2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCan Bernie supporters comprehend why someone would prefer Hillary over Bernie?
So, we have a post here again attacking Hillary and condescendingly claiming that Hillary supporters can't fathom why some people prefer Bernie, and then we hear the burned out line, yet again, about Hillary being "Third Way" or "DLC" or whatever.
BUNK ! First, and I will say it yet again, Bernie Sanders would be disgusted with these anti-Hillary posts. He has refused to engage in these attacks, and his supporters should follow his example.
Next, just because someone is a Hillary supporter it doesn't mean he or she doesn't like Bernie. There is nowhere near the kind of nasty attacking of Bernie going from the Hillary side around here. Not close. It seems every other post is another Hillary attack. Shameful, and Sanders would be disgusted with it.
Hillary supporters overwhelmingly like Bernie and agree with him to a large extent on most issues. In fact, Bernie and Hillary have MANY points of agreement on policy. And we of course can understand why some people so strongly support Bernie. He is strong on the issues, very sincere, authentic, and passionate. Yes, WE GET IT. Again, we like and admire him too and agree to a large extent with him on the issues. But there are good REASONS why we support Hillary as a first choice.
So, to assist with the comprehension that has been called into question, here is why I support Hillary as a first choice over Bernie, much as I also like Bernie.
* She is brilliant and VERY well-qualified for the job.
* She is PROGRESSIVE and the "Third Way" label is hyperbole. She's not a purist, but she sure as hell is no "Republican".
* Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist and this nation is not ready to elect a self-described socialist. Period. Anyone who can't see this is dismissing our political history and our political culture today. I really like Bernie, his passion, and most of his policy ideas. But he is simply TOO far to the left to win the general American presidential election. The American general electorate simply will not accept him. The Republicans will scream "SOCIALIST SOCIALIST SOCIALIST" from the rooftops for months on end, day after day, and Sanders would be slaughtered. It is just that simple. If he aspired to the presidency, he should have NEVER labeled HIMSELF a "socialist." Just ain't gonna happen. This is why VERY FEW organizations and politicians are endorsing him and why virtually every political statistician gives him a VERY low likelihood of winning the primary let alone the general election. I really like him, but he just can't win. And win we MUST. Could you imagine "President Trump" or ANY of those clowns in that office?
*****NOW, if by some chance Sanders did win the nomination, of course I would strongly campaign for him and vote for him. But I just don't see it happening. So THIS is why I and so many of us in the party support Hillary as a first choice.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)I'm not an idiot.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)'Preciate it
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Gotcha...good to know.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Can you make a strong argument to the contrary? Can you please explain HOW a self-described "socialist" could win? Please. Let's be real here. We have a long CAPITALIST and FREE MARKET tradition. We, on balance, want sufficient government but not TOO MUCH government. THAT is the American CULTURE. Sanders' self-proclaimed "socialist" status would give the R's and endless arsenal of attack. It would be relentless.
See the attached poll numbers, and this is BEFORE the MASSIVE Republican attack machine that would be launched against Sanders.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Hillary camp was arguing that he can never compete because he wouldn't be able to raise the amount of money needed for an effective campaign, and then he DID. Now we're going to move the goal posts yet again? Sorry, but I simply don't buy into the spin that a Democratic Socialist can't win. Sounds like a Fox argument to me, and i don't buy into their spin either.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Thank you for using the correct term.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)I generally find that honesty is the best policy, especially in politics.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Seriously, no matter what it's labeled, when people hear Bernie they like him.
That being said, I hope people here are taking the high road, as Bernie does. I don't really know if the allegation in the OP is correct, since I don't pay attention that closely.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Something that is simply unobtainable by the Clinton campaign. Truth of the matter is, Bernie is by far the strongest candidate the Democrats have to offer in the general. Non partisan critical thinkers have likely already realized this.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Gothmog
(145,666 posts)The republicans who are supporting Sanders are doing so to hurt the Clinton campaign
Gothmog
(145,666 posts)I have asked repeatedly for an explanation as to how Sanders would compete in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will likely spend another billion and I have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation. Some of the explanations involve magic thinking about the a magical Democratic blue was and others claim that money no longer matters in politics.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I would say that at present, there isn't. Unless the difference is made clear to the average person that shows up to vote, the only operative word is the second one. If Sanders does not want to be tarred and feathered by the GOP as a "Socialist", he is going to need to make the distinction known by methods more effective that just saying "I'm a DEMOCRATIC Socialist".
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)And they're starting to be more widely heard.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Unless he can make the public understand the difference between "Socialist" and "Democratic Socialist", he will be branded by the GOP, if he gets the nomination, as a "Socialist".
It totally ineffective to do what you said in the post I replied to first. Placing the burden on others to learn the difference does not inform. To the average person, all they hear is "Socialist".
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)"Placing the burden on others to learn"?
Ooooookaaaaaay.....
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)You requested that the proper term "Democratic Socialist" be used. You were polite about it, but if that is all that is being done, it doesn't matter to the average person, he will be a "Socialist".
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I plead guilty in this case, but I thought you meant the official campaign.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)A relatively few people even ask about him being a socialist. Of those, the majority are very happy with him once you explain his views.
I have had many conservatives express how much they like Bernie. It all comes down to his authenticity, honesty and integrity, traits hard to find in most politicians.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Sanders has yet to be challenged by the GOP. If he gets the nomination, that will be when the difference between being a Socialist and a Democratic Socialist will become important. If the response is to simply state "I'm a Democratic Socialist", the average person will only hear "I'm a Socialist".
Hell, most conservatives already believe that Democrats are Socialists. All "I'm a Democratic Socialist" accomplishes is confirming their beliefs.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Once the media is forced to give him exposure, I don't think it will be a problem at all.
The people that will continue to refer to him as a socialist will be the people that were never going to vote for him anyway, similar to those that continue to call Obama a Muslim.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I'd like to believe that there won't be any problem at all, but I must not have as much faith as you.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)The media blackout will not be able to continue for long with the masses he is attracting.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Bernie has already done a great job of diffusing this as an issue simply by owning it. The media will of course push it, but fewer and fewer will hear their plea or buy their snake-oil.
This isn't the 1990's anymore.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I have no problems with Sanders's positions or his statement that he is a Democratic Socialist.
I, however, don't elect the President by myself. So the votes of the everyone else do come into play. And my opinion is, if Sanders gets the nomination, the media will be deluged with "Socialist agenda", red scare rhetoric.
So we are at an impasse, you have your beliefs that people have changed, I have my beliefs that they haven't.
If Sanders is nominated, I hope you are right.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Anyone still saying that BERNIE can't possibly win is distracted by their own willingness to support a member in good standing of the 1%...by the 1%...for the 1%...screw the 99%...
Armstead
(47,803 posts)He does believe in "radical" concepts like regulation, progressive taxation, strengthening public services and making higher education and vocation affordable, treating veterans, tjings like that. Basically left-of-center mainstream liberalism -- what the Democratic Party claims to stand for.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)As human beings we should be happy to see that those things are done, no questions asked. And yet we have democrats that consider them unnecessary or unattainable.
iwillalwayswonderwhy
(2,603 posts)I don't believe he can't possibly win. We may have reached a tipping point where we as a country are ready. I don't think business as usual is working out for most people. The status quo is hurting too many. When I was 18, I got a job and could afford an apartment. My adult children struggle. Things are much worse for them then they were for me. They've never in seen the point in voting, cause no matter who gets elected, it never makes any real difference in their struggles.
I just happen to think I'm not alone in my thinking. If I'm wrong, and Hillary gets the nomination, I will sigh, figure we as a country are just not ready to catch up with the rest of the world, and vote for her.
liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)Sound more like a Republican. "Long standing free market tradition," and "too much government." Wow. Is this the DU?
I'll take Sanders. "Progressive?" What is that? Progress on what? Toward the right, ever toward the right, compromises between center-right, and far right, end up between the two.
We need a "liberal," and we need MORE government, if less government brings us this Oligarchy.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)My own thought.... In my view, Clinton WANTS to be president. Sanders realizes somebody has to try to fix things.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Yep.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Please keep me posted on any US concerts.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... it seems like we tend to forget great words from those who spoke strongly on these topics in many of our life times even.
I believe that Americans are waiting for the opportunity to be liberated from the nomenclature and labeling based on these words to avoid changes to their oligarchic system and put in place some real change now.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)It's far from being a representative poll. Younger generations are significantly more open to Democratic Socialism.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I would suspect that it would be even worse than "socialist". And yet, it was "communist" money from dictator Joseph Stalin that helped create the Koch Brothers empire from Fred Koch's relationship with Joseph Stalin in earlier days that funds most Repubilcans' campaigns, and also has supported the DLC wing of the Democratic Party too, through the Koch Brothers' early participation in helping create the DLC.
Why isn't that brought up? Because it isn't constructive dealing with issues, and is similarly calling people names, which isn't useful in trying to break down the ISSUES of what people want dealt with by who they are voting in to office.
If communist as a label were put in this poll, it would show even more extreme reaction, but the pollmeister's goals are clear and that is to demonize the label of "socialism" to help strategically win out against people that are ultimately working for most Americans' welfare and not just those of the wealthy elite.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)that people (Clinton supporters mostly) have come up with...he's overcome and usually resoundingly.
He'll never be a major factor because he's a Socialist. Then he was.
He'll never win a single state because he's a Socialist. Then he was was kicking Hillary's ass in both IA and NH.
He'll never be able to even come close to matching Hillary's capacity fundraising because he's a Socialist. Then he did.
There are more, I just think the point has been made.
All of this to deflect from the real concern of Clintonites...that you can't win in the GE with a candidate that most people in America have made up their mind on and a majority of Americans don't like her. (Get this...even now, all these months into the campaign...more Americans hate Hillary Clinton than have heard of Bernie Sanders.) People may not find voting for a Socialist appealing...but people generally find voting for someone they absolutely hate to a nearly-bottomless degree more unappealing.
The Gallup poll misses a big thing by over-relying on the value of labels...and it's a huge thing...when I lay out Sanders platform for social conservatives and evangelicals and libertarians...they say "Oh. Well...if he's a Socialist, then I guess I was wrong because I guess I'm a Socialist too. That all sounds a lot better to me than anything else anybody else is saying." That's the secret to why Hillary is having such problems...what he's running on is just a lot more appealing than any option being put forth by the establishment Democratic party. (or the establishment Republican party or the tea-party or the anti-establishment GOP like Donald Trump) A lot of those people that have for a long time have refused to vote Democratic are discovering that their problem isn't with progressive values...it's with establishment Democrats. If you can't win with Sanders, you probably can't win with anybody...and especially the widely-reviled Hillary Clinton.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Enjoy being offended.
I'm sure no BS people ever called anyone a Turd Wayer or the like.
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)What you just did, is exactly what the post was all about.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)It's been implied over and over that Hillary supporters are weak minded dupes or Republicans, I pointed out I'm not an idiot and I'm voting for her. Or I'm voting for Hillary, I'm not an idiot. Did you think I was calling YOU an idiot.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)She said she was not and idiot and was voting for Hillary, good for her. On the other side, she said anyone that votes for any other candidate IS and idiot. I can and do understand what she posted.
66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)This is the ENTIRETY of her post:
I'm voting for HRC in my primary
I'm not an idiot.
She did NOT say - as you mendaciously claim:
"... she said anyone that votes for any other candidate IS and idiot."
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Even I can clearly see the implication.
66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)To be so great at mind reading, read mine!
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I don't claim to be great at mind reading. Just reading. It's one of the ways we humans communicate.
66 dmhlt
(1,941 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Somehow being the victim of something offensive is so valuable to some, they'd rather wring some offense out of your post than discuss BS and his chances of losing.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Anyone able to read can see the implication.
I'm not offended, just amused. Especially by the assertions that the post didn't imply (yeah, "imply" what it implied.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Yea, there is a lot of that going around DU.
Take the guy in this thread who is just so offended by that post.... Same guy who couldn't help but reply throughout his push poll OP what cowards Hillary supporters are.
I wish I could be amused by that shit, but I guess I'm just too old for that anymore.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I remember exactly two for negative reasons and a handful for positive. So interpersonal stuff like that goes right over my head. I'll never be a politician....!
Response to treestar (Reply #99)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)calling people here that support another candidate idiots. Very nice of you, not!
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Can a person's appearance actually affect their ability to get elected? I remember when Nixon and Kennedy appeared on TV for their debate. Nixon looked awful compared to the young handsome war hero Kennedy. Women flocked to Kennedy's side according to the news reports following the debates. Maybe this is not as a big a factor as it was once thought to be or then again maybe it still is. It has been shown that physical appearance can be a huge factor in the ability to succeed in business. Height is a major factor in that the taller person, in the case of men, are perceived as being more competent leaders. It is an unfortunate truth.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I hope Bernie supporters read this, to understand where Hillary supporters are coming from. It would reduce some of the acrimony. We're all on the same side, we have the same goals, we just disagree about the best strategy and the best candidate for getting us there.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)For example, this is a good article~
This is not an "inside baseball" story about politics. It's a battle for party control whose outcome could affect every household in the country. If this quarrel is to be remembered -- and it's incumbent upon genuine progressives to make sure that it is -- it should be remembered as an attempt by a the corporate class to retain control of the Democratic Party and limit the leftmost limits of political and economic debate.
To learn more & end being low-information, please read more here~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-democrats-third-way-q_b_4410394.html
Also read~
http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/12/hillary-clinton-is-a-third-way-adherent/
And especially~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats
*****************
Facts are NOT "burned out lines". And if we want to turn things around in this country, we HAVE to rid the party of the corporate third way who have taken it over.
This is what Hillary supporters need to really down load.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Seems pointless.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)I believe the percentage of Hillary supporters that would support a Bernie Sanders in the General is far, far smaller than the percentage of Bernie supporters that would ultimately support Hillary in the general. Conservatives and 'centrists' simply fear the Democratic "SOCIALIST". Claims that they will are just lip service because they are pretty confident their machine will deal Bernie out of the equation.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)another GOP president would do with our country. He'd pick up all the left-leaning independents too, who'd be afraid of being dragged further backwards along a destructive course by a deeply conservative administration.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)like this one
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=643414
from hillary supporters leads me to believe otherwise. When one uses GOP type talking points in their arguments, I don't really see that mindset ever supporting to a Democratic Socialist point of view for any reason.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)others think like we do because that's what we understand, but that's not the case. Those who are super-passionate about Bernie and seem to have a corollary need to be very hostile toward his opponent should not assume that those who support HRC must thus be very hostile toward her opponent. That's just not the case.
In fact, that's why so many of us keep saying we like a lot of Bernie's positions and would support him if he won the primary. You can believe it. It's true.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)are in reality republicans. Not most of them, probably, but many. If you look carefully at where Sanders and Clinton differ on the issues, it isn't difficult to discern that many Clintonites want the insurance companies between you and your doctor. They want TPP. They want education to be a commodity instead of a right. And they want endless war. So in response to the question in the op, my answer would be, "not really".
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Well stated, great post. Thanks.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)At least don't see them as the major evils they are.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)abortion rights. I'm pretty sure she won't flip flop on that one. But I also don't think the owning class will allow the republicans to overturn roe v wade and risk mobilizing the pro choice masses.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)At least for people without money. But people with money have always been able to get abortions. Or anything else they wanted, for that matter.
Nay
(12,051 posts)with no hospitals or clinics where abortions are performed. That effectively ends abortions except for the rich, who can swan off to Mexico or Canada. We end up with all these "rights" but no way to actually access them. Big whoop.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The ACA is better than nothing. We want single payer, but are glad we got the ACA at least.
They don't think the TPP is some huge disaster. Maybe it will be good for the economy. Can you not debate on that issue instead of making it about the posters' alleged intent?
No they do not want endless war. There is no justification for saying Hillary supports that. They don't agree with you that Hillary supports that.
It's as logical as saying the BS supporters want the Republicans to win. Maybe they are the Republicans. This is so useless.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)We know they aren't Democrats because their candidate is not a Democrat and is running against one.
treestar
(82,383 posts)it's ridiculous to think we would have to give up because we argued Hillary was more electable before the nomination. Like our help would not be needed against Republicans. Too funny. And they could turn that about on themselves, who have declared many times Hillary could not win the general.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)As for the GOP, in primary seasons they attack whichever candidate they most DON'T want to face in the general, hoping for a weaker opponent. That's HRC as of right now, of course.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I suppose they have a point...money is power and can pull the strings to control things...but people are wising up to the game and that spells trouble for them.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)"Confidence in the machine" to do *what*? I have confidence in it to Hoover yet more money to the top, for one thing.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)So they love the machine.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)1) I am loyal to the party and its ideals and would NEVER go down without a fight, first and foremost. He would be our nominee, and I would still pull out all stops. The CAUSE is bigger than ME, win or lose. It's a matter of principle.
2) Even though he would most likely lose in the end, he would still draw big crowds and it would be one hell of a FUN fight. Gloves right off and FUN to participate in. LETS GET READY TO RUMBLE !! Oh yeah, I'd be right in the thick of it win or lose. I will give this to Bernie, he IS a FIGHTER and I LOVE that!
3) Next, he WOULD still excite the left wing BASE and would draw them out which would help all our candidates up and down the ticket. Again, there is a bigger picture.
So, thanks again, and these are why I would still get right into it HARD with Bernie at the top of the ticket. It would still be FUN AS HELL and I sure as hell wouldn't be on the sidelines.
rogerashton
(3,920 posts)I'm supporting Bernie. Here is roughly what I wrote a few days ago to a fellow Berniac who said she or he would go third party, probably Green, if Bernie is not the nominee:
1) Hillary is not just a lesser evil. She is a fighter who will oppose Republican actions to take from the poor and give to the rich, and will do what she can to advance many of the issues we are fighting for. And she has plenty of experience with Republican dirty tricks and rule-or-ruin opposition -- she won't be fooled by that.
2) You should vote for her even if you live in a safe blue state. A big margin means "political capital" with which she will be all the more able to work effectively for our shared goals. We also need to look down-ticket and give support to Congressional and State candidates who will fight for our goals -- without a wholehearted support of the top of the ticket, this is more difficult. The "message" sent by a third-party vote will not move the Democratic Party to the left -- look how that worked in 2000! Even if the Supremes had not illegally stolen the election, there is no sign that the Green insurgency moved the party left in any way.
3) Just because Bernie doesn't win the nomination doesn't mean that the political revolution is over and ends in defeat. Quite the contrary -- it means we have more battles to fight before we win. Those battles will be fought within the Democratic party. Leaving it would be defeat.
4) Hillary is responsive to changes in popular sentiment, as witness her "evolution" on LGBT rights. This is often held against her, but I submit that it is a reason to support her if she is the candidate, especially for those of us who now support Bernie. A massive movement of Bernie supporters to support her candidacy would leave her with two messages:First, that this is a group that can give her victory, and second, that our opinions are increasingly widely held. That will move her in our direction. A desertion of the party in the case of Hillary's nomination would have the opposite effect: it would encourage her to look for her winning margin in the center. You may call that hypocrisy, but I call it politics.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)liberalmike27
(2,479 posts)And "He'd lose in the end," are both media fed memes, designed to get you to give up, and vote the way the millionaire talking heads want you to vote.
I see Hillary voters in two ways. One, they're people who believe in the social issues, gays, freedom of religion, a little gun control, and immigration. But they're doing pretty well financially, at least as of now. They've got a job, it likely has nothing to do with blue-collar manufacturing, or perhaps the need of a job in that field, and isn't affected by the wage deflation of exporting that whole sector. You know, the well-off Democrat.
Sanders voters are the ones who've had their jobs exported, who've suffered from a depressed minimum, the bottom falling out, the part time jobs, and the ever spiraling costs of living in this life. We want a real Democrat, we want a "liberal" not a "progressive." Progressive is such a non-directional word. Bill Clinton "progressed" away from welfare, Democrats seem willing to "progress" away from Social Security, raising the age high enough, I'll assume, so more and more will pay their tax dollars in, but die before they ever get it.
The other way they support her is "she's a woman, and it's time for a woman." Apparently it doesn't matter whether she's a Katrina Vanderhoovel, or a Margaret Thatcher type.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)but your notions are wrong. Extremism and black-and-white views of the world do not correlate with economic wellbeing but are mainly personality driven at all economic levels. Please note also that arguing that Bernie mainly appeals to those who are not doing well is not only mistaken but hardly works to his benefit.
Populist resentment may finally energize long-disengaged citizens into in an angry "where's MINE?" but that's hardly a PRINCIPLED movement. I'm a Democrat who has ALWAYS supported Bernie's principles. Nothing to do with my own income.
In any case, a divisive attitude within our own camp is destructive of what Bernie voters say they want to accomplish. Remember why we COUNT votes? The sensible, balanced voters who answered just above this not only have one foot on the ground, but both, and are worth reading thoughtfully.
treestar
(82,383 posts)you don't want or need any help from fellow Democrats who supported another candidate?
Now you're just being like some exclusive club - that doesn't win elections.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)if he got the democratic nomination. I asked RBI why he or she would take the time to campaign for a candidate that can't win. RBI gave a very good answer.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I'm not sure why that would be confusing to some one posting on a political forum.
If that was the only path to keeping a Republican nut job out of the White House, a logical person would take it.
See .. my question is why would a Sanders supporter stay home if Hillary ends up being the nominee. They claim to be the best liberals, focused on helping those in need. But they'd sit back and let the GOP win without putting up a fight to the end?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)then there is no path to keeping a Republican out of the Whitehouse.
edited to add: I am not saying that Sanders can't win. That was RBI's claim.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You can believe something can't be done, and yet still try to do it.
Or, I guess we could be like some of Bernie's supporters, and take our ball and go home if things don't go our way.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Again, RBI said that he or she would campaign for Bernie even while thinking that he can't possibly win. I asked why? RBI gave several very reasonable reasons why in response to my question.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Even if they are not your favorite dem.
And we do not stop fighting.
Glad we agree.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)" In fact, Bernie and Hillary have MANY points of agreement on policy. And we of course can understand why people mainly on the left wing so strongly support Bernie. He is strong on the issues, very sincere, authentic, and passionate. Yes, WE GET IT. Again, we like and admire him too and agree to a large extent with him on the issues. But there are REASONS why we support Hillary as a first choice."
The fact that Clinton is a first choice for most Democrats is a choice arrived at with zero malice directed at the second choice.
Who would Sanders current primary voters prefer as their second choice, and why?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)A right of center conservative who wants to feel better about themselves so they claim to be a "modern progressive"?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)and the "New Dem", and the "Neoliberal".
Out with the old and in with the "Neo"!
They have the equivalent meaning of "Old Conservative", "Old GOP", but sound way hipper.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)MoveIt
(399 posts)Brand Awareness! How will we consume Hillary's Political product if we can't keep the branding straight!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)who can keep up? I'm old fashioned I guess because I prefer honesty over Brand du Jour.
JohnnyRingo
(18,665 posts)I reside in a democratic union stronghold in NE Ohio, and many, many, of the voters here identify with the term. A lot of them despise Clinton as well, but not because she's not liberal enough. Believe it or not, they fall for media hype and see her as too liberal for their likes. They would laugh at the notion that she's on the political right.
The republicans are not likely to put up one of the far right whacks that currently dominate in the polls. Just like in every past primary since WWII, they will filter down to the most moderate candidate on the ballot. I look for John Kasich or Jeb Bush to survive the final cut, relatively common sense moderates both. The far right will howl that "the fix was in" as usual, then show up en masse to cast their vote... again, as usual.
She's very polarizing, so I'm not optimistic about how Ms Clinton will do against either, but I know that if the great middle who elect our presidents are faced with a choice between a perceived moderate republican and a far left candidate, they'll vote for the one who will do no harm and maintain the status quo.
No one will ever use the slogan "Let's Kick The Can Down The Road", but that position is what attracts the 60% in the middle aren't as enthusiastic about their party affiliation as liberals and Tea Party voters. People naturally tend to fear radical change.
I agree with nearly all of Bernie's position on issues, but that "Socialist" handle, whether warranted or not, is poison to American politics. As we know, most foolishly relate it to Communism.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Bernie owned it, and has obviously diffused it. If rally crowds and fundraising totals far exceeding what the beltway "experts" predicted are not a clue, then I don't know what else would suffice.
JohnnyRingo
(18,665 posts)Outside the bubble of DU people democrats I talk to universally consider Sanders a far left candidate. True, I'm not talking to college students in New England, but blue collar working class factory laborers. You could legitimately say that if they knew Bernie, they'd love Bernie, but all they hear is "socialist".
It'd be nice to think Bernie gave a few speeches and single handed changed the political complexion of the entire country overnight, but I think you overestimate his leverage. While he's doing well polling his backyard, it's yet to be seen how he'll do in the manufacturing MidWest, the South, flyover states, and the mining states in the West. I'm not as optimistic as you, but I appreciate your idealistic elan.
While I can't speak for the rest, he's not doing well here in NE Ohio where we traditionally vote two to one for democrats, and frankly, neither is Hillary.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,665 posts)I've always had a great deal of respect for you from the times in the photo group and enjoy your sense of compassion. I hope your enthusiasm for Sanders isn't causing you to become one who lashes out at those who aren't as liberal as yourself by labeling them ignorant.
The greatest number of voters in the country consider themselves somewhere near moderate, certainly most of those democrats I personally know. If Sanders people choose to alienate them with snide "smarter than thou" comments, it won't serve well for his chances in a national contest.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... she's not liberal at all. Voters who consider themselves "moderate" may in fact be quite liberal as numerous studies have shown, to wit ... http://billmoyers.com/2015/06/01/mainstream-bernie-sanders/
Finally, I did not call anyone ignorant so please don't put words in my mouth.
JohnnyRingo
(18,665 posts)You used the hair splitting word "misinformed". I guess that comes off as much less smug and condescending.
Good luck with that strategy to win people over to Bernie though. I stopped posting on DU a couple months ago because of the vile nature of Bernie supporter's comments in general, but this isn't the first time I've taken a hiatus from high handed liberal scorn here. The other time was during Kucinich's short time in the limelight in '08 when ideologues here felt they were enlightening us ignorant masses about how a Dept of Peace made Dennis a sure thing.
I believe I just began posting again a bit too soon this time. I'll waste no more of your time by responding.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)a Progressive by the standard meaning of the word. It's an attempt to redefine the word to mean centrist/right-of-center and NOT progressive.
And yes, I understand why those who support Hillary do so: they prefer right-of-center economic policies along with their moderately progressive social policies. Obama himself admitted that his economic policies are mainstream 1980's Republican and Hillary is to the right of Obama. So if you thought economically Bob Dole and his ilk were correct if not a little too far to the left then you'll gravitate towards Hillary.
aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)This is your candidate this year.
oasis
(49,429 posts)Count me as one of them. I have admired and respected him for years.
juajen
(8,515 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)on both sides, and understand why someone, somewhere, supports them. i think some have to be crazy to support jeb! or cruz or rubio, but they have their reasons. we all do.
as for the repubs screaming socialist, i am not concerned. they screamed it on 08 about a black guy with a funny name who many thought was a kenyan muslim and he did ok. besides, take away the word socialist and most people are actually on board with bernie's views.
besides, if you think the repubs don't have plenty to scream about hillary, you might be disappointed if she wins the nom, cuz they have plenty of material.
but to get back to the topic sentence, yes i can understand why someone would prefer hillary to bernie. there could be a number of reasons, as with any candidate. i do find it hard though, for people who consider themselves to be serious progressive to support a prowar, corporate friendly, tpp and free trade friendly candidate who is likely to do almost as much for the 1% as a republican. and no, not bashing. these are policy issues and good ones to be concerned about.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Not 100% completely, but we have now pretty much gotten beyond racial, gender, and religious affiliation factors in our presidential politics with Catholic Kennedy, Black Obama, and MANY women who have run for the presidency and at least two as VEEP on the major party tickets (Ferarro and Palin). But a poltical "socialist"? Nowhere near yet. Ain't gonna happen in '16. See this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)but some people like to shout socialist! like they used to shout commie! but the word has lost its punch. and most people under 40 couldn't care less.
polls say a lot of things, or try to
this socialist meme is played. hasn't stopped bernie from serving in public office for 40 years, hasn't stopped him from being the, in short order, frontrunner for the dem nom, and it won't stop him from winning the presidency
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Because Social Security IS a socialist part of our government, whether you like it or not! And I think a majority of Americans would NOT vote for someone who hates social security!
TM99
(8,352 posts)This is unmitigated bullshit.
Pointing out flaws, issues, and disagreeing with Clinton, are NOT anti-Hillary posts.
Sanders will not use 'negative campaigning' but he will still call her shit out and does so regularly.
Clinton has had ZERO problems with negative campaigning from passive aggressive Tweets to attack dog surrogates to dark SuperPAC's lying and smearing.
I am so fucking sick of the sanctimonious horse shit like this post is.
1) Clinton may be intelligent and yet she has shown numerous times that she does not think about the consequences of her actions. That makes her unqualified for the job of president.
2) No, Clinton is not a progressive. She is Third Way. She was a prominent member of the damned DLC! Why are the facts of history so lost on y'all! It is not a 'slur'. It is an actual descriptor of her politics. She is a neoliberal on economic issues. She is a hawk in foreign policy choices.
3) Sanders is not too far left. Poll after poll show that the mainstream and majority of Americans want what he is describing. If you don't want a President Trump, don't choose Clinton. The GOP wants to run against her because they know they can beat her. They can't beat Sanders.
You are right, Sanders may not win the nomination. Gods know the establishment is doing every fucking thing it can to stop him and his political revolution. It is one thing to market one like they did with Obama. It is quite another to actually have a real one.
I don't give a shit if you support Clinton. If I think it is a wrong choice, so what. I am not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me otherwise.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)TBF
(32,111 posts)I mean before they scrubbed it and added their silly little thread "say something nice about Bernie supporters".
Anyone participating in that site should be ashamed of themselves and have no business saying anything about the good folks supporting Bernie.
TM99
(8,352 posts)They are not mean just because you and her other supporters don't like them.
They are not nasty just because you and her other supporters don't like them.
They are not rotten just because you and her other supporters don't like them.
Paging Beam Me Up Scottie! I need your post with the links by Clinton supporters which were mean, nasty and downright rotten (anti-Semitism, etc.). Thanks.
frylock
(34,825 posts)link to some of those NASTY, mean, and rotten attacks kplzthx?
MADem
(135,425 posts)his name. That's not "unmitigated bullshit" at all, it's the truth.
I think your little laundry list would be one of the first posts under his bus. especially your first two talking points. I think Sanders would agree that Clinton is eminently qualified for the POTUS job, and you show your lack of grasp with that silly and childish "DLC" canard (look 'em up--they've been dead for years--YEARS). Anyone using that old Boogieman hasn't updated their talking points list.
Further, if she is so horrible, why did HE TAKE MONEY FROM HER for his Senate campaign?
smh.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)DLC is dead about the same as PNAC is dead. Plenty of people in high places still supporting the principles.
MADem
(135,425 posts)PNAC has "evolved" into FPI--same founders, same mission, same mindset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)And most of the old DLC players are retired or no longer working in politics. Those that are still active have adjusted to "Chicago style."
Too much water under the bridge.
The next generation of Democratic leadership may be something else, entirely--but DLC's time is done. They were useful in getting us back into the game, but Obama's victory proved that the tack is in a different direction.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Likewise "Diebold" doesn't exist any more but "Premiere Election Systems" does...
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/08/17/diebold-scrubs-wikipedia-changes-name-of-voting-machine-subsidiary
And it goes on with other "bad names" of entities like "Clear Channel", which is now "IHeartRadio", etc.
DLC as a named entity no longer exists, but the entity in terms of people and mission still exists with "Third Way", and it is still trying to manipulate perception of terms like "progressive" with its creation of things like a term it described itself earlier in what of its name changes as the "Progressive Foundation" and what the DLC/Progressive Foundation/Third Way group has no created as a think tank of the "Progressive Policy Institute", which pushes things like the TPP, etc.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progressive_Policy_Institute
We have to look past names and look at the substances of names and people's "labels". Most that look under the covers of Bernie see that what he describes as "democratic socialist" aligns with what they want for America's future. Many people haven't had time to pay attention in the past to look underneath labels, but more are doing so now as the country gets drug down more and more under corruption and manipulative policies.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)RIGHT ON POINT!!! Thank you for saying it!!
#GotBerniesBack!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)then you most certainly would prefer a Hillary over a Bernie. That's not so hard to fathom. I consider myself fortunate in that my personal values are in sync with those espoused by the Sanders campaign though.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)* Debt free college
* HUGE investment in education, training, and small and medium business development
* Employee profit sharing
* Higher minimum wage
* Planned Parenthood / Women's Health / Right to choose
* Headstart/Early childhood education.
* Criminal Justice Reform
And the list goes on and on.
Broward
(1,976 posts)if we keep sliding ever rightward with the corporate wing of the Dem party at the helm.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)In the 1970s, the nation began moving strongly right, more conservative.
The middle and moderate right of the 1970s became today's hard right.
The moderate left of the 1970s became centrist, the strong left became mildly left.
Today, the nation shifting back again -- leftward. Big pattern!
The left (us) and the moderate conservatives (many now estranged from the remnant GOP as part of this shift and calling themselves independents) are moving back TOWARD where they were before. Not there yet but moving.
The remnant hard right is frozen in place -- as usual -- fighting with everything they have to hold onto power, but they're losing. (The GOP's lost 1/3 of its membership as a part of this move left.)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)How so? He launched his campaign with a big gulp of sludge from Clinton Cash and wasn't shy about it. And that was when he wasn't slamming Obama 24/7 for selling out the world by attempting to regulate international trade via TPP. Bernie is no better than any other pol in this regard and worse than many and I frankly don't see the necessity of this particular disclaimer which lends an air of sanctity that doesn't exist.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)and her supporters is what turns me off.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts). . . and the cassions keep rolling along!
------------------------
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-obama-sounds-like-bush-and-clinton-117717922196.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/bernie-sanders-michael-froman-tpp_n_6419874.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/06/1355859/-Bernie-Sanders-To-Obama-Admin-Let-Me-See-The-Damn-TPP-Draft
-----------------------
from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6645149
phoenixpcrod
(9 posts)Yes Bernie is a Democratic Socialist as am I. His record holds up against any Democrat. "She is Brilliant" ? What does that mean? I hear supporters rave about her 20 bills she supported and got passed in office. Have you ever check to see what they were? The majority were to rename a building in honor someone. Not exactly hard hitting legislation. Her money ties contradict a Progressive as much as the denials continue. IMHO and HRC administration is just more of the same old tired worn out crap! This country needs real change and the people are pissed off and ready for that change!
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)She posits that Bernie's being a (Democratic) Socialist is why he has no endorsements, again with no analysis of than because he is a Socialist. How about his lack of political endorsements being because if he is elected those same politicians risk losing their ability to receive campaign (bribes) contributions since Bernie is pushing Publicly Funded Elections?
Hillary is polarizing to the Republicans to get them out in force to vote. Bernie is polarizing to the left, independents, and Republicans also fed up with corporate control over our government.
TBF
(32,111 posts)Maybe you should put this in all caps & in red letters as the title every time you write an OP. Interestingly, I am seeing this much more often from Hillary supporters than I am from anyone else.
The FOX news crowd think anyone left of Richard Nixon is a communist (and they have no clue what that means). They call Hillary a communist just as easily as Bernie. Read their forums if you doubt me. Piling on the red-baiting is not going to help you.
thesquanderer
(11,996 posts)And they were calling him that even before the 2008 election.
i.e.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/11/03/like-socialism
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/mccain-decries-obamas-socialism/?page=all
Yes, BS is going to have to expend some energy continuing to explain "democratic socialist" and how his "socialist" label doesn't necessarily mean quite what some people thinks it means. And HRC is going to have her own loop of things she's going to have to keep explaining, and I think at least as much as BS, there will be a group of people who aren't going to buy her answers no matter what she says.
But heck, it didn't matter how much Obama explained, he was still black. And he still won.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)spinbaby
(15,090 posts)But would prefer Bernie. I've done my best to stay out of the Hillary Bernie wars but do find myself becoming more and more uncomfortable with Hillary. That uncomfortable feeling has less to do with her actual policies but rather with how very choreographed, scripted, and controlled her every appearance is.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The whole name-calling/hectoring schtick leaves me cold.
I think, if the default instinct is to shit on another candidate rather than explain how and why one's own choice is preferable, the touter is operating from a negative perspective and doesn't have a hope in hell of prevailing--and that's all I'm hearing.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I love it.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)Renew Deal
(81,883 posts)And it is one of the greatest flaws in their thinking.
LiberalArkie
(15,730 posts)for Hillary because Bernie can't win over Hillary. I tell them to vote for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general. But the general consensus is "No, it would be throwing my vote away". I just have to scratch my head because that seems to assure that Hillary will beat Bernie.
djean111
(14,255 posts)You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center. I plead guilty.
Hillary is a Centrist. She changes her stances on social issues when convenient. But, you know, a politician cannot claim to love children and then vote NO on not using cluster bombs. Unless, of course, it is only American children she professes to care about.
You support Hillary. Others support Bernie, and have given their reasons why, many times.
The nasty posts back-and-forth have nothing to do with that.
You really need to accept that Bernie's supporters are not going to switch to supporting Hillary, switch to supporting more war, fracking, the TPP, cluster bombs, etc., just because you constantly order them to do so. But, I fear your mind is locked.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)is just the same as voting for Jeb Bush. Hillary isn't "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination and I don't even see how you can honestly make that comment. She's a war hawk as far as foreign policy and she and her husband have a tendency to look out for the very wealthy and support bad Republican legislation (NAFTA, Bill's "get tough on crime" bill, "workfare", etc.) domestically.
Your argument that Bernie couldn't win the general is silly. The left would rally around Bernie the way they would around any candidate running from the left, and numerous polls have shown that the word "socialist" doesn't carry the negative baggage that it used to - the younger generation isn't as afraid of it as the older generation (and I'll assume the majority of Hillary's supporters are probably older Democrats).
The biggest thing hurting Hillary at this point is that she is simply not a likable person - she doesn't inspire people, she's fake, and she's changed her position on too many things to make anyone think she has a moral center. She simply says what is polling high at the time (and this is in cases of war, gay marriage, etc.).
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
democrank
(11,112 posts)Hillary supporters are very lucky to have you speak for them and point out all the problems with Bernie. Some of these pro-Bernie, anti-war, feed-the-poor Democrats are really way out there on the fringe, aren`t they?
I remember replying to you before and asking you to Google what a "Democratic Socialist" is, because that is what Bernie calls himself. You might even be able to find the video/speech where he explained the difference. That way you wouldn`t have to waste your time trying to smear him with the plain old "Socialist" label. You could concentrate your efforts on explaining Hillary`s Iraq War vote or her ties to Corporate Headquarters so more people might want to vote for her.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Just one.
At all?
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)even more than our hard-line 'principles'. I learned my lesson in '10 when Charlie Crist was the spoiler in Florida. I knew Kendrick Meek would never win because the Dem Party support was almost non-existent. But rather than vote for the very popular, very electable Crist, I stood by the Democrat. So you can thank me and my principles for Marco Rubio.
Although both Hillary and Bernie are human and therefore flawed, both would be good presidents. As always (but it seems more this go-round than ever before) either one is a brazillion times better than the alternative. I will be voting for the Democratic candidate. Period. The nastiness should only be directed toward the other side --the repugnant party.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)But Bernie was never a Republican (Charlie Crist/Hillary Clinton) that turned into a Democrat later on...... #JustSaying
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)as a young person, nearly 50 years ago, disqualifies Hillary any more than being a lifelong Socialist disqualifies Bernie, maybe even less so. Crist is another story.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Also, as a Progressive, I've no problem in the least voting for a "Lifelong Socialist" before voting for any former Republican from just last week or 50 years ago. #JustSaying....
Ineeda
(3,626 posts)I chose principle over elect-ability. I voted for the sure loser instead of the newly declared 'Democrat' - Crist. And we got Rubio. And I have no idea of your age, but I'm up there in years and I've changed a lot since high school/early college. So that's one area I'll cut Hillary (or anyone) some slack.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)If this were a hold your nose race, Clinton vs Biden, I might be able to see voting for her. Bernie or O'Malley provide clear alternatives in political philosophy and approach.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"condescendingly claiming" "burned out line"" nowhere near the kind of nasty attacking of Bernie going from the Hillary side around here" "self-described socialist and this nation is not ready to elect a self-described socialist. Period." "TOO far to the left" "Sanders would be slaughtered" "he just can't win"
When such hyperbolie is flung at us, we're not going to respond with, "Yes you're right. We should just give it up and support Clinton, and ignore what we believe has happened to the country and what is needed to fix it."
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)This is what baffles me. I hear over and over again that Bernie can't win because he's a socialist. But I never see any support for the assertion.
Here's why I think Bernie will get the votes if he gets to the general:
* Bernie has a history of getting Republican votes -- not a majority of Republican votes, but enough to give him a majority overall. That's how he keeps getting elected in Vermont.
* Bernie has more potential than anyone else to get people who usually don't vote at all to vote for him. People stay home because they see the same-old-same-old. Then they look at Bernie and they see the potential for real change.
* Bernie's ideas are in line with those of most American voters. Given the chance to hear him, voters will understand that.
* Bernie, more than anyone else, will be good for the American people at a time when our needs are great; people will vote for him because they can see that. Bernie has explained that by socialism he means a system like that of the Scandanavian countries, a system run for the people's benefit, a system at least as democratic as the one we have now. That means better things across the board, for all the people. If prosperity is a zero-sum game, who pays for that improvement? The banks and corporations, who have been getting more and more of the wealth as they have gained more and more control of the system.
I'd bet my last dime that you're right that if Bernie is nominated the other side will scream, "'SOCIALIST SOCIALIST SOCIALIST' from the rooftops for months on end, day after day." And if Hillary is nominated, they will scream, "Benghazi. Email. Benghazi. Email." Those issues have been debunked? So effing what? Most Republican voters probably don't know that, and if they do know it, they will forget. The Republicans who control the message will find something ugly and untrue to scream about the Democratic nominee no matter who that is. (And I include socialist in the category untrue because of the way they use the word. Yes, Bernie is a socialist, but he's not what they try to conjure up in people's minds when they scream it.)
My fear is that we'll miss a rare chance, perhaps our last chance, to elect someone who is not beholden to banks and large corporations, who works for the people. We'll miss it just because many Democrats believe he can't win, because he's a socialist.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)even if he calls himself one. Of course that word socialist has been hijacked and re-branded that almost anyone can claim it today. If Sanders was true to his stated beliefs and ran on the Socialist party I would vote for him. As someone who pretends to be something, why would I want to vote for someone that couldn't get things done? I will take ex-governors or secretary of states as the liars that represent me any day over one that cannot even be true to his own beliefs.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)thesquanderer
(11,996 posts)Absolutely, she is well-qualified, and she is no Republican, as your first two asterisks indicate. I can even add more reasons someone may prefer HRC, as I mentioned in another thread... I understand why people may feel she might be better at working with Congress, and I understand that people may prefer her foreign policy experience. She may not be as liberal as BS, but not every Dem is as liberal as BS either... I don't think all the Reagan Democrats have passed away. So yeah, despite being a BS supporter, sure, I can understand why people can prefer HRC.
The place I really part ways with you is the third asterisk. I addressed the "socialist" thing in post #70. But your bigger point here is really electability, which comes up in many threads, in many ways. I recently addressed that in one of those other threads, and I will repeat here:
-----
I think it will be very tough for him to win the nomination, but if he does, I think he has the better chance of winning the general.
Some related thoughts...
... all the national polls are pointless, because president's aren't selected by majority vote (just ask Al Gore). You have to look at the states, and specifically, the states that are in play. (i.e. no Republican will take New York away from either Hillary or Bernie.) It's really way too early and there's been too little state-specific polling, but along those lines, this article is interesting:
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/22/poll-crucial-swing-states-shows-sanders-electable-clinton.html
... The right is more anti-Hillary than they are anti-Bernie, they've been stoking hillary-hate for decades, they can't possibly whip up that much hate for Bernie in a matter of months. There is a group who will be motivated to come out just to vote against Hillary, regardless of who the Republican candidate is. Sanders won't have that strike against him.
... The right, like the left, has a contingent that is just sick of "business as usual" (hence the popularity of Trump/Carson/Fiorina). Assuming the Republicans end up nominating a more conventional candidate, some of these voters may stay home rather than vote for either a Bush (or similar) or a Clinton, but may just consider voting for Bernie as a kind of poke in the eye to the establishment. And there are libertarian-style people on the right who may be drawn to Sanders on things like the patriot act, foreign policy, warrantless wiretapping and the like. He certainly isn't their ideal candidate, but "half a Paul" may be better than none, if the alternative is a mainstream Republican. Republicans do sometimes vote for Democrats (and vice versa)... you can't assume they are all a lost cause. I think Bernie can potentially get more of them than Hillary can. He supposedly got 25% of the republican vote in Vermont.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/18/bernie_sanders_i_got_25_of_the_republican_vote_in_vermont.html
(And I'm sure Hillary got Republican votes in New York, too.)
... There are so many other variables that will alter the landscape between now and the GE. For example, maybe you'd see a Sanders candidacy more positively with the right running mate (Elizabeth Warren?), or against a given opponent. I think it's awfully early for anyone to be saying he'd have "no chance in hell."
zazen
(2,978 posts)The Tea Party has screamed "socialist" at Obama, a corporate Democrat, for so long without any understanding of what the term has meant historically that less informed mainstream Repubs and Democrats, raised or born during Cold War, who used to recoil at the term tend to tune it out.
I mean, when you repeatedly scream that someone with obvious pro-Wall Street policies, who steadfastly protected the free market in health care, a "socialist," many people who don't really understand the term are actually _softened_ to it. I mean, if THAT's socialism, then they don't care.
Some in the Republican party have gone more to the right because of this red-baiting against Obama and now associate anything left of rapacious unregulated capitalism with "socialism" and "communism"--but they're nuts anyway. We were never going to reach them.
Everyone else is beginning to think, "meh." It's kind of like the evolution of people around women's rights over the past 50 years. When woman-haters kept screaming "bitch" or "lesbian" or "slut" at strong women as if that's an insult (my constant experience in the 1980s--if you spoke up you had to be discredited with one of the three standard epithets), finally enough people said, so what if a woman's strong or if a woman loves other women or a woman has sexual agency? Why is that an insult? The screaming of the extremists finally backfired. The culture changed around them and what they think is an insult is either meaningless or has turned into a compliment.
And so it goes with "socialist." It's not the conversation-stopping epithet it was even 10 years ago. We can paradoxically thank the right wing crazies for some of that.
Less informed independents and more open-minded Republicans may think, well, they tell me Obama's a socialist, but I like and trust Bernie a whole lot more than Obama or Hillary, and he's actually talking about returning our lives to the prosperity of my parents and grandparents' generation, so let's try his kind of socialism.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... in just a name calling exercise where it is pretty obvious that they don't understand what the meaning behind those terms are, only that they can just call people these names to try and engender hate towards that person amongst their fellows that have the same hate, that is more driven out of their own racist core than anything else.
Look how so many of them in the very same posters they hold up (sorry for the offensive nature of some of these here), just to try and criticize someone that they don't like when they have no substantive words they can say against him.
I KNOW these are offensive. But I think it is important that we see how they characterize someone they don't like when they don't know how to substantively criticize him. That is what is reflected by those who throw up the "socialist" moniker as a reason to not vote for someone like Bernie. It's the same mind set. More and more people are discovering that "socialism" isn't the bad term we've come to think of it as. Do we have a lot of pressure to attack one of our big socialist programs in "social security" to be renamed to something like "capitalist security" so that it can be looked on as not being a communist conspiracy? Too many people know the substance of "social security" being something that they and their family depends on as they get older, and that is why it doesn't get attacked in the same way.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Because socialism is a very powerful idea that scares the hell out of them.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)rnk6670
(29 posts)Corporatist moderate republican democrat light candidates, policies and governing. I'm all in for Bernie. This nation, in the past, has been far more socialist than now. In fact free college used to be a reality. Now the budgets main priorities are : war, tax cuts and as a result - debt. I don't see Hillary bringing robust change. Yes, Obama has been better than Mitt, but honestly on a whole host of issues important to me, the distinction between the two isn't broad enough. I'm ready for someone to really shake things up and turn in a new direction. Hillary doesn't represent that perspective in the least. She will likely not get my vote. I'm done with the cycle : vote for crap candidate better than their crap candidate. Hope for best. Rinse, repeat. Bernie.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Nope.
I've asked why before why people support Hillary & you know what I got? *crickets*
Not one single Hillary supporters answered my question. Not a one.
Bernie would be disgusted with these attacks and we should follow in his tracks? I suppose then it's fair to say that you should be wishy washy on your opinions too because Hillary is, eh? (I kid but you can see what I did there)
Hillary isn't progressive, at all. Nope. In fact Hillary even called herself a moderate and this is one thing that annoys the living hell out of us Bernie supporters! Quit painting her for something she isn't! A progressive doesn't vote to send us to war, doesn't defend the sanctity of marriage, DADT, and doesn't have former KXL lobbyists working for her. A progressive isn't against a $15/hr national minimum wage with saying that it's "too much". HILLARY IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE! http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/hillary-clinton-democrat-progressive/ Progressive's don't say that "undocumented children of migrants need to be sent home".
Your points about Bernie are pretty off and you speak the Republican talking point of how Bernie is a "socialist" when in fact he's a Social Democrat. It's only American's which have a problem with this label while the rest of the world doesn't. You say "they'll scream "socialist!" yet you fail to realize that Republicans absolutely HATE Hillary with a passion that's been build on decades of aggression. Even Republican pundits say that Bernie would be harder to beat than Hillary because of this. Hillary would ensure the GOP base shows up to vote in order to make sure she's not elected. Do you have any idea the kind of crap we'd see in DC f by some chance she was elected? It would be one giant Benghazi hearing her entire career and it would make the gridlock now with what we have with Obama seem like a Saturday night at the disco.
"We must win, we must do this, can you imagine Trump?" No. I'm sick of this lesser of 2 evils bullshit and so are many others. No. To me and many others, they're basically in the same camp. I won't vote for her. She doesn't represent my morals or my values and I firmly believe in someone who has conviction when they sleep, not someone who wakes up one morning and changes their mind like flipping pancakes.
You scream Republicans would be in fear yet guess what? Bernie crosses over with them! Hillary will NEVER have support like that.
https://twitter.com/GOPforSanders
https://www.facebook.com/republicansforbernie?fref=ts
We need THIS!
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)And it's Bernie or nothing! If not Bernie, this will be an election the Presidential Candidate box will be skipped for the first time, and the rest of the Ballot will be checked or circled accordingly. (P/S/ -- There are many folks planning to do the same if Bernie is not the nominee. Not voting against Hillary but, not voting for her either).
#GotBerniesBack!!
liberal N proud
(60,347 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Because we view Hillary as the establishment is why. Many Bernie supporters are 2 things--Warren Wing democrats and indy voters.
liberal N proud
(60,347 posts)As an undeclared I get turned off by such aggressions as I have seen by Sanders supporters.
frylock
(34,825 posts)thanks for playing.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)because there is only one real candidate who stands with people right now and it's not Hillary. You get turned off but you need to realize this is both conviction & passion. We're sick of our democracy being sold to the highest bidder where corporations are the ruler of the free world.
liberal N proud
(60,347 posts)Make observations, comment where appropriate or I desire input and then support the nominee.
There is nothing that says I have to declare. I could wait until I am in the voting booth for that matter. It is my choice.
I recall other candidates in previous elections that were the end all be all and there was no stopping them until there was. I will take my politicians with a grain of sand and see who is on top as we head into the general.
I only know at this point which candidates I will not vote for and they are all Republican.
HAi
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Speaking for myself and others I know, Hillary supporters are Democrats to the bone, we will also support the DNC nominee, to not vote would be supporting the GOP, to vote for other than the DNC nominee would be voting against the principles we hold near and dear. We see what having a Republican president and Republican congress produced, stay at home and not vote, hell no, I will not hand the Republicans a victory.
I doubt everyone posting on this site is Democrats, and of course they love to smear Hillary, pushing for staying home and not voting, stating you will not vote for Hillary is Republican.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)-If she is the nominee. Will vote the REST of the Ballot, skip completely voting for President.
-That is a VALID choice and many will follow it.
-It is not "Republican" its called FREE CHOICE/FREE WILL.
-We are not obligated to follow the party into a river if they say jump, nor are will required to walk in lock step for their DLC Nominee. ---Chew on THOSE FACTS!
But, Bernie's is doing quite well right now. That crowd of 32,000 last night in Boston was quite impressive. What is Hillary's largest crowd size by the way? Never mind.....
The People are feeling Bernie and the more they Learn, more they like.
We already know Hillary quite well and no thanks to Establishment/Wall Street/I "so-called" care about a Progressive issue here and there/But I'm a War Hawk Politics. ENOUGH of that BS!
Thus, as in 2008 when a little known Senator came for almost nowhere to beat the PUMA Hillary push, got more than a feeling a Senator from Vermont (a little more known that the Senator from Illinois was) will do the same.
#GotBerniesBack
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)As the Clinton's attempt as a Family POTUS Dynasty.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Its not the majority of Sanders supporters.
Here on DU, its the same sub-set of folks who run what I call the "DU's Combustible Hair Club".
They've complained about Obama from day one. They read between the lines and can always find Obama's evil intent. They demanded a primary challenge against Obama in 2012. A giant waste of time. They've predicted doom and gloom over and over and over during his Presidency. And they've been wrong over and over. Obama's term is coming to and end. Hilary's positions are similar to Obama's, so now they've turned their scorn in her direction. They were sure Warren was going to run and would have preferred her to Sanders. Their support for Bernie is convenient. Day in, day out, they sit on high making pronouncements regarding who the "real liberals" are. They are sure that you and I, and anyone we might support, does not measure up to the standards they maintain for themselves. They are DU's self-proclaimed High Priests of liberalism. And they sit in judgement over the rest of us. Just ask them.
And I will again observe that these folks have tended to be wrong over and over.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)You are wrong that Bernie Supporters are Disappointed Obama leftovers. Not disappointed with Obama in the least. There has been policy disagreements but that is expected with any POTUS. Overall, strongly believe Obama's heart was in the right place BUT, he had to work with a GOP/Split Congress all but two out of this eight years so he got what he could.
Never will be disappointed in the first African-American President ever and proudly voted for him in 2008/2012.
But, still not voting for Hillary. Did not in 2008, won't in 2016 either. #GotBerniesBack!!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)* Bernie Sanders is NOT a Self-described Socialist. He is a Democratic Socialist. So, this statement that you made proves that you are either dishonest, delusional or both.
*Hillary Clinton describes herself as a Moderate, she is not a Progressive. Another false statement which prove that you are dishonest, delusional or both.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/hillary-clinton-democrat-progressive/
^snip^
"You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center," Clinton told the audience at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio. "I plead guilty."
*Brilliant is a matter of opinion. Unless you can provide an IQ test for her, then you are just presenting your impression of her as fact. It isn't.
*Her main qualifications are:
-Being First Lady, which even she is not running on anymore. Last time around she was so desperate to find some justification for running on being First Lady that she falsely claimed to have had to run with her head down because of snipers. Maybe you think she is Brilliant but I would think that this is evidence to the contrary.
-Being Secretary of State. We have not had a former Sec. of State as President since 1861, and he is considered one of the worst. Sec. of State is where politicians go to end their careers, not to forward it. When was the last time a former Sec. of State ran for President? You can't answer that because of how extremely rare that is. Maybe she will be the exception, but it seems that having been Sec. of State is not widely accepted by the American people as a qualification for being President.
-Being Senator. Yes, she won 2 (count them 1...2...) elections in her entire life. Both were in a high population Blue state. Most any well funded (D) could have won those elections. As a Senator, she was a war hawk. Her most notable accomplishment in those 8 years was her vote and the 19 minute speech in favor of authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but that is not the only thing she did that made her a hawk. She also co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the Army. Besides that, her time in the Senate is pretty mundane. Average at best. Her speech in favor of the war in Iraq overshadows everything else.
I'm very sorry, but the idealized version of Hillary Clinton which you have is not real. She was not a great Senator, by any definition. Her time spent as First Lady is not a qualification for being President and no former Sec. of State has been President for over a hundred and fifty years either. I admit that being SoS may help her, but only because she has almost nothing else to run on.
*****Now, if she wins the nomination I will vote for her. I will vote for every (D) on the ticket, as always. Yes, I will show up, as always. I won't be happy that she is our nominee but my vote will count exactly the same as someone who holds some fanciful vision of Hillary as a conquering hero. I sure hope she doesn't go off the rails and make some crazy statement equal to, or even worse than, the sniper thing. She just isn't worth the risk.
marble falls
(57,353 posts)TPP, capital punishment, three strike laws, mandatory minimum sentences, IWR, fracking, SS cap for the wealthy, banksters, Wall Street deregulation, private prison industry, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act ...... go ahead and vote for Hillary.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Bernie has a new path
bowens43
(16,064 posts)She is not brilliant and she is not qualified, she was a terrible failure as secretary of state, she did nothing as a senator. She is untrustworthy , she is self centered and egotistical. She will do anything or say anything to anyone at anytime if she thinks it will help her to get the power she feels entitled to.
There is no way she will win an election in this country. The republicans have been preparing for this for decades.
Besides that, is a win with hillary actually a win??? I think not. She is a right of center tool of corporations and the wealthy.
No thanks. If she gets the nomination it will be the first time since 1976 that I did not cast a vote for the Democratic nominee for president.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)SCOTUS.
treestar
(82,383 posts)requires being in a right wing bubble.
Gman
(24,780 posts)The fact is the DLC gave us the first Democratic zzz president in 12 years and only the second on 24 years. People had jobs. The future looked great for the first time.
People are completely ignorant to what it was like under Reagan/Bush. I think these people owe the DLC a debt of thanks. For most of them, their parents wouldn't have had jobs to start the family they were born into. But then, that's why so many are ignorant to any if this.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I'm currently and in the past for any D over any R.
Nevertheless....
Welfare "reform."
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/12/how-bill-clintons-welfare-reform-created-a-system-rife-with-racial-biases/
Bankster deregulation.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/bill_clinton_the_republicans_m.php
Media consolidation.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html
Gman
(24,780 posts)There's no comparison, really.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Media consolidation and bankster deregulation are huge contributors to the mess we're in today.
Gman
(24,780 posts)But in the whole, any D is better than any R.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)that see no difference between the administrations of Bill Clinton and George Bush are sadly misinformed.
Gman
(24,780 posts)So the world actually began when they discovered there was a world.
Perogie
(687 posts)There are some Bernie supporters and some Hillary supports that post attacks. Let's ignore the few that do that and have honest debates on who should be the candidate.
Everyone should stop sinking to the low level of attack posts, even commenting on them should be avoided.
Though the Republicans can yell Socialist at Bernie. That's about all they have on him.
They have a huge arsenal built up for fighting Hillary.
I'd rather Bernie got the nod, but if Hillary is the one that wins the primaries then I will vote for her.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)KPN
(15,665 posts)back and forth between Hillary and Bernie supporters, but I have read enough of the posts here to feel like your post is a classic case of projection As Shep Smith said recently, "You might want to consult a mirror."
It strikes me that some Hillary supporters lash out at Bernie supporters simply because Bernie is currently winning and gaining momentum. Frankly, their behavior strikes me as desperate.
Can Bernie win the general election? He has surprised all of the experts and many of the rest of us to this point hasn't he?
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I shouldn't have even taken the time to jump into this thread, as I'm sure there were more useful things I could have done with the time......
MuseRider
(34,135 posts)Because everyone is not like me. Everyone has their own needs and sensibilities. We are allowed this. It would be extremely boring otherwise. I have not even read the entire op nor anything passed post #1 because the problem we have is what tears us apart, the inability to let others be with their own choices. I may not agree with you but I try to respect your life and choices. I don't hate any of you but a day on DU makes me consider it. Sad. Time out is most appreciated. So we disagree, so what?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Either that, or why it's called apple jacks if it doesn't taste like apples.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Nothing fires up a Bernie supporter like a claim that Bernie is unelectable, or that Hillary is inevitable. When someone, anyone starts out saying "I like Bernie but..." we stop listening, because we already know what's coming.
I generally reply with: remember that "commie pinko black Kenyan" who was too far to the left to win? And remember, America simply wasn't ready to elect a black man into office.
You claim republicans will scream socialist from the rooftops, and I agree, they will. And that will be their downfall. They have nothing else to scream. Socialism just isn't the dog whistle of yesteryear. Bernie also has a knack for dismantling fear of his democratic socialism... and his supporters haven't exactly been just sitting on the sidelines either.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Hillary has plenty of weak spots that will be shouted to the rooftops if she's the nominee.
Hillary can't get the Occupy Wall Streeters to line up to vote for her with her $250,000 speeches to banks. Hillary won't get the votes of some of the anti-war activists due to her Iraq War vote.
If I believed that Hillary would definitely win and Bernie will certainly lose, I could understand your position better. But, I don't.
Obama won with ENTHUSIASTIC support from young people. Young people lined up to vote for him, they persuaded their parents and grandparents to vote for him, they created campaign songs and videos for him, they worked the phones and knocked on doors for Obama.
Bernie Sanders has the young people enthusiastically behind him! They turn out to his rallies, they are creating art and music for Bernie, they are talking with their elders.
Ten percent of the population canceled their TV service in the last year. Most people don't watch TV commercials, even if they still have cable, they use their DVR. Refusing to support the candidate with enthusiastic support of young people so we can nominate someone who can raise a billion dollars for TV ads is a losing strategy, I believe.
I'd MUCH rather go into the GE with the support of excited young people instead of a billion dollars worth of TV ads.
If Democrats want to WIN, we'll nominate Bernie Sanders.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Let me preface my remarks by saying I have read Marx, Rousseau, Heilbroner, Marcuse, Lenin, Michael Harrington, and Charles Lindblom, and I have no idea of what most people refer to when they call themselves or other socialists.
I like John Lennon's definition of socialism, "if socialism means the government should see to it that granny gets her teeth fixed then I'm a socialist."
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)So no, there is no reasonable excuse to support Hillary over Bernie. Either her supporters are innocently uninformed, willfully uninformed or unethical.
frylock
(34,825 posts)so, no. And quit pissing your pants over what Republicans are going to call the Democratic nominee. Choosing a candidate based upon which one will be attacked less by the Republicans is just straight up chickenshit nonsense.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I didn't like her in 2008. I don't like her now.
I'm sure she's a nice enough person, but her ever-changing positions, her Iraqi war vote and the way she plays politics to benefit herself and not the country leave me cold.
BTW, I don't find her all that "brilliant," either. I was a new mother sitting at home breast feeding with no access to any intel and I knew the Iraqi war was wrong. If she was so brilliant, why didn't she?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Would Hillary be disgusted by all the anti-Sanders posts? Or is she paying for them?
She is not a 'progressive' she is a self professed 'moderate' of the third way ilk.
She is what you say she isn't. Your OP is mostly McCarthyist spin. Do you still support her?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Last year everyone was resigned to a Bush vs Clinton GE and the majority of people were not very enthusiastic about the dynasties continuing either way. Now we have some energy and the millennials are coming out in droves. Independents and conservatives are also looking at Bernie. Bernie has been a game changer for the party.
Vinca
(50,318 posts)I would love to see a woman POTUS, but not at the sacrifice of my principles.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)According to Hillary supporters Bernie is Israel's #1 shill, a racist, a gun nut, a Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies and thinks that orgasms prevent cancer.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)The more I've learned of HRC over all the years she's been in our face...the more disgusted I've gotten.
No more Bush...No more Clinton...and especially No more Hillary.
silenttigersong
(957 posts)How about we refer to Hillary as a neo-liberal that represents inverted totalitarianism ,one step away from fascism. Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power
― Benito Mussolini
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Turd Way?
That is soooo kooky and far out.
I would think my tongue would slither up and throttle my by brain if it sent instructions to so vehemently refute decades of clear and observable reality.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)Enough so that I've adopted the working premise that every single Hillary supporter is a fake Democrat along with their fake Democratic candidate.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)People said similar things about electing someone named "Barack Hussein Obama" to the White House in 2008.
With unregulated casino capitalism ravaging our society and the world, I think the time is ripe for a discussion of "Democratic Socialism" (which is what Sanders espouses) as a viable alternative to the crisis Reaganism has wrought. (For more on Democratic Socialism, see: http://www.dsausa.org/).
I think it's long past due to overcome our historical amnesia and recall that socialism was on the rise in America between the Gilded Age and World War I, with socialists elected to state legislatures and even to the US Congress. After WWI (and the Russian Revolution especially, which scared the hell out of capitalists in the US), there was a very repressive Red Scare in America that unleashed a violent reaction against socialism in America.
The Great Depression revived socialism and communism in the US and the threat of a Soviet-style revolution in the US (or a fascist takeover on the other extreme) was so real that FDR was able to convince enough of the wealthy elites to support the New Deal.
WWII, McCarthyism, and later COINTELPRO, the Corporatist reaction of the '70s and '80s, along with authoritarian Communism, has led to the near total demonization of socialist alternatives to unregulated capitalism. With capitalism's growing failure to deliver the goods and services people need, it's time to take the horns and pitchfork from socialism and explore those alternatives again.
Having said all that, I'm not a Hillary supporter, but if she gets the nomination I will vote for her.
YabaDabaNoDinoNo
(460 posts)They will vote their choice and I will vote mine