that was worth another post? The FACT is, that you use "facts" that are irrelevant to the

 


argument I am making while you tell me that I'm wrong. It's fine to say that I've got those things wrong, or even that I'm paying attention to the wrong things, but to answer a claim about last week's weather by saying something like "Wrong, it was sunny out yesterday and I was there, and you were in a cave..." is way the fuck off the mark.

To then come back and say "I don't address what you actually say because you don't use facts, just feelings..." invalidates further, your baseless and undefended argument that I'm wrong. You could totally say "I don't think you know what you're talking about." I think that's fair, but it doesn't make the counter-claim that you do. To say "wrong" and then not to prove it, or to even try, is pretty damn lame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #452)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:04 PM

453. Again it appears that you only want to discuss your feelings and not the facts

In the real world your personal feelings and opinions are meaningless and could not introduced in court. Again, the facts remain that Sanders had no chance of being the nominee after Super Tuesday based on the math but continued his campaign based on falsehoods told to his supporters. Do you have any math or facts to back up your claims? It is also a fact that Hillary Clinton had more than four times the pledged delegate lead over Sanders compared to the lead that President Obama had over Hillary Clinton in 2008. Clinton did the right thing and Sanders did not.

Again, in the real world in past contests, the candidates who were as far behind in delegates as Sanders was following Super Tuesday all dropped out. First, these candidates were actual members of the Democratic Party and second these candidates wanted to win in November. Sanders ignored these facts and his campaign was designed to hurt Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party in the general.

I am happy to discuss facts. I really do not care about your feelings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #453)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 03:15 PM

455. but what the fuck are you talking about? How is that responding to anything I've said up to this

 


point? I've made absolutely no claims about Sanders actual chances. I didn't talk about them at all. I didn't suggest that he thought he could win. I suggested that he might have dropped out earlier had the DNC and Clinton done what they ultimately did anyway, and actually adopt some of Sanders positions.

I don't give a fuck about what other candidates have done in the past. I really don't. It has no relevance to me. No candidate in the past has run purely on donations from citizens either. No candidate in the past was trying to actually change business as usual as an outsider, and yes Sanders was an outsider. By your own claim, "he was not a democrat." While some of us are perfectly glad to have had him in our party, there are plenty of you, particularly insiders, that didn't want him in the party and you made that pretty clear from the get-go. Don't give me any bullshit about welcoming him in with open arms. So is having all those pledged delegates supposed to mean something to me? You think with all that support that Clinton and the machine wanted to adopt anything Sanders was proposing? If he just dropped out without a fight they would have done so? No you don't, and in fact, you think it's sad that you ever had to compromise.

You fucking like business as usual. So I don't care what you saw. I don't necessarily even trust you given your tactics of argumentation, but I certainly don't trust your judgement. What you see is filtered through your own reality and that reality has a significant bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #455)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 05:42 PM

463. Has Sanders changed his FEC filing to run as a Democrat for Senate in 2018?

Is Sanders even pretending to be a member of the Democratic Party? Sanders is now registered with the FEC as an independent for the 2018 Senate race. That is good evidence that Sanders never intended to be a part of the party. If Sanders really wanted to be welcomed to the party, then he might want to stay in the party for a while

The premise of the OP is about being part of a gathering of Democrats. You admit in your posts that Sanders did not run to be the nominee and that you do not care if the math showed that Sanders had no chance of being the nominee. That proves my point that Sanders' goal was not to become the nominee or to help the party (something addressed in the OP) but was to disrupt and hurt the party. Sanders succeeded in helping Trump win and that is very sad to me. You may approve of this result but again that is contrary to the premises stated in the OP.

Sanders admitted that he ran in the Democratic primary for money and publicity. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747

Bernie Sanders on Monday told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he ran as a Democrat to get more media coverage.

During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.

Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.

“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”

According to Sanders' own words, he was not really seeking the nomination but media coverage. Sanders succeeded in his goal and in the process hurt the Democratic Party in 2016.

The fact that you do not care that in the past other candidates running for the Democratic nomination were actual members of the party and cared about the Party is telling to me. Sanders campaign was not based on a good faith attempt to be the nominee but on a desire for media coverage. I am sad that Sanders told his followers about his chances of being the nominee and that these followers believed these misrepresentations. Those misrepresentations eventually helped trump win in 2016.

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings but your posts lack any facts to discuss. I am sad that many so-called Democrats are happy that the party lost in 2016. It is going to be a long four years under Trump and this could have been avoided.

I agree strongly with the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #463)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 06:09 PM

464. I would like to take a moment to praise you for actually responding to things I said in my post.

 


That had to have been hard.

Your sense of "helping" the party is not mine. Besides, the party's goals, supposedly, should be to help the American people. In my mind, helping the party become more progressive, which you actually have to admit Sander's influence did, given that you have actually vocally lamented it here, is GOOD.

The party's insistence on rejecting that message and holding out as long as possible... was BAD, and hurt the party.

Nothing you just said proves what you think it proves. I fully accept that that is your interpretation, but now you have mine.

I very much care about the democratic party, which means I care about its direction and what it fights for. In my opinion, our leadership didn't care enough about that. They did come around though, and Clinton did adopt Sanders policies as we've discussed, and I did get excited to vote for her, which I did. So when you say people are happy we lost, that ain't me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #464)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 06:23 PM

465. Again your aversion to facts amuses me

If you care so much about the Democratic Party and its goals then you should be more upset at the fact that Sanders helped Trump win.

Again I suggest that you re-read the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #465)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 06:30 PM

466. My entrance into the conversation wasn't with the OP, so I'm not sure why that matters.

 


I disagree that Sanders helped Trump win. We can go round and round about that, but what you don't have is facts that prove it to be so any more than I have facts that disprove it. We both have evidence and our own interpretations of that evidence, and for that matter, our interpretations of the other person's evidence.

So, I thank you for the conversation where it has been one, and I'm sure we'll have more of them in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #466)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 08:54 PM

471. Ignoring the facts will not change these facts

Closing your eyes to the facts presented is amusing to me. Your posts amuse me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #471)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 11:34 PM

480. there should be a drinking game associated with every time you say facts, amuse and wrong.

 


Tell you what, it seems important to you, so feel free to repost these snippets of wisdom one last time so that you can have the last word. I promise I'll let them stand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #480)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 10:17 AM

490. Again, your feelings are meaningless

We could also do a game where you get a point if you ever use a fact in your post. So far your posts are fact free and I do not care about your feelings. In the real world your personal opinion and feelings are meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #416)

Wed Dec 28, 2016, 09:21 PM

476. What's a "desciple"

I cant stand that middlebrow network shit. Peddled to marginaly sentient people who think watching it means they're clever, while turning actual smart and aspergers-y folks into a hyuk hyuk laff riot. Derp.

But hey.. my mom likes it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #167)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 10:09 AM

334. Sanders is the establishment as much as any other long term politician.

When the situation becomes so hopeless that one of your major surrogates has to apologize and leave the trail because he publicly characterized Democrats as "corporate whores" in a desperate bid to stoke voters, it's time to reevaluate exactly whose interests you are truly serving.

The biggest irony is that a Clinton win or a Democratic senate (or both) would have given Sanders a very powerful voice in the Senate and the progressive agenda he claims to have really been fighting for. All he has now is a title that was invented for him and the mistrust of his colleagues.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an actual Democrat run for Senate in Vermont in 2018. My money is on Howard Dean or this guy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/06/meet-al-giordano-the-man-who-wants-to-take-bernie-down.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #334)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 12:34 PM

344. You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what establishment even means.

 

You don't get to really be part of the club if you don't "understand" how backscratching is supposed to work in politics. People certainly don't hand you a megaphone, and they don't actually want to work with you. He still had a vote, and that had to be courted, but that's typically the extent of your power when you're a lone voice in a wilderness. Your influence is made marginal.

Your assessment about what a Clinton win would have brought Sanders is not at all mine. I saw a concerted effort throughout the campaign to marginalize him, and to make him a peddler of unicorns and fairy dust(you know some of the stuff that eventually became a part of the Democratic platform), and then, a loser who couldn't let go. I have no reason to believe, without things being on paper, that any lip-service they might have paid him behind the scenes to get him to drop out would have come to fruition.

The DNC platform didn't get hammered out til right before the convention, and there is just about no reason to believe, given the signals sent up by the Democratic Establishment, that there was any intention to make concessions to Sanders until he pushed all the way to it. They could have done that earlier. They could have given him a win that proved that they weren't just disdainfully locking us out of the conversation, far earlier. They didn't think they had to.

The bottom line is first, I reject the silliness that Sanders contributed to Trump's win--that is almost totally the US media's to own-- but second, even if you insist on a corollary, then you should be looking at Clinton and the DNC for thinking they could turn their back and go about business as usual.

I guess wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats ran somebody against Sanders. Are you saying they want to give him payback for daring to challenge the chosen one? I would be equally unsurprised though, if he isn't challenged. His favorables are way too high, and it makes the DNC look petty and vindictive.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to lapucelle (Reply #347)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 01:05 PM

348. Well I just explained to you how he's not part of that inner circle of power. He is in the Senate.

 


he's not in the group.

And who the fuck cares anyway. If somebody is in the establishment railing against the way the establishment is doing business--because it is doing it shittily--I want that guy in there. Trying to shut somebody up or undercut his message by smirkingly saying ...hrrr hrrr hrrr, but you're part of the establishment...snark...is totally and intentionally missing the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #348)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 01:10 PM

349. Because I don't need you to explain things to me, I didn't read beyond your title.

And I've that if I put you on ignore, I won't have to read those either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #349)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 01:12 PM

350. Boggles the mind why you're on a discussion board at all. Why not just write shit in a journal and

 


then read it back to yourself and nod.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #350)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 12:57 PM

493. Coming from you that is so very very funny

Again, you may want to consider using facts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #493)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 01:36 PM

495. hey, its Gothmog! You forgot to say that it's amusing to you...

 



Your contributions are not insightful, and it is clear at this point that they aren't rendered in good faith for the sake of actual discussion. You would rather characterize me and my posts than to actually address the content. It has nothing to do with your claimed reliance on facts. If facts were the issue, you'd just use them already to undercut my arguments rather than going off on marginally related tangents.

But what exactly is your goal here? Why was it important for you to reengage me in a pissing contest? Do you want to have the last vapid word in all of my posts, because I'll do a quick run-through and give you a list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #495)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 01:54 PM

496. Again, there are no facts or real analysis in your post

I really do not care about your feelings or unsupported opinions. I found it amusing when you attacked another poster for expressing their opinion or feelings. Again, I come here for facts and not opinions that are unsupported by facts or analysis. Your attack on another poster for expressing their opinion amuses me

Thank you for the amusement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #496)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 02:09 PM

497. no, I commented on the other poster for posting on a discussion board and then, because that poster

 


didn't want to actually discuss, placing me on ignore. Your own attempts to use facts are ...wait for it...amusing to me.

And I'm getting the distinct feeling that you wouldn't pass the Turing Test, given the constraints of your responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #497)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 04:36 PM

498. Another silly but funny post

I live in the real world where facts and analysis are important. I use facts in my posts and do not rely on posts about my feelings or opinions not based on facts or analysis. Your posts rely on your unsubstantiated feelings about a subject and lack facts or analysis to back up your claims.

Lets look at what is considered to be a fact that supports an argument. Sanders had no chance of being the nominee and Sanders ran in the Democratic Primary solely for media coverage with no hope of winning. Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747

Bernie Sanders on Monday told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he ran as a Democrat to get more media coverage.

During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.

Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.

“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”

If Sanders had been an actual member of the Democratic Party and cared about the Party, Sanders would have conceded after Super Tuesday. Sanders attacks on Clinton were responsible in part for Trump winning and for that I will not support Sanders or his supporter Keith Ellison

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 07:43 AM

326. That doesn't really jive with reality...

 

An unnecessarily negative campaign would have made full use of the email scandal instead of pshawing it on a national stage.

The primary process treated her with kid gloves frankly which led to the disaster in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #326)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 09:50 AM

333. "The primary process treated her with kid gloves"

Excuse me a moment while I roll my eyes.

The disaster in November was the direct result of the BoBs, the FBI, the Tea Party, the alt-right, and an equivocating media treating Clinton with the same kid gloves.

The only people desperately spinning now are the BoBs and the narcissistic no shows who realize that they have been played and that they will have to live with the contempt of 65,000,000+ voters.

Now excuse me permanently while I put you on ignore.

Oh, and welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #333)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 10:19 AM

336. I'm just saying that she had every internal advantage possible...

 

... With all of her people in the key positions to support her.

She won the primary battle to lose the election war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #336)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 04:43 PM

499. Clinton lost because Sanders entered the race with no expectation of being nominee

Sanders had no chance of being the nominee in that Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected him. After Super Tuesday, Clinton had a delegate lead that Sanders would not be able to overcome. Sanders stayed in the race not to win but to hurt the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. Sanders succeeded. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=2667852

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #499)

Fri Dec 30, 2016, 08:06 AM

503. She just as easily could have realized that Bernie still had power...

 

... And negotiated his exit and support much sooner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #503)

Fri Dec 30, 2016, 09:09 AM

504. Sander was the one who dragged out the negotiations

Sanders pushed very hard up to until the last minute before the convention. I was a delegate to the National Convention and the Clinton whipping infrastructure was warning delegates to expect up to five floor votes. Leticia van de Putte (the 2014 Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor) was co-chair of the Rules committee and she told me that they met until 2:30 AM on Sunday morning before the convention to deal with the super delegate issue.

Sanders was not interested in helping the Democratic party. Sanders ran for media coverage and Sanders hurt the Democratic party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #504)

Fri Dec 30, 2016, 09:15 AM

505. He was interested in getting more of his views into the main party...

 

If that had happened and we had more of his people and less of Clintons with a negotiated agreement?

Maybe we'd have president Clinton now...

In any case, Bernie was under no obligation to quit and bow out. Hillary had a few swords hanging over her head and it was possible something campaign ending could have come out like an indictment or other large scandal.

Bernie owes it to his people to fight as long and hard as he can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #505)

Fri Dec 30, 2016, 10:54 AM

506. Sanders hurt the party and help elect Trump

I guess helping trump be elected is okay if you get your way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #506)

Fri Dec 30, 2016, 12:27 PM

507. This is the old line...

 

... That no one should have dared to challenge Clinton at any point and if the entire party and the voters had just done as they were told everything would have been fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #507)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 12:04 PM

512. How do you explain Sanders own admissions that he only ran for media coverage

Sanders himself stated that he only ran for media coverage http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=2670187 I would love to see a sanders supporter explain Sanders own statements

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #512)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 12:47 PM

513. I'll amend...

 

He was in it to win (not very likely) or to have a significant influence on the party in the future.

Better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #513)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 01:02 PM

514. Sanders was eliminated mathematically after Super Tuesday

After Sanders being soundly rejected by Jewish, African American and Latino voters, Sanders had no chance in the real world of being the nominee. Hillary Clinton's lead at this point was not going to be over come and Sanders stayed in the race anyway to get media attention.

Remember that at the end, Hillary Clinton had more than four times the lead in pledged delegates over Sanders compared to the lead in pledged delegates that President Obama had over Hillary Clinton in 2008. The way Hillary Clinton handled the situation was so much more classy and appropriate compared to Sanders antics.

In the real world math is important. Do you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #514)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 01:23 PM

518. He still held a significant portion of the voting block in his hand...

 

If Hillary wanted it, she should have negotiated for it instead of pulling the usual 'wait out the storm'.

She didn't and this is what we get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #518)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 05:06 PM

520. So you are proud of Sanders efforts to get Trump elected

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #520)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 05:11 PM

521. I'm saying that it is unrealistic...

 

... To expect everyone to forego the primary process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #521)

Sat Dec 31, 2016, 05:29 PM

522. In the past people running were actual members of the Democratic Party and cared about the Party

Here Sanders was not really a part of the party and only ran in the party for media coverage. In the past, when a member of the Democratic Party who actually cared about the party found themselves behind by the number of pledged delegates that Sanders was after Super Tuesday, they conceded. Again these candidates were actual members of the Democratic Party and cared about the party. Sanders had no chance for the nomination and lied to his supporters when he claimed that had a chance. The result was that Sanders helped elect Trump.

It appears that you approve of this result. I do not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #518)

Wed Jan 4, 2017, 12:12 PM

536. yes! this is exactly what I've been saying! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #507)

Tue Jan 3, 2017, 09:11 AM

534. Sanders tops list for most appearances on 2016 Sunday shows

Sanders used his media coverage to become by far the most frequent guest on the Sunday morning show circuit http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-top-list-for-most-appearances-on-2016-sunday-shows-846175811977 Sanders ran for media coverage and got it. To get such coverage, Sanders attacked the Democratic party and helped trump get elected

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #505)

Sat Jan 7, 2017, 10:38 AM

541. Clinton 2008 vs. Sanders 2016: A comparison of what happened when the campaign ends

Look this time line and you can see proof that Sanders was trying to hurt the party and give trump a victory http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-aftermath-20160609-snap-htmlstory.html The differences in how Clinton responded to losing and Sanders trying to hurt the party are amazing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kuhl (Reply #326)

Thu Dec 29, 2016, 01:13 PM

494. No, The Systems Not Totally Rigged. But That Idea Sure Helped Donald Trump.

Sanders had no chance of being the nominee after Super Tuesday but continued his campaign which hurt Clinton. Here is a good example Sanders really hurt Clinton I am still mad at the number of times that trump used Sanders' claims against Clinton. Sanders' baseless charges that the system was fixed and rigged were used by trump to great effect and hurt Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rigged-system-donald-trump_us_5855cb44e4b08debb7898607?section=us_politics

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

I think he was able to thread a certain toxic needle. But he did win, and we’re all going to pay the price.
John Weaver, aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s presidential campaign

The underlying irony for those who sought to end what they perceived as corruption is that they may well have elected a president whose record through the years and whose actions since the election signal it could be the most openly corrupt administration in generations.....

And if Sanders’ rhetoric during the primaries started that stew simmering with his talk about the system only working for the rich, Trump brought it to a full boil with his remarks blaming undocumented immigrants and trade agreements that he claimed were forged as the result of open corruption.

Sanders' bogus rigged process claim hurt a great deal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 26, 2016, 09:10 AM

331. He advanced a progressive agenda, but it was blocked at every turn by a republican congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:12 PM

41. Yep

 

I think that Obama was a once in a lifetime President. And I apologize if this offends the OP as that is not my intention. I just thing that the entire reason we have a postmortem is to dissect what went wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I voted Hillary and my state went for her but there were some serious problems that should be addressed. I think that to pretend like there were no problems is a disservice to the Democratic party and will only set us up for failure.

I have said this before and I will repeat it.

The FBI would have NEVER been an issue for her, had she used a State Department email account. Had she turned over the entire 60,000 emails to the FBI from day one on the condition that her private emails not be released, she would have never appeared to be hiding something. Had she taken the thing serious from day one, and not be flippant about the entire thing and she would not have been viewed as reckless or whatever else people said.

That was partially why when she was ill, and fell on Sept. 11 it became a huge deal. It again looked like she was lying about her health. She had the opportunity to get in front of that, and chose not to.

She chose to spend more time talking about Trump's negatives than her own message and vision for America. In my state all the ad's that ran were extremely negative.

There were a lot of mistakes and miscalculations made, but hindsight is also 20 20 and it's easy to Monday morning quarterback.

The Wikileaks emails played a part sure, but there was a reason Dumbf won. The lead in the popular vote is often cited, but the fact is that Hillary won CA by 4 Million votes. Dumbf won the rest of the country by 2 million votes. THAT is a major problem and glossing over it does not help us dissect the reason that we lost.

I just pray that we can figure out exactly what went wrong before 2020 because 2018 does not look pretty either and Mid terms never seem to registrar on the average person's radar.

I hope you all have a happy holidays!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamH1474 (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:41 PM

76. The FBI would have been an issue if she had used a state dept email account

 

Because state.gov email is also not rated for anything classified.

The exact same security issues would have existed using the state.gov email as a private email server. Not secure for classified mail is not secure for classified mail.

You have to use the Siprnet email system to send information up to secret and JWICS for top secret.

Someone accidentally sending classified or secret or top secret level information to your state.gov email is exactly the same security issue as if it was sent to a private email server or Gmail for that matter.

I had a debate on this very issue on Sirius radio vs a former CIA agent and he was forced to acknowledge that I was right.

Unfortunately you and many other people bought into the nonsense Republicans and other folks with an anti-Hillary agenda fed you. This was all silly manufactured outrage. Errors like this with sending emails to non rated email systems happen all the time. It's only an issue this time because some folks wanted to manufacure an issue against Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #76)

Sat Dec 24, 2016, 10:54 PM

101. thank you for this. the BS people have fallen for and how the media covered this

is a travesty!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #76)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 12:30 AM

140. Thank you Steven Leser

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #76)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 01:34 AM

157. I guess we just see things differently

 

But that is OK, as a fellow Democrat I am always open to discussion and disagreement. I really appreciate your detailed response.

I think part of the problem is that there was classified content emailed in the first place. But has human's we all make mistakes and an email that was classified slipping through the cracks can be easily explained. However I think there were over 60 emails with classified information on them. Somewhere in there, you have to think logically and admit to yourself that someone was cutting corners

It's hard for me, because I really had no preference in either Bernie or Hillary because I liked a lot of both platforms, and hated everything the Repugs brought to the table.

I do take issue with you saying that I bought into some kind of Repug nonsense just because I don't think that everything went off without a hitch and there were no mistakes made. I was taught since a young age that part of making a mistake is learning from it, so that you do not repeat it. There will be no learning from these mistakes, and no correcting problems if we all just hold hands and pretend that she ran a perfect campaign, and that the only reason that we lost was because of Comey and some Russian bs.

I fear that there has been a lot of making excuses and not enough open and through analysis of why we have lost a total of 900 state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seat. Somewhere along the road, we have lost our grasp of the common man(or women) and been beaten by a racist group that used to be so hated, and reviled.

Again, this is just one man's opinion and I may be way off base. This is simply my take on this election.

Happy Holidays!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamH1474 (Reply #157)

Sun Dec 25, 2016, 04:03 AM