To hell with it!

[retrowire]

I get the feeling that people who want Hillary to win instead of Bernie simply want her in because she's the "safe bet" and they just wanna beat the GOP to the house.

As if our rights and changing this nation just takes a backseat to the chest pounding competition of politics of the red vs blue.

To hell with the fact that big money corrupts and bends our government to its whim! To hell with the fact that Hillary is directly funded by the powers that do that!

We want Hillary to win!

To hell with the fact that regarding a financial plan, Hillary will "get back to us on that" in 10 days! She's had since before 2008 but she just needs 10 more days. For what? To get a quick cheat sheet of what to say in front of those crowds?

Oh and she'll remember to say it in that specific crowd's most familiar accent! Anything to cater to the voters of the day.

To hell with the fact that we're all tired of these perpetual wars in the middle east, we need to give the enemy exactly what they want! A eternal war between Islam and Christianity! A war that will not only be fought over there but on our homeland soil as well!

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, Lehman Brothers, 21st Century Fox (I thought we hated faux news?), Ernst & Young, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse Group, Corning Inc (bulletproof glass anyone? Sounds useful for those wars to come.)

To hell with trying to actually change it all for the better with Bernie. Let's just pick the low hanging fruit for a few more years instead of shaking the whole tree. I mean its slower, but at least we win the house! Yes!!!

To hell with concern for changing any of that! We just want the democrats to win! "Safe bets" for now and forever! Anything it takes to win the house! Right?

You know what? To hell with it!

[HFRN]

1. 'just takes a backseat to the chest pounding competition of politics of the red vs blue'

there are those who see nothing beyond red vs blue, even if there's no difference beyond the colors on their posters

[mmonk]

2. We can't win the House without addressing gerrymandering in some way.

[Cleita]

5. This has to be done state by state. We took care of it in California and other

states are trying, but if your state allows it, you need to join a movement to end it and you still have time to do it before the 2016 election.

[kenfrequed]

34. Bernie will do more for this

A good solid populist progressive at the top of the ticket will turn out a lot more voters down ticket and will pay off better in the long run.

As Democrats we should all be involved heavily in our state and local caucuses and primaries in selecting candidates that are more like Bernie.

[Cleita]

3. I like Bernie but he can't win so I'm for Hillary or I like Hillary because

it's time for a woman President. This is what I get from my real life Democratic acquaintances. I never hear, I like Hillary because she speaks to me like I hear Bernie supporters say. So, if that doesn't hint of a candidate already being preselected by the PTB, I don't know what is.

[Ed Suspicious]

26. I like Hillary, but realistically she cannot win. She's tried before. She's lost to the populist

positioned candidate every time she's run for president.

[retrowire]

41. yep

her popularity has already peaked long ago, it can't get any higher, only lower.

meanwhile Bernie... well you've seen the news. go bernie!

[RKP5637]

57. I think to many, Bernie is a breath of fresh air than the same old sickening political

rut of the US dug by hordes of money buying the government. And for lack of a better expression, I think Bernie might well attract a lot of common folk, millions and millions, of all types that have lost interest in the political system.

[awoke_in_2003]

46. Shades of "Obama cannot win". nt

[JDPriestly]

63. The line I hear is, "Hillary is the only one who can raise the money."

That's the most disgusting of all especially since the people who say that also claim to be so very opposed to Citizens United.

[Cleita]

64. That too!

[arcane1]

82. Don't even get me started on THAT!

When kissing corporate ass is supported, cheered, and justified, we have ourselves a big problem.

My fear: if we let Big Money win the White House again, we will never have another chance to beat it.

This is our last chance.

[JDPriestly]

106. I agree. This is our last chance.

Unfortunately, a vote for Hillary means missing this last chance to say no to Citizens United at the polls.

A vote for Bernie is saying no to Citizens United.

A vote for Hillary says yes to Citizens United.

That is because a vote for Bernie says no to the idea that only a corporate-backed candidate can raise the money to win the White House.

A vote for Hillary says yes to the idea that only a corporate-backed candidate can raise the money to win the White House.

The choice is clear, and we voters have to make it.

[udbcrzy2]

4. The best for me

I'm voting for who I think is the best candidate for ME. I'm listening to all of the choices that I have been given a chance to hear. It's important. It's nonsense for someone else to tell me who I should choose.

[ruffburr]

6. Red vs Blue?-

Let's be honest, there is no red/ blue there is only corporatist vs socialist at this point in time , The old republicans vs democrats has devolved to a corporate owned meme, While a few dems are progressive most are bought and paid for, As are the republicans lock stock and barrel in corporate pockets, So it comes down to what do we want to live in , A society for profit or a society for benefit people and the planet, Your choice , Ball is in your personal court.

[demwing]

77. +100% thanks! /nt

[libdem4life]

122. Also Conservative vs. Liberal The Rs and the Ds seem to be groups of people

lifting wet fingers into their own special, climate-controlled breeze.

[Gothmog]

7. A vote for Hillary is also a vote to make sure that the SCOTUS is not controlled by the GOP

One of the key issues that I am considering in the upcoming primary contest is the control of the SCOTUS. The recent 5 to 4 decisions that came down last week and the week before show how important the SCOTUS is ad the control of the SCOTUS will be determined by the 2016 election. http://theweek.com/articles/564891/why-2016-supreme-court-election

And in the next term, there are positive signs for the right. The justices have already agreed to hear a case that could put the final nail in affirmative action's coffin, as well as one that could cripple public sector unions. The justices are also likely to take one or more cases on restrictions at abortion clinics, and if they rule the way conservatives want, it could make abortions almost impossible to obtain in large swaths of the country.

All that is unlikely to banish the memory of the last couple of weeks from Republicans' minds, and you can bet that the GOP presidential candidates are going to have to promise primary voters that they'll deliver more Supreme Court justices like Alito, and fewer like Anthony Kennedy or even Roberts. If Democrats care about their own agenda, they ought to be no less motivated to vote by the prospect of changes in the court....

While it's possible that they all might decide to hold out until there's a president of their own party to replace them, infirmity or illness may make that impossible. And it's been an awfully long time since a president had the opportunity to change the court's course. The last time a Republican managed it was when George H.W. Bush appointed Clarence Thomas to replace the retiring Thurgood Marshall. And Democrats? Believe it or not, it's been over six decades since a Democratic president had the opportunity to replace a conservative justice; the last one to do it was John F. Kennedy, who appointed Byron White to a seat when Charles Evans Whittaker, who had been appointed by President Eisenhower, resigned in 1962.

If the next president gets that chance, no matter which party he or she comes from, it will profoundly affect the court's direction. If a Republican could appoint someone to replace Ginsburg or Breyer, it would mean a 6-3 conservative majority, which means that Kennedy would no longer be the swing vote and there would be a margin for error in every case. If a Democratic president were to replace Scalia or Kennedy, then the court would go from 5-4 in favor of the conservatives to 5-4 in favor of the liberals.

Those two outcomes would produce two radically different Supreme Courts, with implications that would shape American life for decades. If you think the court has been handling controversial and consequential cases lately, just you wait.

I remember when GHWBush replaced Thurgood Marshal with that idiot Clarence Thomas which started the shift of the court towards being far more conservative. If the GOP gets to pick the replacements for Breyer and RBG, then the court will tilted to the right for a very very long time. By the same measure, if a Democratic President gets to select Kennedy's or Scalia's replacment, then we will not have to worry about the gutting of the right to privacy or Roe v. Wade.

All but a couple of the abortion clinics in Texas were scheduled to be shut down on July 1 and these clinics are still open due to a 5 to 4 decision. Affirmative action, one man one vote and a host of important issues will be decided next year and I would hate to see the SCOTUS shift to being a 6 to 3 court in favor of the conservatives.

[retrowire]

12. what part of

"A vote for Hillary is a vote for Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, Lehman Brothers, 21st Century Fox (I thought we hated faux news?), Ernst & Young, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse Group, Corning Inc (bulletproof glass anyone? Sounds useful for those wars to come.)" didn't make any sense?

Hillary is in the pocket of big money as much as any republican. do you really believe she'll save the scotus?

that reasoning aside, how does any of that differentiate Bernie and Hillary? If Hillary is truly as progressive as she claims then both potential presidents would save the scotus.

I still see no reason to choose Hillary over Bernie in this particular scenario.

[Gothmog]

20. So you are comfortable letting the GOP control the SCOTUS?

I live in Texas where we are dealing with the consequences of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. In my county alone, 9,000 to 12,000 voters were prevented or discouraged from voting by the voter id law. Statewide, between, 300,000 to 600,000 voters were prevented from voting.

If the GOP gets to pick the next couple of SCOTUS justices, you can kiss the right of privacy and Roe v. Wade goodbye. The control of the SCOTUS is an important issue to some and that is what I am basing my support on. You are welcome to base your support on other concerns so long as you are willing to see Roe v. Wade overturned and the right of privacy gutted.

[retrowire]

24. please explain to me

how voting for Bernie instead of Hillary would just automatically give the GOP control over the scotus. please.

[Gothmog]

49. Knife to Gun Fight

Sanders does not appear to be viable in a contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the likely GOP nominee will be able to raise another billion dollars. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac, The super pacs associated with Clinton raised $24 million and so Clinton raised $70 this quarter.

[retrowire]

53. ok

https://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/07/hillary-has-the-money-bernie-has-the-credibility-history-not-on-hillarys-side/

money doesn't win elections though. it funds them. that's it.

[Gothmog]

78. I live in the real world where money is important

The Kochs and the GOP nominee will be able to bury Sanders in negative ads and attack ads to paint Sanders as being out of touch with the mainstream. The term "socialist" will not play well in many parts of the country.

I personally like Sanders and will vote for him if he is the nominee but right now I am supporting a candidate who I think can win in November. This is the primary process and to me viability is an important criterion

[retrowire]

81. sounds to me

like not only do you live in the "real world" (surprise I do as well) but worse than that it sounds like you've also accepted the way that world works.

if you're so inclined to accept what the current government serves you then by all means, continue to feast. I'd rather say no and change that but then again, to each his own.

[Gothmog]

89. I am spending a great deal of my time pro bono working on voter protection issues

I do not accept the world as it is but I am realist and deal with the facts. I spent a ton of pro bono time last cycle on voter id issues for the Texas state party.

[Cal33]

94. "but right now I am supporting a candidate who I think can win in November." Right now Bernie is

making huge gains, according to the polls, and Hillary is losing ground. I'm really interested in
how things will look like 3 months from now.

More and more of us are getting totally fed-up with the "status quo" offered by the Third-Way
Dem. politicians. We see that they are leading us to the grave. Third-Way Dem. politicians are
losers. Bernie is a fighter.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. I completely agree; but, what's more ...

policy agreement is but one of my voting/support criteria ... as someone noted in another thread ... I'd rather elect a Democrat that I, perfectly, agree with on 80% of the issues, am ambivalent with on 15% of the issues, and flat out disagree with on 5% of the issues; than, allow a republican that I disagree with on 80% of the issues, disagree with how he/she might implement the 15% of the issue where we agree, and am ambivalent with on 5% of the issues.

[RobertEarl]

104. FANTASTIC!!

Good to see. No one should ever be so disrespectful by saying Bernie doesn't care about Black people. But some have tried to say just that, eh?

1StrongBlackMan writes:
"Please Note: I AM NOT SAYING BERNIE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE ... AFTER ALL, HE MARCHED WITH MARTIN!"

[arcane1]

83. Sanders vows to only appoint anti-CU justices. Will Clinton make that vow?

I doubt it.

[Gothmog]

85. Hillary Clinton made this vow a while back

Clinton is on record with this same promise back on May 14 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.

[arcane1]

88. Consider me pleasantly surprised for that!

Though she doesn't seem to mind using CU when campaigning. That would be an interesting debate question.

[Gothmog]

90. President Obama also used a super pac in 2012

Under today's system or lack of system of campaign finance, you have to use super pac money or give the other side a major advantage. President Obama hates Citizens United but was forced to use his own super pac to keep things close in 2012.

[arcane1]

91. Yeah, Dems are always "forced" into pro-corporate stances in order to win.

Not this time!

[Nitram]

8. Clinton beating Bernie would be disappointing to many.

A Republican beating Bernie would be a catastrophe.

[Cleita]

10. A Republican never would beat Bernie or Hillary. For almost 25 years, Bernie has won, first

the House and then the Senate in his rather red state of Vermont and would in a Presidential election, especially against the Republican candidates on parade today.

[retrowire]

13. this.

no way in hell would that happen.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

17. Vermont is a solid blue state...

Since 1992, it has sided largely with Democrats in the presidential elections. The vast majority of office holders in VT are Democrats.

[Cleita]

19. I thought Bernie ran as an Independent because of Vermont's leaning to the right?

[Gothmog]

21. Where did you hear this?

[Cleita]

25. Some talk radio show. I don't remember which one. It was a couple of years ago. n/t

[Cleita]

31. I remember now.

Thom Hartmann said that when he lived in Vermont, when he drove around the countryside, people had their lawn signs up. One lawn sign would be for Bush and the other for Bernie. And he said it was all over the state. So if that doesn't lean right I don't know what does. However, maybe even the Vermonters got fed up with Shrub after eight years of incompetence and malfeasance.

[Gothmog]

50. Election results show that Vermont is a solid blue state

[Cleita]

28. Okay. I stand corrected. eom

[AgingAmerican]

66. Bernie has won some tough races against long odds

He ran for mayor of Burlington and defeated a six-term Democratic incumbent by 10 votes in a four-way contest. Sanders won four total terms, defeating Democratic and Republican candidates. In his last run for mayor, Sanders defeated a candidate endorsed by both major parties, while running as an independent.

It has always been an uphill climb for Sanders and he has had great success against long odds.


Sanders being sworn into the Senate by Dick Cheney, oh the irony!

[Dr Hobbitstein]

42. Nope.

He ran as an independent because he's not a Democrat, he's a Democratic Socialist.
Vermont has been solid blue since Clinton in 1992.

[Cleita]

44. Then why did the Vermonters back George Bush like Thom Hartmann has stated. eom

[Dr Hobbitstein]

56. HW (in 1988), not W.

That was prior to the 1992 date that I previously cited.
If Thom Hartman stated that VT backed W, then Thom Hartman is lying. In 2000, VT went 50.63% to Gore (40.7% to W). In 2004, VT went 58.94% to Kerry (38.8% to W).
In 1988, they went 51.10% to HW, 47.58% to Dukakis. In 1992, it was 30.42% to HW, 46.11% to Clinton.

[Cleita]

62. Maybe it was HW. He never said the exact dates he was living there. I assumed it was the Shrub.

[appalachiablue]

87. TH often mentions a northern part of VT that's quite rural, conservative

and I think it's where here saw the signs, not def. though. He's lived in a few places, in VT 5 years, must have been during GHWB.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

118. I think

If Hillary does win the nomination then unfortunately many Dems. will stay at home. I will support her though.

[eridani]

127. Democrats won't be staying home. Those who will be staying home

--are those who see in Sanders the first straightforward truth tellers they've seen in many years at the national level. The alienated who have gotten beyond alienation with Sanders will stay home.

[Fred Sanders]

9. To hell with strawman, ad hominem and false equivalency logical fallacies! To hell for them all!!

[JaneyVee]

11. Oh jeez. Stop with that nonsense.

Hillary would make a great president. And that "safe bet" will ensure we don't have a 7-2 wingnut SCOTUS.

[retrowire]

14. Bernie would ensure that as well

so... again, why Hillary instead of Bernie?

[Nitram]

15. And around and around and around we go....

[JaneyVee]

30. Of course, but you're the one arguing "to hell with it!". No one else is.

[retrowire]

36. I'm simply stating

that a vote for Hillary is essentially saying "to hell with it, I just want to win"

so yes, in my opnion all Hillary supporters are basically saying that.

unless of course I could hear a good reason as to why we should choose Hillary over Bernie instead of the obvious "safe bet" reasoning that wouldn't change as much in our government.

[AgingAmerican]

32. It is a question that we can't seem to get an answer to

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. I suspect her point is ...

the "safe bet", pretty much concedes that she would win in the General Election; whereas, Bernie is less of the "safe bet" to win the General Election ... ergo, wouldn't be in the position to nominate folks to the SC; rather, the republican victor would.

I don't know ... She can correct me if I am wrong with respect to her thoughts.

[retrowire]

74. no disrespect

are you talking to me I can't tell on my phone.

and I'm a male for future reference

[charin]

16. Give her time.

Big economic speech soon. I'm voting Bernie, but I don't think he should force her hand on issues, there's a long slog ahead.

[retrowire]

22. i only fear

that she asks for more time so she can just answer with what the people want to hear.

I agree her hand shouldn't be forced, but she's had years to develop that hand, why should anyone have to wait? no one has to wait for Bernie on much.

she just does not seem sincere in anyway. maybe if she speaks in my accent I'll be swayed. not.

[Cleita]

23. What's taking her so long? Is it because she has to sound populist without pissing off her

big bankster donors?

[AgingAmerican]

40. I think Bernie puts her between a rock and a hard place

If she starts campaigning from the left, she looks like, "Me too!".
If she attacks him from the left, she looks disingenuous.
If she starts campaigning from the right the differences will be glaring, which shines a spotlight on Bernie, and she loses independents.
If she starts attacking him from the right she looks unhinged, like McCaskill did.

That doesn't leave her a lot of wiggle room.

Bernie's message is so rooted in reality that it can't be refuted.
Bernie is so consistent that he message has not changed in 40 years.
Bernie knows his message so well that he doesn't even use a teleprompter, he uses notes.

Bernie is slowly painting her into a corner without even trying.

[Cleita]

43. I say good for him.

He will prove to the politicians, who feel only triangulating will get them elected, that the opposite is true. Stating facts and truth is what people want to hear. If the election is an honest one, without the dirty tricks, he will win the primary. Hillary knows that.

[retrowire]

52. this!

all bernie has to do is win and they will all learn that integrity and truth is enough to gain our trust!

why should we demean ourselves by choosing the lesser of two evils anymore? show them what we want!

truth and integrity! we don't want smear campaigns and lies!

[brooklynite]

29. This has nothing to do with winning for the sake of winning...

...and everything to do with preventing disaster by allowing Republicans to win against a candidate who appears to not have a path to victory, when we have an alternative candidate who represents solid mainstream Democratic principles, and is competitive against every Republican in the field.

[retrowire]

33. so "safe bet"

takes precedence over our rights.

that's picking the low hanging fruit because its easier when we have Bernie who would shake the whole tree.

he can win if he is supported. thinking that way, the "safe bet" way doesn't change the world. a vote for Bernie may seem scary. but he is a mad dog in the house, a vicious opponent to all that the GOP stands for. we could all be assured that if he won, he'd not only protect politics from the right, he'd clean the house.

Hillary would play by their rules and tip toe around. I'm sick of that routine. sure she is a fighter as well, I'll give her that. but she wouldn't take on the biggest dogs. big banks and what not.

[brooklynite]

59. Your rights?

You have the right to vote for whomever you want.

I have the right to recommend you vote for whom I want.

"he can win if he is supported"...and the flaw in that argument is that I don't think he will be, when we move the decision out of the DU bubble and into the real world where non-politically active Democrats vote in the Primary, and Republicans and Independents vote in the GE. Add to which, Sanders' "eschew money" and make a lot of speeches approach seems unable to convey his message at the level it need to be conveyed.

[retrowire]

65. pessimism never changes the world

"he can win if he is supported"...and the flaw in that argument is that I don't think he will be, "

but he can win if you support him and believe it. he can win if everyone believes it can happen. pessimism will never change the world for the better. think about that. pessimism is being a lump on a log and folding your arms while saying "nope can't happen" of course it won't with that mindset.

secondly his message is spreading like wildfire through social media for free. the message is spreading just fine. its still early.

[brooklynite]

67. I've supported and believed in plenty of candidates who lost...

I learned decades ago never to confuse my hopes and dreams with reality.

[retrowire]

72. i understand.

I myself am only 27 and Bernie is the first politician to spur any political passion in me. so perhaps my optimism is not yet as trampled upon as yours.

I hope you'll feel inspired again.

[libdem4life]

123. McGovern inspired that in me...my first vote at age 21. It's been a long slog since then.

I've felt encouraged occasionally, but feel that political passion again with Bernie.

[bigbrother05]

39. Can anyone point to a reputable poll comparing Bernie to the Repub candidates?

Have seen many for HRC against the clown car occupants, but don't recall seeing any for Bernie (or O'Malley, etc. either). Would be interesting to see what his trends look like in a general election.

Obviously it's way early, but seeing this as the campaigns mature would be helpful.

[Cleita]

47. I don't think there is such a thing anymore. It seems the trend from landlines to cell phones have

made the sampling of those being polled not a cross section of the populace like it's supposed to be anymore. I think the pollsters need to go back to the drawing board on this one. I think I would stand outside a supermarket and ask those going in who they will vote for. This is the only place I can think of that everyone has to go to.

[lark]

35. So, if HRC does become the general election candidate for the Democrats,

what will you do? Do you really want to put the R's in charge of the next SCOTUS nomination? Do you want to let the "R"s destroy SS, Medicare and Medicaid and end the progress from the ACA?

I'm voting Bernie in the primary, but if HRC is the "D"s general election candidate, you can bet I'll vote her and against whatever clown is holding the R banner. Hope you would do the same.

[retrowire]

37. yep

I'd be disappointed that we're all going for the safest route with slow change and not changing the way these corrupt big money politics works but yeah, I'd vote for Hillary. she's not my "safe bet" she's my last resort.

[jwirr]

79. I would vote for her if I have to. And yes she will put people on the SCOTUS who protect women

but I am not as sure about Citizens United or economic issues. Is she going to use triangulation as a method of working across the aisle? What is she going to trade off to get what she wants? Bill traded welfare reform and Glass-Steagel. SS, Medicare, Medicaid and ACA are not on the table. She will also be in charge of the TPP.

I trust Bernie. If I have to vote for Hillary I am afraid that it will not be a win-win situation.

[SheilaT]

38. Going for the safe bet is rarely a good strategy, in my opinion.

Especially if electing Hillary Clinton is seen as a safe bet. Double so if those who plan to vote for her are doing so because they think she and only she can win the general election, and that she absolutely will win next year.

Lots of flaws with that reasoning. First off, any reasonable Democrat can probably win next year. Secondly, a Democrat winning next year is NOT inevitable, demographics notwithstanding.

I would love to see a woman President in my lifetime, but I don't think Hillary Clinton will be that President for several reasons. The most important is probably that she is widely disliked out there, somewhat among Democrats, but very, very much so among Republicans and those who consider themselves Independents. Anyone who thinks that a single Republican woman will cross over and vote for Hillary just because she's female is delusional. Think about it, all of you women who read this: Would any of you vote for Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann (were either of them to be nominated) just because you long for a woman in the White House? I don't think so.

Hillary Clinton has a degree of experience that is quite suited for being President, starting with 8 years in the WH alongside her husband Bill, 8 years in the U.S. Senate, and 4 years as Secretary of State. Nice resume. But none of that cancels out her strong connection with the big banks and her vote for the Iraq War and her inability to understand what ordinary families actually face every day. Flat broke when they left the White House. Yeah.

Personally, I still wish Elizabeth Warren were running, but she's not. I am hoping that if Bernie wins the nomination she'll get the VP spot, but I'm not holding my breath.

[lame54]

45. Bernie doesn't rip Hillary and neither should you

[calimary]

51. Thank you.

And Hillary hasn't ripped Bernie, either. Which is one of many reasons why I won't, as well.

[retrowire]

54. if any of my facts

came off as "rips" I apologize.

the only thing I could accurately be described as "ripping" would be those voters out there that would rather go with the "safe bet" just so the democratic party can win, rather than actually voting for a real change in our government.

[frylock]

61. Hillary doesn't need to rip Sanders when her surrogates are perfectly happy to do it.

[retrowire]

68. good point as well.

she has scapegoats to do it for her.

[calimary]

111. And so does he.

[retrowire]

112. hillary has claire mccaskill

your turn! also you can't name any of his fans, only people that work within the government alongside him. Go!

[retrowire]

55. if any of my facts

came off as "rips" I apologize.

the only thing I could accurately be described as "ripping" would be those voters out there that would rather go with the "safe bet" just so the democratic party can win, rather than actually voting for a real change in our government.

[Maedhros]

48. Nothing good comes from giving into fear.

A vote for Hillary is predicated on the ludicrous notion that if we keep electing conservative Democrats, we'll eventually get Progressive policies.

Let's game this out for a few election cycles. If we keep holding our noses and voting for the Lesser of Two Evils, what kind of Democratic Party - and what kind of country - will we have in 2028? 2032? I can guarantee that it won't be Progressive.

The time to change things is now. Continuing to kick the can down the road, hoping for some magical Progressive transition to spring from meek strategies and "go along to get along" candidates, will destroy us.

[retrowire]

58. thank you

well said.

[virtualobserver]

60. the scary wild card that may affect this election

the stock market

China is crashing, and the situation in Greece is serious.

Even without that the DOW has moved from 7000 to 17000+ over the last few years.

A major correction could lead to a crash and a major correction is overdue.
This is a pretty scary time.

Bernie has credibility, and has declared big banks "too big to exist"
If a major stock drop hits the financial sector that is funding Hillary, she could be caught in a bad situation.

[Proud Public Servant]

69. I'm voting Bernie. I think Hillary would be a better president.

Right now I'm inclined to vote for Bernie. That may change, and it will also be irrelevant (DC's primary is so late that my vote in it would be moot; DC is also a lock for Hillary). But the truth is this: while I admire and share Bernie's politics more than I share Hillary's, I sincerely believe Hillary would be a better chief executive. I live in Washington, I work in government, I've spent time in both the executive and legislative branch, and that's the conclusion I've come to. Being president is more than just a matter of beliefs; it's also a skill set, and I really think Hillary has those skills to a greater degree than Bernie.

I know lot's of folks who feel this way. Some, like me, will vote their ideology. Others will value Hillary's skills above her beliefs, and vote for her. But you can't discount either of those votes as insincere or calculating. They're all sincere and thoughtful.

And that doesn't even begin to account for another voting bloc, to which my wife, daughter, and a number of close friends belong: the bloc that politically agrees with Bernie 100% and Hillary maybe 75%, but that values the historic opportunity to elect a woman president so much that it tips the scale for Hillary. I don't know what that feels like; as a straight white guy, my identity is always (over)represented in the corridors of power and the pages of history. But I'd be an idiot if I dismissed their logic as anything other than sincere, heartfelt, and progressive.

Like I said, I'm probably voting for Bernie. But divisive nonsense like this certainly dampens my enthusiasm.

[retrowire]

71. excellent post

so why are you voting for Bernie? if not for ideology?

[Proud Public Servant]

76. I am voting ideology

But I'm conceding that I'm doing that in spite of thinking that Hillary would be a better chief executive. And I could easily see (indeed do see, among friends and family) someone sharing my beliefs but voting the other way.

[retrowire]

80. thanks for clarifying! :)

[Cosmocat]

86. YEP!

I lile bernie more and more each day, while I have to nash my teeth over this bullshit ...

How people think this helps him is a mystery to me.

[Sancho]

73. Have you tried yoga?

[retrowire]

75. yes but

I can't relax. :/

[Cosmocat]

84. Just how the fuck does this help bernie?

Telling hillary voters to pound sand helps bernie, how?

Thank christ bernie is a LOT tougher skinned than supporters like you, cause if he is going to win the NOMINATION, much less the white house he needs the votes of the people you just told to fuck off, genius.

[retrowire]

92. wow

come on.

I simply stated that I think most Hillary supporters are choosing her for the wrong reasons.

I told no one to fuck off, at most I just questioned why Hillary instead of Bernie.

asking people to think, that's how it helps bernie.

[BainsBane]

95. 1) yours is not an accurate description of why people support Clinton

The assertion that Clinton supporters are voting for Investment Banks is offensive and part of an internet caricature that targets people often less prosperous than those hurling the insult. 2) It's not for you to determine why or how people should vote. You get one vote and one vote only.

[retrowire]

97. my opinion

is just that. it is how I feel about people that support Hillary. just an opinion.

secondly yeah, a vote for Hillary is a vote for those businesses even if you don't want to accept that.

[BainsBane]

99. And if I say a vote for Bernie

Is a vote for the corporate gun lobby and white male privilege, how would you respond? Why is profiting from murder worse than profiting from usury? You frame politics in ways that have salience to you, but that isn't how I see the world, and it isn't how many other Democrats who support Clinton do.

The data often posted claiming those banks are her largest contributors is false and internally inconsistent. I am really tired of people who only just started to feel the effects of capitalism deciding everything is about them and how they see the world. This country was founded on inequality, inequality that benefited the white male upper-middle and middle-class to the exclusion of the majority for most of its history. And everything is supposed to stop, our entire lives and concerns meaningless because you all have started to experience what it is like to live in America. I'm not rolling over for you. I'm voting for my interests, not yours.

Now clearly you have no policy or actual issues to discuss. Internet memes and slogans are not issues. They are not policies. All I see are stereotypes and contempt for ordinary Americans. I don't know why I should view that more favorably coming from someone posting on this site than from bankers or Republicans. It's all the same shit, targeting the same people.

[retrowire]

101. im sorry you feel that way.

[Thinkingabout]

113. Good post, the reasoning is great.

[raouldukelives]

130. Usury?

Wouldn't that be nice. Instead of melting ice caps, crushed 3rd world laborers under collapsing factories, destruction of fresh water sources, mass extinctions of animal life, laundering money for drug cartels and terrorists, destruction of education and doing everything short of voting for Republicans to assure all they're dreams come true, sure, usury.

[BainsBane]

131. Wall Street makes money from money

which is usury. The gun lobby, supported uniformly by the GOP, makes money from murder.

The poster referenced Wall Street particularly, investment banks, not industrial factories in the Global South.
Do you somehow think guns production is environmentally friendly? The outrage against capital is highly selective, reverse engineered to conform with a particular candidate's position rather than any consistent or principled critique of capital or our role as American consumers in contributing to the exploitation you referenced.

[Cosmocat]

109. No, you didnt "simply state most hillary voters are choosing her for the wron reasons."

It was a long winded diatribe saying people supporting her are for big money.

I have news for you, she isnt the bad guy.

Bush 3 is the bad guy, cruz and the dipshit senator from florida are the bad guys, the republican party and media are the bad guys ...

She is warmed over, but is 1,000,000 times better than what the other side offers.

Save the hyperbolic bullshit for the actual bad guys.

As much as I like bernie I hate this pathetic little brother routine so many of his supporteres here have, and my point stands.

If the election was today, hill wins ...

You want bernie to win, you need the votes of the people you portrayed as big money loving corporatists in your op.

[retrowire]

110. regarding your last sentence

I wish it wasn't that way.

[Cosmocat]

114. People have been supporting hillary for a quarter century

GOOD democrats, and hillary has been a good dem, too.

A LOT more good than bad.

Bernie appears to be the real deal, but you arent getting good dems who are supporting a good dem to come on board by telling them they are big money backers ...

Your best argument is Bernie ... he brings me back after shit like this pushes me away.

[retrowire]

117. even if what I'm saying has truth in it?

Hillary is funded by big banks

therefore

those who support her are okay with big money in politics.

an educated voter is better than one that doesn't like the truth. should I sugar coat things and cater to the audience like Hillary does?

I understand where you're coming from. I'm not trying to hurt peoples feelings though. if these "GOOD democrats" don't want to hear it then they can just turn away and continue to sing "lalala" with their hands over their ears.

a good democrat I like to think, is one that considers all options and makes a reasonable decision based on what's best for the country and doesn't make that decision based solely on beating the GOP. there's more to this election than that.

a vote for Hillary is a vote for fracking too. just remembered that. is that attacking her? or is it stating that when someone votes for her they are by extension approving of fracking? that's really all I'm getting at here.

if she wins then all who voted for her are responsible for that decision. that's how democracy works. you are responsible for your vote it's as simple as that. I'm holding people accountable for their opinions. would you not blame the republican voter for attempting to mess up our country if they knew all the facts and still voted republican?

if anyone would like to tell me why they're voting Hillary instead of Bernie and not use the "safe bet" reasoning then I'd be elated.

until then, I choose to challenge others reasoning and they too, are welcome to challenge mine.

[Cosmocat]

124. There is no "reasoning" involved with you

This is my last pass on this.

Do you or do not want bernie to win?

If you do, this thing of trying to prove how a LOT of good democrats are not good democrats isnt helping him.


K

[retrowire]

125. i want Bernie to win.

[BainsBane]

96. Jury results

On Wed Jul 8, 2015, 08:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Just how the fuck does this help bernie?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=432077

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

the question is valid but the hostility is uncalled for.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 8, 2015, 08:30 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: the only name calling was calling the op "genius" and possibly thin skinned. WTF, not hide worthy. I'm not going to vote to hide a post because someone use the word fuck.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Clearly someone takes exception to a truthful statement. This, like many posts about Sanders on DU, don't even attempt to convince people Sanders is a good candidate. Nothing out of line about telling it like it is.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: sounds like half the posts on DU.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[retrowire]

98. democracy works

if that's what the jurors felt then so be it. still a bit too hostile. I like to think were all capable of civility when explaining our opposing views.

[BainsBane]

100. If that were true

You would find a way to discuss issues without insulting Democrats who don't agree with you. Your entire OP is hostile.

[retrowire]

102. my apologies if you feel insulted by my OP

my post is one of passion it does yield my emotion on the subject but not with intention of hurting people.

the intent was to force those who are voting for Hillary simply for "safe bet" reasoning to reconsider and really think about why they want her.

some posters came into the thread and actually explained why they support her and honestly backed up my theory that they want her in just to have the "safe bet" of beating the reds.

the fact that anyone read my post is good enough for me. the thinkers thought, the ones who agreed and the ones who yell, yelled.

also the difference between cosmocat and I was that that user did intend to insult me. ",genius"

[Spitfire of ATJ]

93. Meanwhile, the media is looking forward to the smash mouth politics of the House vs the Clintons.

[hrmjustin]

103. Well after reading that I am still voting for Hillary.

[retrowire]

105. as long as you read it.

[hrmjustin]

107. Despite my little bit of snark i think you are just saying what you feel.

[retrowire]

108. of course i am.

[DCBob]

115. Yes, she is the "safe bet" and Bernie is an extremely risky bet.

To hell with anyone who suggests we take that risk given what the GOP is capable of doing if they control congress and the WH.

Hillary is our candidate.

[retrowire]

116. hes really not that big of a risk

consider 2 things.

he's in second place in this race overall.

and

every single republican candidate is way in the back behind the both of them.

I'm pretty sure we're safe. it really isn't that risky.

[Lisa D]

120. Do you have any links to show that republicans

are way behind *both* of them? I've seen polls where Hillary is ahead of all the repubs, but none with Bernie. I'd be interested to see how he polls against them.

[retrowire]

121. You got me.

My statement was based on heresay.

But data does show that 80% of Republicans agree with Bernie Sanders on the issues. Plus there are Republicans that support him.

I'm just getting the sense that this is a much more Democratic nation and from what I've seen on this very site, Bernie pulls VERY close to Hillary in popularity. Thus, if logic dictates my conclusion then Bernie is very much in second place in this race.

[LiberalElite]

119. K&R!

[Agnosticsherbet]

126. I don't see any candidate as a safe bet.

I don't support any of the candidates. As a California citizen I will not vote until June. By that time, I expect that it will be settled.

I do keep a score sheet of all candidates and will choose the one I think is the best.

In the General, I will vote for the Democrat.

[PatrickforO]

128. Here's the thing. If we think of this primary season and the general election as being akin to

a sports contest, we can see a couple of things.

Hillary Clinton says Bernie cannot win and that she will not lose.

Bernie is in it to win it.

Think back on all the football games you've ever seen; whenever a team is ahead they have two choices - the Hillary 'let's play not to lose' and the Bernie 'let's play to win' choice.

Teams that adopt the 'let's play not to lose' start making mistakes and soon find themselves in a close game and ultimately lose.

Teams that stick with 'let's play to win' choice...win.

This is why Bernie will win this one and Hillary will ultimately lose. This is also why Bernie will win the general election, too. Because he isn't playing. He's serious about winning - for team USA - all of us.

[retrowire]

129. good analogy

Hillary has always been a fighter but she could very well be too comfortable for her own good.

then again, her campaign has noticed Bernie as a threat this early so they could still pull a close race.

I believe however that Hillary's popularity had peaked at last years election. I don't think she can go anywhere but down. its been years, new negatives are being revealed, etc.

but Bernie is new and has nowhere to go but up. and his message is widely accepted while his record is damn near spotless. the chances are quite good for him.

I think too many people doubt him because they're afraid of real change and the risk of losing this race.

the democratic party will not lose this race. guaranteed. we just need Bernie in the house to change it for good, rather than Hillary to play by the rules and change a few things for the better.

[retrowire]

132. this is still relevant today. sigh n/t

[retrowire]

133. Still relevant. n/t