2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe reason for such venom at Bernie and his supporters from HRC fans
Keep in mind that even though I support Bernie in the primary, if Hillary is the candidate, she has my vote.
Now, onto the post:
Probably the biggest reason why HRC supporters and surrogates, even those here at DU, attack Bernie with everyone from calling him a fascist, a sexist, a racist, a hypocrite, etc. is because they saw an upstart candidate in 2008 overtake her, win the nomination and then win the general twice.
That sting is still fresh. They see Bernie doing the same thing Obama did and don't want their horse falling down like she did to Obama. Losing to Barack Obama was very painful, so every weapon in the book is needed and being used to attack and destroy another Democrat so the coronation can begin as scheduled.
I expect to get attack mercilessly for this post and even having it sent to a jury, but this is just one man's opinion based on watching politics for 25 years and tracking it for even longer.
villager
(26,001 posts)But it makes sense...
It's almost bewildering how mere conversation is verboten, and everything must be sniping, snark, half-truth, etc....
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That has been brewing for 8 years.
Read a diatribe against Bernie supporters that reminded me of what bigots and racist used to say about all black people. That because one or two Bernie people treated them wrong, the poster was mad at every Bernie supporter.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Darb
(2,807 posts)Without doubt they believe he can win because African Americans will vote for him because they are mindless, skin-color voters. Can you refute that? It sort of reflects your comment, except replace African American with women.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Response to cantbeserious (Reply #93)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts).....If Hillary's policies sucked as badly A Bachmann's or Fiorina's, her numbers would be tanking too.
Women are not sheep, it's offenseive to treat them that way. Their judgement is perfectly fine
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
vorgan24
(50 posts)We all agree that Florina shouldn't be President
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Before he announced, just about everyone on DU liked ol' Bernie.
Now, to some he's all kind of nasty stuff, simply for the sin of challenging Clinton.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)A lot of people liked ol' Bernie before he started campaigning.
And obviously you want to put any changes in that attitude down to the fact that he's "challenging Hillary".
The fact is there is something the BS supporters never bothered to look at. From the outset of BS's campaign, his supporters have relied on the meme "Once people get to know who Bernie is, they will love him!"
What you didn't count on - and really should have seen coming - is that when some people "got to know Bernie", they wouldn't like him at all.
The BS supporters here seem to have taken it as a given that once anyone "heard Bernie's message", they would be as enthralled with him as they were. It's like it never occurred to you that some people would be turned off by him, just as some people are turned off by Hillary.
You can claim all you want that BS's support is stagnating because of the media, the PTB in the Party, endorsements from Democratics in office being bought-and-paid-for and/or being "scared to death" by the Clinton payback machine.
What you might want to consider is that not as many people are "into Bernie" as you initially thought/hoped there would be, and that a lot of people have "heard Bernie's message" and just aren't buying what he's selling.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If I wanted to be yelled at, and pointed at, and lectured, and hectored, and listen to a litany of complaints about how much the country fucking sucks, with no clear, realistic, reasonable paths to solutions, I'd be a Sanders supporter.
"Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here" is not, to me, anyway, a good campaign strategy. I don't like wallowing in misery and despair, and that's the way the Sanders campaign hits me. It's the OPPOSITE of "Hope and Change." It's an "Everything SUCKS and Let's YELL About It" strategy and I find it tiresome. Yeah, we ARE all gonna die, but let's not dwell on it constantly, shall we? I can probably find plenty of negativity locally, if that's my thing (and it ain't). A POTUS is supposed to give people a positive sense for the future, and I don't get that from the Senator from VT. This is, of course, my personal opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised if I get yelled at for expressing it!
And, speaking of that, on top of the yelling by the candidate, there's the yelling by the "supporters" when a voter expresses reservations, never mind dislike. It's LIGHTNING quick! The outrage/swarm/beatdown thing gets tiresome, too. You will assimilate--and if you don't, you'll get alerted on and your post will be hidden! Like that's going to "encourage" people to vote for the guy!
Between the "The End Is Near" and "Lord of the Flies" vibes, I just can't get enthused. I prefer the candidate who is speaking out about gun violence and knows how to work with governmental entities in USA as well as with leaders around the world.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)You said it better than I could.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Let me guess... you're doing just fine under the $tatu$ quo.
MADem
(135,425 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)EOM
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)and will Bernie into the white house against all odds.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It follows from your point about voting for optimism. Remember Morning in America? I do.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I've been an admirer of his since the 1990's, because of his integrity and as one of the few people in politics that was honestly eaising issues and addressing the problems that were avoidable and needed to be dealt with then to prevent worse problems down the road-- but which we ignored and have allowed to grow much worse.
And, as far as "electability" the fact that people in Vermont (where people know their candidates on a more personal level than a larger state) keep electing and reelecting the guy by huge margins, says something. (And Vermont is not Mars.)
But I can see his limitations in terms of packaging. He doesn't have that light touch. And people tend to gravitate to the politician who tells them "Everything's great. We just need a few tweaks" than the person who tells you there's a serious problem that has to be fixed....
It's like a car that needs a major valve job. People are going to "feel better" about a mechanic who tells you that you just need an oil change, than the one who accurately diagnoses the engine and urges you to make the repairs.... When the engine seizes down the road, they may feel differently, or they may not make the connection between the reassuring mechanic and the damage they caused or allowed to happen.
IMO, people are now realizing the vehicle is not running well. The current election is a choice between going back to the reassuring but slipshod mechanic for another quay of oil, or listening to the guy who warned you to fix the engine earlier.
http://robertreich.org/post/132363519655
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251764150
But, Clinton also has her liabilities, in terms of public perception. Sure she has a core of loyal followers, and others who see her as the path of least resistance, the "safe bet" to beat the GOP.
But she too has a limited appeal beyond that, especially when it comes to the segment of the population beyond Democratic partisans and progressives worried about the GOP. She tends to do better when she on the periphery, where her positive attributes are visible, but she's not under close scrutiny or exposed constantly. She's had a good month, but Clinton fatigue may settle in again -- even if it's after the nomination.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)If I might pick up on your analogy, to me BS is the mechanic who, every time I bring my car in, rattles off a list of what's wrong with it: there's a rattle in the engine, two tires are out of alignment, the brakes screech when applied, there's rust on the door frames, etc.
I already know those things - it's an old car, and I've known about those problems for years. So why do you keep reiterating them, over and over, without offering any solid evidence that you can repair it?
"IMO, people are now realizing the vehicle is not running well."
My biggest problem with BS is that he's been rattling off the same laundry list of what's wrong for decades now - and he's doing so as though this is news to the American populace every time. This is NOT news to anyone. I had the same complaint about OWS - their assumption that the citizenry was completely unaware of the disparity between the 1% and the 99% until they came along and told them.
People KNOW what's wrong - they want to hear about how it can be made right.
We see lots of OPs here about how Bernie wants free college for everyone, Bernie wants money out of politics, Bernie wants this and wants that. I am sure Bernie also wants world peace and a cure for cancer - but wanting and actually accomplishing are two different things. And thus far, BS has offered very little in the way of solutions. In other words, if he stopped yelling about how bad the car is and always has been, and started talking about viable ways to get the car back in ship-shape, I would take him more seriously.
You are absolutely right when you say that people want a president with a positive outlook. That's human nature. That, IMHO, was a huge part of Obama's appeal; he said "yes, we can" move forward - not "let's harp on everything that has been wrong up to now".
Rightly or wrongly, perception plays a big role in politics - and that perception varies from one voter to another. What BS supporters see as Bernie's "consistency" on issues for decades, some of us see as a stubborn refusal to adapt to an ever-changing world. What some see as Bernie's passion, others see as endless lecturing. And so on.
What it all comes down to is that BOTH BS and HRC have a "ceiling" in terms of the supporters they will attract. HRC will only get so many people on her side, just as BS will only get so many people on his side. And the fact is that HRC's ceiling is higher than Bernie's. The polls clearly show that she has more supporters than he does. That's the way political races work.
Sadly, many BS supporters here (real and alleged) have focused almost entirely on what's wrong with HRC, instead of what's right with Bernie. They have consistently told HRC supporters that they are pro-war, pro-the 1%, pro-the status quo, pro-Wall Street - you get the picture. Instead of saying "we have a great candidate in Bernie, so why don't you listen to what he has to say", they have characterized HRC supporters as being "pro" everything that is wrong with the country.
Elected Democrats who have endorsed HRC are immediately thrown under the bus, stigmatized as having been "gotten to" by the Clinton Machine, accused of being "bought-and-paid-for". The BS supporters give no thought to the idea that these endorsers actually think HRC is the right person for the job of POTUS - instead they are labelled as sell-outs. The reasonable reaction to HRC's endorsements would have been, "Well, I'm sorry John Lewis went with Hillary instead of Bernie." The actual reaction was to flood his FB page with vitriol for his choice.
It's been said by many political observers that BS's biggest problem is his supporters. That notion did not materialize out of the ether - it is very real, and very problematic. And it is truly unfortunate. I have seen things stated by BS supporters that I have no doubt he would never agree with or condone.
"Clinton fatigue may settle in again -- even if it's after the nomination."
I'm sure DU will be flooded with anti-HRC posts from her first day in office - just as it was flooded with anti-Obama posts from his inauguration right up to today. I've given up all hope that DU will ever again be a "Democratic" site, and we will no doubt be hearing from those posing as "disappointed Dems" who have been Obama-bashing for years, and will simply move on to HRC-bashing in its stead.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Since we both seem in comparatively reasonable moods, here's my response. Please remember this is all IMO. Obviously, mileage may vary.
That, IMHO, was a huge part of Obama's appeal; he said "yes, we can" move forward - not "let's harp on everything that has been wrong up to now".
I do appreciate that Bill Clinton, Obama have the gift of making people feel a sense of possibility and hope. I was also a big admirer of Wellstone, because (even though he looked like a nebbish) he also projected a sense that "we can do better." ....I would prefer that Bernie's personality was somewhat sunnier. He does tend to be too downbeat and/or angry. But the part of Bernie's message that does not come out as much is that he is genuinely hopeful. He's not saying "All is doomed." Instead he's saying "We've got big problems, but if we come together and assert ourselves we do have the power to fix it and make a better world."
But, frankly we do also need anger -- purposeful anger to get us off out collective butts and offer an active alternative.
If I might pick up on your analogy, to me BS is the mechanic who, every time I bring my car in, rattles off a list of what's wrong with it: there's a rattle in the engine.....it's an old car, and I've known about those problems for years. So why do you keep reiterating them, over and over, without offering any solid evidence that you can repair it?
Actually, when he sets his stump speech aside he has a lot of grasp of details and offers specific practical solutions. He surprised a lot of people in Burlington when he became mayor. Many initially also thought he was just an ideological shouter, and he walked into a hostile situation. But he turned out to be a practical problem solver. He cleaned up a lot of administrative problems, and built coalitions and got a lot of positive things done, from potholes to civic initiatives. And when people saw him in action, they kept reelecting him by large margins.
My biggest problem with BS is that he's been rattling off the same laundry list of what's wrong for decades now - and he's doing so as though this is news to the American populace every time. This is NOT news to anyone. I had the same complaint about OWS - their assumption that the citizenry was completely unaware of the disparity between the 1% and the 99% until they came along and told them....Rightly or wrongly, perception plays a big role in politics - and that perception varies from one voter to another. What BS supporters see as Bernie's "consistency" on issues for decades, some of us see as a stubborn refusal to adapt to an ever-changing world.
Unfortunately, laundry list has been valid for decades, but it was swept under the rug and kept invisible in the wider conversation until recently. It's only now that the mainstream conversation is finally talking about issues we should have (and could have) tackled many years ago, because that's when it really started. Bernie (and other progressives) saw it in the 80's and 90s, and worked hard to bring these issues into the national political conversation and raise awareness back then. But they were not able to break through the conventional-wisdom-echo-chamber. Among us older farts that does cause a certain combination of impatience and frustration, as we saw the bad things predicted back then coming true,because it didnlt have to happen.
People KNOW what's wrong - they want to hear about how it can be made right.
Well this may sound simplistic, but one basic solution is often "Just Say NO." Or as Obama (I think) said "Just don't do stupid stiff." We could have broadened prosperity and avoided a lot of problems by saying NO to a lot of bad policies and bad decisions since he 80's. It wasn't like they were a force of nature. They have been the cumulative effect of a lot of bad moves -- things that were promised by the "Establishment" but were ultimately destructive. For example, we should have said NO to excessive deregulation that enabled the growth of monopolies that are sucking money out of the pockets of average Americans and smothered a competitive diverse economy. NO to financial deregulation that allowed banks to become too big and too corrupt and too powerful. NO to the media deregulation that wiped out diversity of ownership. NO to "free trade deals" that greased the wheels for outsourcing of jobs and manufacturing. We saw the results in the 2008 meltdown, the weakening of the middle and working classes as their money is sucked upward. Now that there is more recognition, one basic solution is to not repeat the mistakes -- and the avoidance -- of the past.
Sadly, many BS supporters here (real and alleged) have focused almost entirely on what's wrong with HRC, instead of what's right with Bernie I....It's been said by many political observers that BS's biggest problem is his supporters. ... I have seen things stated by BS supporters that I have no doubt he would never agree with or condone. .
I'll partially agree with you and disagree. It has sometimes gotten too personal and overheated. (I plead guilty.) But it is less aimed at her, but what she represents, which is the politics that many of us believe has caused the problems. As a person I like and admire her. But I believe she is too locked into the Big Money/Big Power/Crony Capitalism that has caused so many problems.....The thought of that gets the dander up of people who believe we need to break way from that. And some of us get overzealous sometimes.
But that happens on all sides. Some of that is the result of a feedback loop where snark on one side feeds snark on the other side. (On a personal note, I had been away from DU for a long time, and checked in after the Netroots/BLM incident out of curiosity. I was appalled at the extent of the polarization and shocked at the way Bernie and white progressives who supported him were being demonized.)
I'm sure DU will be flooded with anti-HRC posts from her first day in office - just as it was flooded with anti-Obama posts from his inauguration right up to today. I've given up all hope that DU will ever again be a "Democratic" site, and we will no doubt be hearing from those posing as "disappointed Dems" who have been Obama-bashing for years, and will simply move on to HRC-bashing in its stead.
First of all, when I referred to Clinton fatigue, I wasn't talking about the "cranky left." I was referring to mainstream Clinton Fatigue that seems to arise when she and Bill are on the center stage for too long. They're better in smaller doses for many people. And if that kicks in during the General, it could be trouble.
As for the "bashing." Well that term is used too frequently to dismiss legitimate disagreement. A lot of people "bash" Obama over specific policies, but still like and support him in a larger sense. It is also advocacy against policies that many believe would be counterproductive or harmful. I believe "bashing" for example, helped to block a truly terrible merger of two abusive Telecommunications Monopolies last year.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Fantastic response - and an excellent piece of writing. You made your points clearly and concisely.
I guess we're just going to have to break down and admit that we actually do agree more than we disagree on many, many things.
I remain a staunch HRC supporter - and you remain a staunch BS supporter. But I now have an insight into what your perception of both candidates is, and hopefully you have some insight into mine.
And we actually had a really good discussion without once using ALL CAPS!!!, or : , or calling our respective candidates-of-choice well-known poopy-heads (I'll just use that as a euphemism for all the usual shit that gets thrown around here).
I really, really enjoyed this exchange. I haven't changed my mind, and I know you haven't changed yours. But I think maybe we both realized that we do have a "meeting of the minds" on many aspects of this process.
I'm sure we both want the same things for the country - we simply differ on who is the best person to get us where we want to be.
--- Nance
Armstead
(47,803 posts)In "real life" (whatever that is) I have 3D friends who support Clinton, and we've had some "lively" discussions and disagreements. But we never project it on each other personally beyond that, and it has no bearing on our friendships or the way we view each other as people.
It's more difficult to do that here on the interwebs, because we're all words on a screen rather than 3D people. We often see each others only in the limited frame of who we support or how we view issues. And we get carried away by our own passions.
But IMO, while vigorous disagreement and some good-natured snark is fine, it'd be great if there was less of the tendency to fall into opposing "camps," and an environment that gets so heated and alienates people who often agree on much below the surface.
Response to Armstead (Reply #3)
Name removed Message auto-removed
jfern
(5,204 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)necessary.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
merrily
(45,251 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... in your theory.
Many, many of us on DU (and in RL) who were Obama supporters in 2008 are now HRC supporters. So we would hardly be still "stinging" from the fact that Hillary lost to our preferred candidate in that election. I am a staunch HRC supporter now, but I was an Obama Girl in 2008 - and I have to tell you, I was overjoyed when he won the nomination and she didn't. And I am certainly not alone in that experience. So where do I, and all of the other Obama supporters, fit into your little scenario?
As has to be pointed out time and again, BS is no Obama - not even close. No one sees 'Bernie doing the same thing Obama did" - not by a longshot. Obama was an up-and-comer in the Democratic Party in 2008, and proved his mettle to the satisfaction of those who supported his nomination. BS isn't even a Democrat - nor has he forged the Party alliances that Obama enjoyed then, and Hillary enjoys now. Obama was young, vibrant, a particularly eloquent and persuasive speaker who ran a forward-looking and uplifting campaign. Bernie has his good qualities - but they do not include any of the aforementioned.
Your theory assumes that exactly the same people who supported HRC in 2008 support her now. She seems to have maintained a lot of that loyalty - but she now adds to it a wide swath of Obama supporters, who see her as building on his legacy.
The notion that people are "attacking" BS because "the sting is still fresh" is ludicrous beyond belief, and politically naive to the nth degree.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)...who were Obama supporters in 2008 are now HRC supporters"
I'm not so sure your theory totally holds water.
Many of Obama's supporters in 2008 supported him because they saw him as anti-establishment, a true progressive for change. HRC represented the establishment to them.
Bernie has assumed that mantle of anti-establishment in this election, and I think many of Obama's supporters from 2008 now support Bernie for the same reasons.
HRC is still the establishment candidate.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Do you really believe that HRC is far in the lead due to people who weren't Obama supporters? Her numbers with the AA demographic alone demonstrate that former Obamans are now HRCers.
Take a look at the members of the BOG here on DU - then look at the members of the Hillary Group - you'll see a lot of the same names. Hillary supporters see her as the natural choice for carrying on Obama's legacy.
And by the way, do you think Bernie's grand idea that Obama should be primaried in 2012 has been forgotten by staunch Obama supporters? Not a chance. If you want to discuss a "sting" that's still fresh, THAT one is for many, many Obamans.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Puhhhllleeeaaassseee!
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that any polls that show HRC in the lead are fatally flawed, and polls showing that Bernie is set to "win all 50 states!" are accurate.
Please forgive my penchant for living in the real world. It's a habit I just can't seem to break.
N_E_1 for Tennis
(9,593 posts)None of those corporations want any progressive, socialist, to look like they are leading.
It just goes against the grain.
Critical thinking.
Bernie may not win, he may, the truth of the matter is....he gets people to look behind the curtain.
We are in a corrupt system, all of it. From Washington, to local, to way to much corporate power.
We have been bought, we are now being sold.
If all the Sanders run does is shed light on this....he wins. HE WINS.
Truth will be told...TRUTH WILL WIN.
But till then we will live in a corporate owned world, obeying the masters of media and sales.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... no one complained about "corporate-owned polls" when those polls showed BS's numbers going up.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Here is a link to aggregate polling:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary
Which polls do you approve of and disapprove of and why?
Thank you in advance.
mythology
(9,527 posts)No real evidence is ever presented, just random claims of bias. It's sad that some resort to such nonsense.
willvotesdem
(75 posts)is now exactly (in the polls) where she was at this point in her run against Mr. Obama.
"Hillary supporters see her as the natural choice for carrying on Obama's legacy."
IMHO President Obama has acted more like a slightly left of center Republican than a Democrat. He's fair to middle on some social issues but as bad as Bush on military and economic issues. If HRC is going to carry on that legacy we will be much worse off in 2020 than we are now and now ain't good.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)which begs the question: Why are you here on this little discussion thread defending your candidate so fervently when, if you believe the polls, she's way ahead and has it all sown up for all intents and purposes? Seems like a strange compulsion to rub our noses in the polls.
Sure there are many former Obama supporters that are now supporting HRC (two peas in a pod, as it were), but I will stand by my opinion that Bernie represents what many 2008 Obama supporters still want...a truly populist and progressive anti-establishment candidate.
With regards to Bernie's call to primary Obama back in 2012: If you remember, many of us progressives were disillusioned, to say the least, with Obama's first term. Appointing crony financial and industry insiders to his cabinet, refusing to investigate and prosecute Wall Street financial crimes for the 2008 crash, refusing to investigate the Iraq war, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and on and on. Bernie's call to primary was purely symbolic, meant to send a message that we progressives were not happy and that we demanded a change in direction.
It's a big tent party, so I'm sure you would agree that there are many voices and would encourage free-thinking and disscention when warranted.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... dispelling the ridiculous notion that HRC supporters are still "feeling the sting" of her loss in 2008.
"If you remember, many of us progressives were disillusioned, to say the least, with Obama's first term."
And you were in the minority then, and are in the minority now. So the fact remains that many of us who were appalled by BS's position on having Obama primaried are not about to support him now.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Apparently that's what Obama's CoS meant when he called me "fucking retarded"
And you wonder why we liberals and progressives were a bit disillusioned?
I like to feel like I'm worth more than just a highly offensive name...Bernie provided the message to the WH for us liberals/progressives.
Hell, you could look at DU over those first four years and see hundereds of threads about how Obama sold us out. I only wish his first term had been like his second...I know, I know, he's not running again and has more freedom to do what he wants, but still...
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... Rahm Emmanuel didn't call anyone "retarded" - he said that an idea being proferred was "retarded'. I leave the mis- characterization of quotes to FOX-News.
You - like many here - constantly say "WE liberals and progressives". I have some late-breaking news for you: there are liberals and progressives who are now, and always have been staunch Obama supporters. And a lot of us are now HRC supporters. You do not own the labels "liberal" and "progressive", and are in no way the final arbiter as to who those labels are appropriately affixed to.
"Hell, you could look at DU over those first four years and see hundereds of threads about how Obama sold us out."
Ah, yes, I certainly saw those threads - which is why I left DU for years to post elsewhere - along with a lot of actual Democrats who also abandoned DU. It was no coincidence that after the TOS was changed, which allowed anyone posing as a Democrat to post here without restriction, the Obama-bashing became continuous and unabated to this day.
DU became infested with RW trolls who, under the guise of being "disappointed Dems", use this site to further their own agenda, which has nothing to do with being a Democrat - allegedly disappointed or otherwise.
I have seen complaints about Obama that were lifted straight from RW talking points - as I now see HRC-bashing posts with actual links to RW sites, authors, pundits, bloggers, etc.
DU ceased being what it initially was a long time ago, a place for actual Democrats to discuss the issues of the day. Now it's just another political message board that allows anyone to post here - so long as they "pretend" to be Democrats.
Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #16)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... is a RW talking point. You don't see any HRC supporters saying that - just like you don't see BS supporters claiming that "its his turn" - even though many feel it is "the turn" of a far-leftist progressive as opposed to what they call "the establishment" types, and I don't dispute their point in feeling that way.
No one is bullying anyone into voting for anyone - you are free to vote as you choose. No one is "demanding" anything.
But this is DemocraticUnderground, and you will actually come across Democrats (oh, nooooooeeesss!!!!) who believe that Democrats should elect their own to the WH, and not threaten to take their ball and go home if their preferred candidate is not the nominee.
Of course Clinton supporters are going to post positive polls for their candidate, just as BS supporters did when his poll numbers were on the rise all summer. That's what happens on a political message board when people are supporting different candidates.
If you find any of this to be offensive or "bullying" behaviour, or people "lording it over" others, this site might not be a good fit for you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Perhaps you hsve heard of them?
demwing
(16,916 posts)having been replaced by an invasive species known as the "Blue Dog."
Darb
(2,807 posts)I was Obama over Hillary last time. I am with Hillary this time. I like Bernie a lot though.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)I too was an adament Obama supporter in 2008. I liked the man and I responded to the hope that we could have a leader who was able to bridge the gap between communities and parties so that the nation could heal. There was no way to predict that the Republicans would dig in and adopt obstructionism as a form of governing. It had nothing to do with whether I saw him as anti-establishment or progressive. I watched him mend the pre-election divide with Hillary and saw her get on board to work with him as he did is best to try to dig the nation out of so many messes.
Sanders' mantle of anti-establishment will wind up being shredded by an incalcitrant Congress. Sanders is no Obama by any stretch of the imagination. I want a power player in there who has broad experience and a intimate knowledge of the internation dynamics. I will vote for Hillary. I don't need a saviour, I need a leader.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)but I also agree with the OP when considering the DU world.
There are some here from 2008 that never let the loss to Obama go.
CanadianComrade
(30 posts)As a Canadian, I can't be accused of having a horse in this fight. So none of what I have to say comes from anywhere like that. If I were to have a vote, I would place my vote for the eventual nominee, and either candidate would work in the end. But watching this from above a few things look pretty obvious....
First of all, you can't say that "nobody" sees Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton. A hell of a lot of people do, in fact, envision that happening. The fact is that at this point in the campaign last cycle, then-Senator Obama did not have near the support Bernie Sanders is producing this cycle. I checked. That's a fact. The Obama support grew later. So if Hillary Clinton has her supporters along this time, plus a lot of President Obama's supporters -- one would wonder where all of these Sanders supporters are coming from. Some supported Hillary last time, and many supported the President. It stands to reason and is just basic math.
Second, to suggest Sanders is not a persuasive speaker is ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, for some reason, and seems like the pettiness or possibly the defensiveness the OP was pointing out.
I don't think anyone really thinks the OP was saying that literally everyone who is attacking the Senator is doing so because of what happened to their candidate last time. But to many who did support her then, this is an all too familiar feeling, and a very frustrating one. You could even conclude that with the earlier support, Senator Sanders has a head start on doing to Mrs. Clinton what then-Senator Obama did last time. Certainly, if Sanders was not seen as a real threat, there would be no need at all for this defensive venom we've all seen on full-throated display. Yet there it is. Yes, for many, the sting really is still fresh, and even worse -- this is seen as Mrs. Clinton's last shot.
To not recognize these truths could be considered ludicrous, or politically naive. But using those words and making those accusations is counter productive and, sorry, quite telling. Far better though to just accept that everyone is entitled to their own choice, and mud-flinging now does nothing but future damage. Talk about differences on the issues instead of trying to stab with talk of racism, sexism and the like. Then it isn't personal and combative. The people you are engaging (your friends, remember?) won't feel attacked or insulted. Certain issues are more important to some voters, others may rank it differently. The only way to persuade is to talk it through, not insult or demonize. What issue makes you choose this person ahead of that person? Why is that important to you? Can you relate that message to someone else in your party so they will hopefully see it your way as well?
Going negative within your own party is never good in the long run. Hillary is not Michelle Bachmann and Bernie is not Louis Gohmert, so why attack them like they are? These are good people with differences on policy, nothing more, so treat it that way. Either Democrats are better than this or they aren't. It seems some are, but others have some more soul-searching to do.
Good luck everyone.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)The failure to do this is the genesis of a lot of friction. Another problem stems from psyops which seem intended to convince supporters of the other candidate that they are wasting their time, money, support.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I am trying to figure out where I said that - because I didn't. Obviously, BS has a lot of supporters who have donated both money and effort to his campaign, which I doubt they'd do if they didn't envision him winning.
"So if Hillary Clinton has her supporters along this time, plus a lot of President Obama's supporters -- one would wonder where all of these Sanders supporters are coming from."
You forget how many candidates there were in 2008 - there were Edwards supporters, Biden supporters, etc. Eventually it came down to Obama v HRC, and most people eventually supported their preference between the two. That doesn't mean that they completely abandoned their preference for one of the candidates who didn't survive the final cut. I know that a lot of Edwards supporters are now BS supporters, because they perceive the same sense of idealism in the two men. Some staunch Biden supporters have moved to BS since Joe decided not to run - far more of them went to HRC - again demonstrating that neither HRC nor BS have a "lock" on all Democrats, but HRC is definitely attracting more of them.
Are some former Obama supporters now BS supporters? Absolutely. But far more of them are now HRC supporters. And as I said earlier, many, many Obama supporters are mindful that BS wanted Obama primaried in 2012, and have not forgotten that. They are also cognizant of the fact that Obama chose HRC as SoS, and the two have worked closely together and are, for the most part, "on the same page" in many regards.
"Certainly, if Sanders was not seen as a real threat, there would be no need at all for this defensive venom we've all seen on full-throated display. Yet there it is. Yes, for many, the sting really is still fresh, and even worse -- this is seen as Mrs. Clinton's last shot."
The venom displayed here by HRC supporters has been a response to the BS supporters' constant attacks on Hillary - many of which are sourced from, and are a parroting of RW talking points. I know it's been a popular meme among BS supporters that Hill supporters are worried, scared - even terrified!!!. Well, when your candidate is this far ahead in the polls, it's obvious that it's the other side that's worried - and it becomes a classic case of projection.
To put down the "venom" from the HRC side as being due to "the sting" of her having lost her nomination bid in 2008 is really straw-grasping. And as for those who you think are supporting HRC because it's her last shot - let's not forget that for Bernie, this is his only shot.
In the end, there can be only one - and that "one" will be the candidate with the most support. And it is obvious that HRC has far more support than BS.
That's just the way it is.
CanadianComrade
(30 posts).....you kinda did say that. You say nobody expects Bernie to do what Obama did, "not by a long shot".
To suggest that much of the vitriol here directed towards Senator Sanders is a defensive response, well that seems a bit convenient. "He made a face at me first" is not an excuse, and quite frankly, I wouldn't let my children get away with that excuse, let alone grown adults.
And I've been over to visit the other place to see the discourse myself. It's much uglier than I expected, and the worst is not coming as defense at all. It is just insults and childish attacks one would expect from the likes of Ann Coulter. Sorry, but it is. It's tough to defend the indefensible. That doesn't excuse shots at Hillary either, but don't defend that garbage and pretend it's honorable.
You can call it straw grasping, but for many Hillary supporters, the OP rings very true.
And you know, while we are being careful to be quoted accurately, I did not say people were supporting Hillary because it was her last shot. I said some of them are desperate (straw-grasping, if you will) because if she loses this one too, well, that's it. And both times she was supposed to walk away with it.
And yes this is Bernie's only shot, as he's never run before. It isn't Hillary's only shot because she lost last time.
I notice you didn't bother quoting the other stuff I wrote -- the stuff about the language and accusatory tone and how it is self-defeating. It is you know. But nothing will improve if there are those who will defend it with a "he/she did it first!" excuse.
Like I said Nancy - you're either better than that or you aren't. Your decision in the end.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... didn't "kind of say that".
Bernie is NOT Obama, and pretending that he is doesn't help his cause.
As for what gets said here - language, accusatory tones, etc. - I really don't care. I care about a Democrat being elected POTUS next November, and all the accusations on DU against her aren't going to affect HRC's chances one way or the other.
DU is comprised of 85% BS supporters, 10% HRC supporters, and 5% undecideds. That is not reflective of the Democratic Party as a whole, as we all know - so looking at DU as some kind of measure of anything in the real world is just folly.
The vitriol goes back and forth between the factions on DU - and it has become an on-line game of "I can be nastier than you can". In the end, it is all meaningless. The average voter is not looking to DU for serious advice on who to support.
CanadianComrade
(30 posts)And I cited where you did. Changing it now to say you'd only stated Sanders is not Obama is misleading, but you know that.
It isn't just DU where there are words against HRC, but you know that, too. Nobody suggested DU is turning an election. And nobody said they were using DU as a "measure" of anything. Yes, that would be "folly". It would also be a strawman argument made by you.
Not caring about the language and vitriol both ways is part of the problem. If you truly cared about electing a Democrat for the White House next year, you'd care about how the debate between Democrats is done.
And I referred to the vitriol at the HRC site you frequent. That is majority HRC supporters by design, and is a cesspool of vitriolic insults. Oh right. You don't care. I forgot.
The OP, and me, never stated that this nastiness was a problem only here, because it isn't. And that is what both of us were speaking to. Strawman arguments don't help make your point, but they do draw a big red circle around the weakness of your argument, whatever that is. It seems to be that HRC is the greatest, is the inevitable nominee, and anyone who says otherwise deserves whatever they get in return. You're entitled to this opinion, if that is what you are arguing (seems to be but I can't tell - you're too busy arguing against points nobody has made), but it is one that isn't easy to respect.
If you don't agree that the nastiness and accusatory tone matters at all (not just here but in the national debate between supporters) - we will have to agree to disagree. It really is hard to see how you'd argue against having a debate on policy differences instead of throwing insults, but like I said twice now: You are either better than that it you aren't. I think we have our answer.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)In response to the OP's comment: "They (HRC supporters) see Bernie doing the same thing Obama did ...", I said that in the HRC camp, "No one sees 'Bernie doing the same thing Obama did - not by a longshot."
The OP was speaking specifically about HRC supporters, and I responded as an HRC supporter to the OP's ridiculous assertions about what HRC supporters are thinking.
Do BS supporters see him "doing the same thing Obama did"? Of course they do. This board is rife with posts from the BS camp stating exactly that, over and over since BS announced.
Bernie Sanders is NOT Obama in any way, shape or form. But that doesn't dissuade his fans from insisting that he is.
As for the rest of your reply, I am really not interested.
CanadianComrade
(30 posts)....so you'll continue with the irrelevant things you comment on (like how you think as a Hillary supporter you represent all Hillary supporters and somehow know their thinking and reasoning), and ignore whatever refutes your position or makes you look bad. Try actually addressing the matter at hand once. Try following the conversation to at least attempt to understand the discussion. Try answering the points made without resorting to childish condescension ("try actually reading" . Trust me, I can read just fine. And stop playing the victim afterwards, pretending like this kind of discourse doesn't invite a response in kind. If that is why Sanders supporters seem so mean to you, perhaps the problem isn't with them.
I love how you claim to be so un-worried about Sanders but you can't seem to stop yourself from looking waaaaay too worried about Sanders. If he isn't a threat, why all the craziness? That's rhetorical. I've had quite enough of your strawman army. I'm really, really relieved that as a Hillary supporter, you are far from representative of others that support her.
Like I said, I have my answer, and you keep driving that home with each subsequent comment. I don't even have a dog in this fight and I can see through this like used Neutrogena.
I think the discussion should be about differences in policy and not about insults thrown back and forth between supporters. You don't. 'Nuff said right there. Good luck.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that someone responding as an HRC supporter means speaking for all HRC supporters, you obviously have problems with reading comprehension.
CanadianComrade
(30 posts)"...and I responded as an HRC supporter to the OP's ridiculous assertions about what HRC supporters are thinking."
Said Nancy. Because as an HRC supporter, you are qualified to say what they are thinking, or not thinking, right? Some kind of mind-meld happening there?
Your words have meanings Nancy. If you don't like being held accountable for what it is you are saying, try not saying it.
"As an HRC supporter....." Lol
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)But my patience in trying to deal with your inability to understand common language usage has now been exhausted.
CanadianComrade
(30 posts)And ashamed, quite frankly.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... because your opinion of me is just so vitally important.
CanadianComrade
(30 posts)But at some point a little self awareness might make you a better person.
But I have a sneaking suspicion you're one of those "ends justifies the means" types. Your choice.
Like I've said repeatedly - you're either better than that or you aren't. And lady, you aren't.
I'm done talking to this particular piece of furniture. You're dismissed.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)talking to a couple of Canadians about politics. Not going to go into many specifics, but will say I was very happy with what they said. AND, as you they don't have a dog in our fight. I know where my allegiance is, but some of this crap that gets thrown around here is simply astounding AND childish.
CanadianComrade
(30 posts)And I agree with what you said.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)a long time ago. I've left and come back quite a few times and I could have missed your return. It's just a question because I remember your name and some of your journalistic posts.
Doesn't matter that I don't agree with you, right now I'm just wondering.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... (I think that's right) to write articles for another website. DU had become far too anti-Obama/anti-Dem by then, and it was no longer a good fit for me here.
I post here now in a very different way than I used to. I no longer see DU as a "Democratic site", but just another political message board. And I post accordingly.
I lost my husband (JeffR of DUzy fame, and long-time participant in the Photo Group) very unexpectedly in May. So I guess I spend more time here, and other political sites, than I should - now that I can no longer discuss politics with him, which was always a big part of our conversations.
It doesn't matter that you don't agree with me - I appreciate your remembering me, and taking the time to ask where I've been.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)Obviously the reason I asked. Was just wondering. As I said I've left and come back many times myself as you can see by my number of posts. Been a member since 2004 and so many others from back then are gone.
Of course our differences of opinion are simply that as I don't like getting into many of the "ready to rumble" posts. I will have to say right now I'm getting a little turned off again.
I also remember your husband but must have been "out" when he passed away.
As I see we do support different candidates, but it's just a matter of choice right now. Politics has been something I've been involved with for more years than many here, but perhaps a crazy addiction. Wish it weren't so at times because the "game" and atmosphere has changed dramatically over time. But these discussions will be played out here.
I'm sure we'll be involved in more discussion here as time goes by, so welcome again.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... and the welcome back!
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)And the preemptive "I'm going to be attacked for this post" was a nice touch.
This board is 90% or so for Bernie. And that echo chamber is probably why OPs claiming African Americans have Stockholm Syndrome or that LGBT activists who support HRC are voting against their own interests can earn huge numbers of recs.
Heck, the second reply to your op is a statement that us HRC voters aren't capable of judging her beyond her gender.
Don't pretend Bernie supporters haven't brought some of the tiny amount of grief they're given on DU on themselves.
murielm99
(30,656 posts)Compared to what they, as about 90% of DU, are doing to others.
I was one of the people who always liked Bernie. My kid lives in Burlington.
I was open-minded enough to attend a rally in Madison, until I missed my ride and had to stay home. I was going to see what he had to say.
I don't think he is viable as someone to win the general. I support Hillary. I like her for her qualifications and experience. I like her because I think she can win. A Republican would be unthinkable.
Until I was attacked for my Clinton support here, and I do mean attacked, I did not take anything personally. Then, I saw the number of people being silenced by Bernie supporters.
I would like Bernie to go back to his state and continue being Senator. He is needed.
I will continue my support for my candidate. I will continue to criticize Bernie supporters, who by far, are the ones causing so much of the anger and division on DU.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I honestly don't think I would worry about him selling me out nearly as much as I would with Clinton.
So, from that perspective I guess LGBT activists are voting against their better interests.
Again, that is my opinion. Hope it's allowed.
There are track records to compare that are the basis for this opinion and have been discussed many times here.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)
disturbing graphic today on CNN. It was only in passing at the airport, so I don't know how or who conducted the poll. It was Jake Tapper's show. The point was that though she polls well with Democrats, she is not "liked" or "trusted" by the majority of the rest of the country. She's scores over 50% on "distrust".
Like you, I feel the Bern and will have to vote for her in the general, but it's only because the Repugs have such terrifying candidates that she'll stand a chance with Independents.
It's a damn shame, because I really don't think she'll be able to be all that effective if she makes it to the WH.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)About HRC. Outside of Democratic ranks, she is not liked or trusted, and she's downright hated by many in the opposing ranks. That hatred may very well result in big voter turnout for the GOP.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)And she and her husband are like scandal-porn for the RW and the media, and we'll face that non-stop for the four years of her term, if she makes it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)On who Republicans and Indies like?
Does that make sense to either of you?
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
at all. We should have a deeper bench that has been developed by the Democratic party at all levels. (See Charlie Pierce post on DU this morning). Rather than a chosen one that the party has stove piped to the top.
We should have a frontrunner who does not have so much baggage. It is a real concern that the RW hates her with a white hot hatred and it will galvanize their base whereas HRC and DWS have risked suppressing the Democratic base. It's not about the Dems having a candidate that Indies and Repugs likeit's about having a frontrunner that the majority of the country trusts. and doesn't distrust. That gives me the willies.
It's dangerous to insist on HRC.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and it is NOT dangerous....she is well respected among DEMOCRATS and that is what I am interested in....
zentrum
(9,865 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Accuracy is not dependent on charm. Charm is in fact, irreverent to accuracy. Unless of course, one maintains the pretense that 22-2=24-4 is full of charm, decorum and likability-- and that mathematics and charm are predicated one on the other.
hueymahl
(2,415 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)you were?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)It's a shame that that is so, but it is.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Bernie will be able to be effective in the White House? Pshaw, he'd be black-balled faster than Obama was and that happened on Day 1.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 04:35 AM - Edit history (1)
on a anyone-but-Hillary kick long before Bernie declared his candidacy.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and for some has never ended.
Response to pnwmom (Reply #22)
Name removed Message auto-removed
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)WTF has dhe done dirty?
I Suwannee you Sanders supporters will say anything...
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)And worse the dog-whistle racism back in 2008 counts as 'dirty' to many of us.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You havent followed politics long have you? Compared to the shit Sanders supporters fling at her.....thats downright laughable
Keep digging
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Between what random people on the internet say, and what the candidates themselves say.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)then I call "implying" that she is screaming is sexist....you know if WHAT the candidate says is the only important thing....and since JUST the "implication" is enough to indict her....then HIS falls under the same scrutiny !
Boy you all are NOT ready for the Republicans in the GE! If you think THAT is dirty.....they will peel your eyelids back!
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)When you know damn well that is not the case, is a cheap smear. Yes unfortunately we expect that kind of dirt in the general, but within the party it should be completely unacceptable. It's sad that you apparently think anything goes these days, and even sadder that you just doubled down on the ridiculous sexism claim.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Its just as "clear" as his implication that SHE was screaming....
Like I said....if that sticks under your craw...you are NOT ready for what the Republicans will fling at your candidate. Do you think they will ignore him if he were in the GE like they do now? You are in for a rude awaking should that happen.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Really classy. As for the Republicans, like I said in my last post, you expect that in the general, in the primary when it might be your eventual nominee you're smearing, that's totally unacceptable.
djean111
(14,255 posts)And totally totally expected and business as usual.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)and, of course, anyone who cares to read the entire quote will know this detail.
riversedge
(69,725 posts)happened in may or June.
Response to riversedge (Reply #26)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And so did Carter.
Establishment Democratic candidates just don't win the presidency.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)In these very difficult times, he is an established politician, he has been in politics for a long time, he has been in congress since 1991, that is twenty five years, which if he is right on this theory then he can't get the job done. This is what Sanders is saying.
riversedge
(69,725 posts)puts Sanders pitted up with Trump, Carson--the outsiders. crapola served
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Assume she wins both the primary and GE and is sworn in. She has promised to overturn Citizen's United has she not?
My question is what motive does she really have for doing so? She will have to run for re-election in 2020 (I am assuming if elected she would serve two terms, correct me if I'm wrong). Given that elections are getting more expensive, what will be the first thing she'll start doing once elected? Fundraising for re-election. Assuming she has a Republican House and a Democratic Senate (both fair assumptions given the fact that the CD are so jerryrigged), she then can say it's not her fault. Her way out of this whole thing is already set and she can continue to take advantage Citizen's United while the rest of us get screwed.
So here is where I walk the talk: The first mid-term elections into the next presidential term are three years away. I will still be here, you will still be here. If she is elected and Citizen's United isn't overturned you donate $100 to the charity (not political) of my choice. If it is, I will gladly donate $100 to the charity (not political) of your choice.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Not just say it? Concluding only Sanders can or fix CU according to Sanders, he hasn't proceeded with actions while he remains in congress and this is exactly where the action needs to start. No, I heard what Sanders said, I can take him at his word of what he says, not other interpretations to cover what he said.
I dont buy the reasoning Clinton will not work to get CU overturned based on elections being expensive, if overturned all candidates will be under the same rule, no advantage to any candidate. I would never bet on what congress is going to do, based on the fact current members is not taking action, the president can not use executive order to overturn a SC decision. Since I donate more than $100 to charity on regular basis that part isn't a problem.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I was just talking to DFW in another thread about this. Congress is one way, SCOTUS is another, a constitutional amendment is yet another.
In terms of what Sanders has done: you asked a straight forward question, so I'm going to give you a straight forward answer:
Bernie Sanders Files A New Constitutional Amendment To Overturn Citizens United
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is renewing his efforts to rid the country of Citizens United by introducing a new constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Courts decision.
SECTION 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power of Congress and the States to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, limit the corrupting influence of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the dependence of elected officials on the people alone by taking actions which may include the establishment of systems of public financing for elections, the imposition of requirements to ensure the disclosure of contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of a public election by candidates, individuals, and associations of individuals, and the imposition of content neutra limitations on all such contributions and expenditures.
SECTION 3. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter the freedom of the press.
snip
President Obama endorsed the Sanders constitutional amendment in 2012, and explained the rationale behind it, Money has always been a factor in politics, but we are seeing something new in the no-holds barred flow of seven and eight figure checks, most undisclosed, into super-PACs; they fundamentally threaten to overwhelm the political process over the long run and drown out the voices of ordinary citizens. We need to start with passing the Disclose Act that is already written and been sponsored in Congress to at least force disclosure of who is giving to who. We should also pass legislation prohibiting the bundling of campaign contributions from lobbyists. Over the longer term, I think we need to seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United (assuming the Supreme Court doesnt revisit it). Even if the amendment process falls short, it can shine a spotlight of the super-PAC phenomenon and help apply pressure for change.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/21/bernie-sanders-files-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united.html
That's all I can post without going too far over the limit. Even President Obama endorsed the constitutional amendment he proposed. So yes, Bernie Sanders HAS done something about it.
Again, assuming Hillary Clinton wins the primary and GE I am skeptical she will do anything to help overturn CU. As I was telling DFW in the other thread, the way I see it is CU is like a huge knot and only by undoing that knot will some of these other important issues be solved. I get it people are passionate about their candidate and their issues, but what will get accomplished if that knot is in the way? Not a damn thing.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And has this as one of her issues.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/14/hillary-clinton-rocks-kochs-announcing-support-overturning-citizens-united.html
Now I hope this skepticism will go away for you.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)The question is will she hold to that.
The first article mentioned her book, which I have, but have not gotten to. Hopefully I can read it before my primary. I have lots of time. It isn't until May.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)things said during this campaign in which I know is not going to happen. Thinking the SC we currently have is going to overturn CU is something to be skeptic about, I don't anticipate these same people is going to reverse their decision. The only reason is republicans has found Democrats are capable of raising as much or more money they have.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I also agree that there is no guarantee once a candidate is elected (any candidate for that matter) that they will do what they say. The problem again is the longer we have CU in place, the further damage is going to be done. CU is essentially stopping us from getting the people we need elected to get elected to put more changes in place. President Obama has been hamstrung by assholes in Congress and has done what he has been able to do. The next president will have just as difficult of a time getting things done as President Obama if CU is not overturned. That means the 1% gets more and more and those of us who are in the 99% (I'm assuming you are as well) will only have it tougher.
BTW I actually don't even live in the US anymore, but I still care enough about the people there to want to see change. Specifically I'd like to see the health care system go to single payer or universal. I have been sick as a dog this week and was able to walk into any doctor's office I wanted to get seen by a doctor. My copay was about $4 and my medication was less than that. Many of us who live overseas are lucky because we have awesome health insurance. I'm not saying the ACA is bad, just that there is so much more that can be done.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It couldn't be any more obvious.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)At least here on DU.
Also, the Obama thing is silly. Like many Hillary supporters this time around, I was an Obama supporter in 2007/2008.
The behavior of some Bernie supporters this time around reminds me very much of the Hillary supporters towards the end of the 2008 campaign, particularly the ones who proudly claim that they won't vote for the Dem nominee if it's not their top choice.
Anyway, I'm glad to see that you'll be voting for Hillary in the General. That's what matters anyway, in a few months we're all on the same team.
smiley
(1,432 posts)it says a lot more about Hillary than it does Berni Sanders.
BTW... I'm an indy with heavy dislike for HRC. But if she wins the nomination I will hold my nose.... again.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)I was Obama and am now Hillary. And I like Bernie a great deal. I do see much hate of Hillary by many Bernie people though, if they are real Bernie people and not baggers in disguise. Before you alert you little alerter mice, I am not calling anyone a bagger. I am jussayin' the opinion of Hillary by some Berners (if real) and all baggers are eeeerily similar. Actually, identical in their level of contempt I'd say.
luvspeas
(1,883 posts)in greater and greater numbers. Showing their true colors (not blue)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)being spewed by the same people who have been spewing it at Obama for the last 7 years. I think you've got it backward,most Clinton supporters also have been happy with Obama,the demographics she leads with(which are almost every demographic in the party) prove that.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Or at least were part of our charming BOG, and are using the same tactics they used to defend the Obama administration from any and all criticism. It is the same mentality that defended capitulation by congressional democrats during the Bush administration. I don't buy that this is the revenge of the pumas, it is just more of the continual battle here and elsewhere between centrist establishment Democrats and the disorganized left wing of the party.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)That doesn't mean there isn't a puma factor. It's there, very loud, and organizing things.
It's strange to watch certain so-called liberals who were so angry at Hillary's last lost that they organized the vote FOR McCain against Obama in the 2008 and 2012 General Elections repackage themselves as the best buddies of the people who are so blindingly loyal to Obama, they wouldn't tolerate any criticism of him on policies.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Let's check something ...
Some on this site have accused Obama of all manner of evil.
They were SURE he'd never end DADT.
They were SURE he'd never support ending DOMA.
They were SURE he'd never pull out of Iraq.
They were SURE he'd extend all of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
They were SURE he'd gut / cut / destroy Social Security and Medicare.
They were SURE that the ACA would be a DISASTER!!
They were SURE he'd collapse the economy and cause a double dip recession.
They were SURE he'd invade Syria much like Bush invaded Iraq.
They were SURE he'd invade Iran much like Bush invaded Iraq.
They were SURE he'd invade Libya much like Bush invaded Iraq.
They were SURE he'd invade Egypt much like Bush invaded Iraq.
I could go on ...
... but the point is ... the folks on this site screaming bloody murder about Obama for the last 6+ years have been WRONG over and over and over.
And who do we find on DU screaming loudest and the in the angriest voices about Hillary now??
The same perpetually disgruntled, and perpetually WRONG, folks that spent the last 6+ years attacking Obama.
If what you called the "disorganized left" wants to be taken seriously ... its going to have to be RIGHT some of the time.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)We've pulled back into Iraq.
The Bush tax cuts remain in place.
We are now stuck in Syria.
We collapsed Libya into a militia mess, Iraq style.
We didn't invade Egypt, we illegally supported a military coup that overthrew an elected government and re-established the dictatorship.
We are stuck in afghanistan, which you left off the list.
Most of us have given Obama credit for his about face on gay rights starting in the 2012 election campaign. That may be the greatest achievement of his administration. However he ran against gay rights in 2008 and pandered to the homophobic bigotry of the religious right in that campaign.
Many of us think the ACA is better than nothing but far less than we should have accomplished in that brief window when we had a functional majority in congress. He went for way too little in some misbegotten fantasy that republicans were reasonable people who would work with democrats to do the right thing for the american people.
Response to Feeling the Bern (Original post)
Post removed
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)I wish I could pack a mirror onto this post so you all could take a look at yourselves. I don't see sweetness and light pouring out of "Team Sanders."
I support Hillary and I have stated why on several posts. Does it occur to people that perhaps that support might be genuine and not be due to political gamesmanship?
Blue_Adept
(6,384 posts)Any genuine support is likely bought and pair for by the machine that maintains the status quo!
Or, as seen elsewhere, $tatu$ quo. Frankly, I find it hard to take people seriously people that throw $ into words to make it seem like they're emphasizing a point. Just strikes me as childish.
It's all just comical. I sort of play-advocate for Hillary around here simply because for the bulk of the summer and into September there were very few supporters of hers sticking around, particularly with some of the "purges" that were going on that caused some more well know members to abandon ship.
In the end I don't support any candidate during primary season because it's frickin' pointless for me to do so. Our primary is on March 1st, 2016. And I largely expect things to shift and change hard during the events of February where it'll all shake out and be pretty obvious by then, if not by January, where things are going.
I've lost my heart to candidates several times in the past only to see them not get far in the primaries. And then to see their true colors afterwards. Oh, my poor Edwards...
So I'll let the hardcore dig into it and work it all out. I'll support whoever comes out of the process because it means they can survive it and navigate the big pond out there.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)I don't see a lot of venom directed at Bernie.
As far as Bernies supporters, its a two way street.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)The Hillary supporters went after Obama supporters in the exact way they're now going after Bernie supporters. It makes you hate politics.
Blue_Adept
(6,384 posts)How do you reconcile that?
And frankly, a good number of people have been long, long, gone since 2008. Most folks do not stick around forums, political or otherwise, for eight years. The majority you may be thinking of likely aren't even here anymore.
demwing
(16,916 posts)and many people like the status quo.
They didn't like Obama when he challenged the PTB, but they love him now that he represents those same powerful interests, and that is why some Obama support has transferred to Hillary.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)I recognize some of the same suspects from 2008, but I'm not naming names.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)A good candidate simply brushes off attacks. Good supporters do, too, IMO. Otherwise, you come across as something like the GOP candidates whining about debate questions.
My advice for the next few months: relax.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)I don't think Camp Sanders would fare all that well.
randome
(34,845 posts)"We're millionaires, boys! I'll share it with all of you!" -Carl Denham.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)And take the money and run before the unhealthy side effects became too apparent.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)The reason for the venom is that many Hillary supporters are responding in kind.
At first we were stunned by the ugly vitrolic seemingly hatred of Clinton. And we countered the baseless arguments.
But, they continued and grew louder and more detached from issues...and we became angry.
And now, we just shake our heads and cannot believe that "progressives" act the way many Sanders supporters on this board have been acting.
Take a look in the mirror. You may find the real reason.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)From day one of Sanders announcing his candidacy, there has been an utterly vile and vicious contingent of supporters. The very day of his announcement, when Clinton supporters were welcoming him into the race, certain supporters were demanding the rest of us "have a big cup of shut the fuck up."
Then there was the utterly tone deaf attitudes toward African Americans--patronizing bullshit about MLK, stupid suggestions of Stockholm Syndrome, and going so far as to call certain BLM activists angry, black, Tea Party, Soros-funded lesbians.
Then there was the hilarious parroting of Gowdy talking points from RW media to further a wasteful taxpayer-funded, blatantly-partisan witch hunt, while simultaneously declaring any criticism, no matter how mild, of Sanders as part of a vast RW/DLC/corporate conspiracy.
This is shit that Sanders wouldn't even think to engage in, but is just expected out of a certain contingent of his supporters.
When people say certain Sanders supporters are acting like complete assholes, it's not an attack on Sanders, despite what the aforementioned asshole supporters like to assert; it's people saying certain Sanders supporters are acting like complete assholes.
betsuni
(25,128 posts)Faux pas
(14,582 posts)Of course, and do it the rethug, oops, turd way.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I was an extreme partisan and was probably annoying to the others, to boot. But politics is about finding points of unity, and some of us joined hands with supporters of other candidates after the primary. That's what adults do.
I don't see Bernie doing a single thing like Obama did.
postatomic
(1,771 posts)Do you know how many Hillary supporters have been driven off by the Snark and Gotcha' from the Sanders supporters.
What's that old expression; "No matter how flat the pancake there is always two sides."
No more venom from me. I feel that the days of Wine and Roses are over. I'll still point out inaccurate and false statements just to keep things real but mostly I will focus on the positive elements of the Hillary Campaign. It's just not worth the elevated Blood Pressure.
You can say whatever you like.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think it was Gandhi who wrote, I like your candidate, I do not like your candidate's supporters. Your candidate's supporters are so unlike your candidate.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other... and each dramatically lacking any real substance, supporting evidence or even a conclusion.
Five points for the preemptive self-martyrdom though-- as the implication that criticism is actually a merciless attack on the innocent, besides a wonderful wee bit of self-validation, solidifies my impression of the dogmatic and myopic supporters of an otherwise fine candidate
(Note to the Under-Educated and Grammatically Challenged: the additional qualifier of "dogmatic and myopic" supporters distances itself from merely the supporter, thus creating its own distinct demographic)
randys1
(16,286 posts)The alert stalking at this place and you can post this with a straight face?
jesus
Beacool
(30,244 posts)The only thing I have seen here for months on end is constant attacks on Hillary.
People who dish it out, should be able to take it too.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)the premise of this post seems to fall apart under scrutiny. You seem like an intelligent enough person, so considering your twenty-five years of wisdom, it seems odd that you'd assume that the only people supporting Hillary now are the same ones who supported her then.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)could not only take on the Republican Party but BEAT them to the White House.
Now I've elected to support Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nominee because I believe she'll not only take on the Republican Party but BEAT them to the White House.
I have no faith that Senator Sanders has that gravitas and political skill. I have no faith in him that he'll get anything done for the American people should he become president. He'll need Congress' help for that, but he has no support in Congress amongst Democrats despite having been a colleague for 25 years. That tells me something about his character. At any rate, no allies in Congress translates to all his campaign promises amounting to exactly nada.
Still, if he's the Democratic nominee, I WILL vote for him. He's a thousand times better than any Republican.
JTShroyer
(246 posts)You are doing exactly what the GOP wants you to be doing. Bernie flip-flopped on Hillary's e-mails
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)weakened the Chosen One for the general?
And if she is weakened for that gaggle of shitstains on the Republican side, she's is trouble.
George II
(67,782 posts)Hekate
(90,196 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There. I finished your subject line for you.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Mickey Mouse and still carry 30-35 states.
But what do I know? I don't have a radio show. I'm just a professor of the subject.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)a question of whether people in large numbers SEE them as slime? Seems to me that history is littered with examples of the two points being confused.
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Mr. Stevenson "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"