2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe DNC declared war on 85% of Democratic Underground's members today
Maybe 90%. I forget the percentage of us that preferred Bernie in the last DU poll.
They ask for cash. They demand obedience. And they spit in our faces, attacking a good man who's fighting for the 99%.
They deny him a platform to state his case by limiting debates, and demanding he not participate in any debates but theirs.
Their buddies who own the press stifle coverage of the unprecedented grass-roots support, the Democrats, Republicans and independents who all agree that he speaks for us.
And now they steal his mailing lists.
Well, fuck that. Just fuck that. I'm voting Bernie in the general election, no matter what happens in the primary; no more "who the fuck else ya gonna vote for, suckers?!!" from that crowd of bloodsuckers and swine. I'm tired of having my life served up to the highest bidder and you should be, too.
Vote Bernie next November!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
peacebird
(14,195 posts)dWS and HRC be damned.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)
senz
(11,945 posts)We can't assume he won't win the primary. 
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)Bad move DWS!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
SCantiGOP
(14,720 posts)Think
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
DocMac
(1,628 posts)When the sun comes up tomorrow, the light will disinfect this mess.
Feel that Bern!!!
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)to George F. Bush.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)And quit with the guilt trip.
Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #128)
saturnsring This message was self-deleted by its author.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)as many or more R votes went to Nader as D or I.
ie, Nader wasn't the problem.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)(But I'm thinking Gore probably never said that.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
senz
(11,945 posts)Pnwmom, it just so happens I agree with you about Nader. I think he's twisted and hateful, and I know he did what he did deliberately to hurt the Democratic Party, which he hated. He admitted it.
But don't dare even try to suggest that Bernie is anything like Nader.
He is not. Not even slightly.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)as an Indie.
I told the poster the poster sounded like Nader, not Bernie.
Nader practically invented the term "corporatist" in its modern usage. But he went on to toss the election to Bush & Co.
Which, as we agree, Bernie would never do.
senz
(11,945 posts)
beardown
(363 posts)It's day's away from 2016. Try and and least stay in the decade to be remotely relevant.
Gore cost Gore the election. Started by picking that progressive champion Joe Lieberman who has almost as many DU attacks as Bush the Stupid did.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)Throwing away a vote on someone who can't win, when there's a good enough Democrat who can, is the height of stupidity.
We are not at that point now. I'm talking about in the general. Anyone in the general who writes in a candidate or votes third party or refuses to vote will just be helping toss the election to the Rethugs.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)antagonizing fellow Democrats because you really do need us and you really are losing many.
rpannier
(24,925 posts)Alito and Roberts over-and-over
Because they're the gifts that keep on giving
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Get THIS:
A mild mannered consumer activist with no money, single-handedly knocked the wheels off the entire Democratic Party!!!
That is some potent Gris-gris!
Truth is, the Democratic Party GAVE those votes away by moving to the middle and ignoring the Pro-LABOR, anti-Free Trade Left.
Really....Lieberman for a running mate?
Sounds like the Party Leadership was TRYING to scare traditional Democratic voters away.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)Yep. Insulting 95,000 voters will surely win their Hearts & Minds to vote for another conservative Democrat this year..... top it off with whining and blaming the troops for a Failure of Leadership!!!
You GO girl! Keep up the good work!
This election season, you better stay away from phone banks and canvassing, and stick to stuffing envelopes, because your Bedside Manner is not well thought out.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)200000 registered florida dems who voted for bush?
Funny how voters are blamed but not conservative democrats who voted for bush.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Hippies need to be punched and conservative democrats need to be coddled. It is sort of the Rahm Emmanuel way.
gordyfl
(598 posts)And did the Dems learn much from 2000?
For the answer - look at election 2004.
The DNC spent a lot of their contributions chasing down Nader. Dragging him into court. Trying their best to have Nader's name removed from state ballots, knowing full well he would be reinstated, but at the very end of the list of candidates. I thought that was pathetic.
That's not the way to win elections.
When I heard what the DNC did to Bernie on the data breach, it had reminded me of election 2004. I call it dirty tactics.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)happened. A major crime was committed by the USSC. Why are you defending them?
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)He was a DLC'er all the way, a committed Third Way center/right corporatist, who couldn't even carry the voters of his home state.
Gore lost voters to Nader because he was Gore, and nothing else.
And it was shown that Gore took Florida, if he had been more legally aggressive he would have been President and the USSC would never been able to install Bush.
TexasBushwhacker
(21,204 posts)he would not have needed Florida.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)But there is no evidence of that.
No matter, the corruption around Hillary is just too much for most people anymore.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)who could not have been happy watching Bush get elected.
NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Bush of FL, (3) Gore actually had 500,000+ votes more than Bush did................., in spite of
all of which, Gore "lost."?
It was a stolen election! The only people to put the blame on are the Republicans.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)That was Nader's fault. He lied and said there was no difference between Gore and Bush, and got 95,000 people to vote for him.
If just a thousand of them had voted for him instead, it never would have gotten to SCOTUS despite the efforts of Jeb, Harrison etc.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)lot of people today, who believe there is no difference between the Dems. and the
Repubs., that both are under the thumbs of the business corporations that
are dragging our nation into hell. I believe that many Dems. are under the thumbs
of corporations, but not all. And the possibility of being dragged into hell is quite
real. They sure are doing their best to have it accomplished, at any rate.
gordyfl
(598 posts)...especially from people who don't vote. "What difference does it it make?" and "They're all the same." I hear it all the time.
FDR didn't win elections because he was the lesser of two evils. No one believed he was bought and paid for. They trusted him. They liked him.
"I didn"t know him, but he knew me."
gordyfl
(598 posts)Al Gore had carried his home state. He did not. If he won his home state, FL means nothing.
Most "presidents" carry their home state.
gordyfl
(598 posts)Dems couldn't motivate the voters enough to defeat Bush. Sad...
Bernie is motivating the Democratic base. He motivates Independents. That spells victory in November - if he can get past the corporate democrats in the Primary.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)She just needs to fall on her sword and acknowledge the reality that she simply is never going to be President...because enough of us will to insure she can't win by withholding our support. She's going to lose close Democratic-leaning states like wildfire. There is only one way we hold the White House...and it's Hillary dropping her campaign so the party can coalesce around a supportable Democratic candidate.
Today. Now. Her Christmas present to America. Going the F away forever. Retirement into being do-nothing, stay-at-home Grandma. We'll even acquiesce to her granddaughter calling her "Madame President" as long as Hillary acknowledges she'll never actually ever be President.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #146)
Post removed
Glad that one was hidden.
senz
(11,945 posts)It only sounds that way to you because you adore Hillary Clinton and cannot bear to see her criticized.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)But I agree his subsequent post was so much worse this one paled by comparison.
senz
(11,945 posts)"stay at home" is iffy, I'll grant you that. But it's not so iffy that it deserves a hide, fergodsake.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)I save it for Republicans.
creeksneakers2
(8,016 posts)You want to force everyone in the party who doesn't agree with you to go along with your minority position. To accomplish this you're willing to sacrifice the millions who would be harmed by a Republican administration.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Could not even carry his own home state, FFS! And no one held a gun to Gores head ro force him to concede. So just stop with the 'Nader was a spoiler' BS.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes . In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 ." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 20, 2015, 08:13 AM - Edit history (1)
Ballot' in Palm Beach County. Buchanan HIMSELF has acknowledged those votes were almost exclusively meant for Gore. So why do you put the blame exclusively on Nader?????? ANSWER: you have an agenda and it doesn't include the truth.
Please allow me:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/palmbeach.recount/index.html?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
Cal33
(7,018 posts)vt_native
(484 posts)Gore won and should have pushed for a full recount in Florida.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
Mbrow
(1,090 posts)don't forget the illegal voter purges as well...
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)But Katherine Harris never pretended to be a progressive. Nader did, but tossed the election to Bush. On purpose.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes . In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 ." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)the fight long enough to coalesce a fighting strategy. All of the dirty shit that was exposed later might have been exposed in time to affect a fair election count.
Put another way, if it had been a Republican in Gore's exact circumstances I believe they would have won.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)if Nader hadn't won 95,000 votes in Florida, drawn mostly from progressives.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes . In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 ." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes . In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 ." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)The only way one could have been achieved was by court order (which the Florida Supreme Court did mandate) or by permission of the governor (Jeb). Obviously the latter was not going to happen, but the Florida Supreme Court did order a statewide recount, which as I am sure you know, the Supreme Court stopped.
The US Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to intervene. The Florida Supreme Court should have had the last word.
Sam
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes . In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 ." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)oh yeah, daddybush, no doubt, had a lot to do with that.
But using Ralph Nader as the scapegoat is, frankly, shameful!
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)himself into the swing state contests, Bush would never have gotten close enough to have had a chance.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...had not left a big vacuum on the Pro-LABOR Left,
there would have been no Nader.
The Clinton Administration created Nader by ignoring The Left.
If not Nader, it would have been someone else.
The point is, if the troops don't show up,
THAT is always the fault of LEADERSHIP,
not the troops.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)to the SCOTUS. if he hadn't been in the race it would never have been close.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes . In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 ." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)and it didn't matter if his actions helped Bush win.
He was lying.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes . In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 ." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)JanMichael
(25,725 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)gordyfl
(598 posts)Lieberman, VP running mate of Al Gore and future Republican spokesman. What was Gore thinking?
SCantiGOP
(14,720 posts)Saying you would write in Sanders in the general election is basically the same as voting for the Republican.
technically it would be the same as NOT voting. If you VOTED R then it would be the same.
subject
(123 posts)you have effectively voted for whoever wins.
Locrian
(4,523 posts)If you don't vote - you didn't help your candidate WIN. But you didn't "vote" for the other
no vote a1 a2
vote for a1+1 a2
vote against a1+0 a2+1
maybe I'm being pedantic - but it's just math. I do get your point - that you're not contributing to the better candidate.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)lobodons
(1,290 posts)Chief Justice Roberts, 2 illegal wars, thousands of dead Americans soldiers, hundreds of thousands dead innocent Iraqi women and children, Trillions of $$ squandered in said illegal wars, lost world wide reputation just to name a few things those who did not vote for the Democratic ticket in 2000 gave us.
Just 500 people who did not vote for the Dem in 2000 in Florida gave us all those and more.
SO YES, your vote does count for the whole country especially if you are in a swing state. The whole country is depending on you and us all to make sure a D wins in 2016 and not an R no matter who they are. No candidate is perfect. But we cannot afford to have an R win in 2016!!!!!!
You gotta look at the big picture. The pendulum is swinging back to the left. Bernie is just a few years too soon. It will get here, but we cannot let it halt and or go back to the right with an R in 2016!!
gordyfl
(598 posts)Illegal wars and all, Bush was re-elected.
"In a democracy the people always get the leaders they deserve."
merrily
(45,251 posts)The TW Dems who crossed Party lines in FL to vote for Dimson far outnumbered Nader voters--who were not all regular Democratic voters anyway.
BTW, Nader received votes. He didn't take them.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)What exactly do you gain from it? Every*Single*Bernie*Thread.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)beardown
(363 posts)Not only are you stuck in 2000 and it appears you've failed to advance your political views so you are set to repeat your 2000 mistake all over again.
Geez, what's worse? Bigots crying over the south losing the Civil War in 1865 or corporate dems crying over Lieberman losing the 2000 election?
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)You must have loved him.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)resolutions. They didn't give Bush a blank check, but he wrote one anyway. And by then the Rethugs were controlling both houses and he could have had a blank check from them.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)in support of the UN resolutions. She didn't vote for Bush to go to war without finding any WMD's.
Unfortunately, she based her vote on false information Congress was given by the Bush Administration.
Sen. Ted Kennedy said he could understand the votes of people who were taken in by Bush, Colin Powell, etc., because they didn't have access to the same information he did. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, he had read confidential intelligence reports that undermined what the Bush administration was saying. But these were CLASSIFIED reports so he couldn't share them with Hillary or anyone else not on the committee.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)The Supreme Court handed the win to Bush, not Nader. Gore won Florida, there is a lot of evidence, do a search.
Please pay attention.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
Matariki
(18,775 posts)On Sat Dec 19, 2015, 12:57 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
I am voting Bernie in the primary, and I will write him in in the General
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=916252
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
The poster is not only promising to vote for Bernie no matter who is the nominee, s/he's saying, "HRC be damned." Over the top and doesn't belong on a Democratic site.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 19, 2015, 01:03 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just no. Stop alert trolling.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh take a pill, alerter.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Her vote her business, unless you're a fascist.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: TOS requires DU members to vote for the Dem candidate. HIDE.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Until the nom is chosen however I can support my candidate.
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)That's fucking bullshit.
The site owners can rightfully ban us for posting against the rules, but they can't make any of us vote for any candidate. We're supposed to support the chosen nominee. And Hilliary ain't it. Some people here may want to assume she's got this in the bag, but it's not nearly the sure thing the corporations and the sycophants would like you to think.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Enough is enough!
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I live in CT, where the DEM nominee will win my state. So, I'm free to vote for who I want to.
merrily
(45,251 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)If the DEM nomiee is Hillary, I wish her the best. I hope she even wins.
I will NOT advocate for anyone else but the DEM to win the presidency.
Obviously after the DEM nominee is decided, I will have to adjust my posting habits.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You want a prize for your selfish and shortsighted decision?
ronnykmarshall
(35,357 posts)How nice of you.
The Boss
(63 posts)n/t
ronnykmarshall
(35,357 posts)They will write in Bernie in the general if he doesn't get the nomination.
Fucking childish bullshit.
Dem2
(8,178 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)This blew up badly, and HNC's gonna feel the Bern.
TimeToEvolve
(303 posts)peace out!
daleanime
(17,796 posts)but if that's all we're allowed, so be it.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)Hello David Allen. ^^^^^
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)...if it not BS? Just wondering, because that's what the OP is doing.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)to game the system.
The system therefore is broken.
Manny can do what he wants, AFAIK, thete is no dem or gop nominee yet.
I encourage folls to exercise their democratic rights; regardless of what they want that to be.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)... to vote against the Democratic nominee. Go take a look at the Loon's profile.
What if the OP had said "write in Bernie" instead of "voting Bernie". Would you go along with that? The OP does nothing in the "heat of the moment", which is Skinner's only grace card.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)there is no mominee yet.
This is a democracy. People can do what they want in very much the same way as DWS has done.
If DWS hadn't gamed the system for Hilarity we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Think about that.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)DU is most certainly NOT a democracy. It's a privately owned website.
If Uretsky hadn't stolen data for Sanders, we wouldn't be having this convo. Chew on that.
And edit your "Hilarity". You know, slip showing and all.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)You assume Sanders ordered it?
Now that's hillarity.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Nice.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)When you say fuck the rank and file, and fix an election, a la Karl Rove, you can expect repercussions.
Frank Underwood has more integrity than Hillary or her bulldog Debbie Disaster.
Keep flogging us. We're begging for more.
I'm just stunned the Party has done this, trying to force Hillary on us. A neoliberal DINO. Roadblocks & subterfuge for anyone else. I'm stunned any party would do that in our country.
senz
(11,945 posts)Don't try that. 
Response to MeNMyVolt (Reply #34)
Post removed
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)It was on the news. Maybe you missed it.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)to demand, expect, or even hope for our votes in a corrupt and rigged primary.
that is third world bullshit and people have other options.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... have been on display for years. And Mr. Allen et al have shown no interest in their being so.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)So sad. 
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts) daleanime
(17,796 posts)
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)and they are going to win a load of stupid prizes.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)How's that going for them?
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)With that said, he could have run as an independent, but he wasn't going to play the potential spoiler because it would make him look ignoble. Egos run amok in politics and Bernie Sanders is no different.
senz
(11,945 posts)but I don't think he had any idea how popular his candidacy would turn out to be.
Also, he made it clear that he didn't want to be the spoiler who put a Republican in the WH. It didn't have to do with "appearing" anything; he was thinking of the American people. He doesn't have much ego.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i am sure that his promise to not run indy depended on a fair and noncorrupt process.
the way i see it, all bets are off now
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)believes that political campaigns should be able to harvest private data without consequence? http://time.com/4155185/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-data/
Or is the argument that Bernie's campaign should not be expected to abide by the rules that regulate other candidates?
still_one
(98,883 posts)is Hillary
This OP has jumped the shark.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)There's been a half dozen tonight, short-timers too. Makes no difference.
And yes, I'm a short timer, who doesn't BASH DEMS 24/7.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Please cite it specifically, thanks.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)their opinion is that you have broken the TOS in the future.
How dare you mess with the temporal phisics!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Coincidence.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)
Historic NY
(40,037 posts)didn't you hear. His campaign breaks the rules and he become the victim.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)You can stop clinging to the bullshit version.
neverforget
(9,513 posts)The DNC declared war on 85% of Democratic Underground's members today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251916239
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Sorry, but advocating not voting for the Democratic primary winner if it isn't your candidate is not only a violation of TOS, but a call out to those who don't support his view as "suckers"
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 18, 2015, 10:34 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A good example of over-the-top Sanders supporters. It is emerging that the Sanders IT guys did a lot more than try to expose the glitch, they downloaded and stored Clinton data. And the Sanders campaign is blaming Clinton for the whole mess that one of their staffers started. I say leave it to show how disloyal and irrational their "I'm not voting for anyone unless it's Sanders" pronouncements are.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: LEAVE IT ALONE!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree. We vote for the Democratic nominee in the general, no spoilers. Whether candidates or voters. (Do so silently, your choice. That is all.)
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)http://m.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2015/12/bernie-sanders-has-his-own-computer-scandal-data-breach-exposed-hillarys-secret-info/124637/
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Thieves should be willing to prove that they didn't keep the stolen goods. After calling Hillary Clinton every name in the book, we find out that Bernie's campaign are the real crooks and cheaters. No wonder republicans like him so much.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)that allows him to see his opponents strategy for the up coming primary election... and he gets away without even an apology? I doubt that will happen. It's not over and it won't be until Sanders is completely investigated. This is going to follow him until he concedes.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts) sarge43
(29,173 posts)Paka
(2,760 posts)I've waited all my life (and it's a long one at that) to vote for a candidate this good.
senz
(11,945 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)I would support O'Malley if somehow he pulled out the nomination, but I will not support Hillary Clinton. I will write Bernie's name in if she is the nominee.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Then it occurred to me, the only reason they keep pulling this bullshit and it gets even worse with each cycle is because so many of us do fall for the "who ya' gonna' vote for" bullshit. We need to finally take that power away from them.
For the first time in many years my nose will not be sore and the stench will not be on my cloths with the smell of sulfur from electing an evil, no matter how slightly less evil that demon may be.
840high
(17,196 posts)DocMac
(1,628 posts)You're the best member of DU, Dragonfli. You and Octafish, I think is their username. You guys are great!
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)NT
still_one
(98,883 posts)nominee, and his DU supporters decide not to vote for the Democratic nominee, then they have made themselves irrelevant no matter who wins the election.
The Boss
(63 posts)Bernie wins, we win. It's that simple.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)
SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Cannot say that for any other candidate (except perhaps, Martin O'Malley.)
reformist2
(9,841 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)So while I totally get the "fuck the DNC" sentiment, I won't be voting for Sanders if he's not the nominee.
I'll vote for the most liberal person on my ballot. Like I was saying back in 2014, when the browbeating campaign began.
still_one
(98,883 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)A scared rabbit in I/P keeps on blowing the homophobe dog whistle at me.
Strange since I have never in my years here written / uttered a word against my LGBTQ brothers and sisters.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I always feel stupider after going it an I/P party.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... the DNC would be "declaring war" on a very small number of people - some of whom aren't Democrats, and would never vote for a Democrat in any event.
You are openly advocating that Democrats NOT vote for our nominee in the GE should it be anyone other than your personal choice.
I will be interested to see if the Admins are going to step up to the plate and enforce their own TOS - but I won't hold my breath.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I really want to hate what you say, but your prose disarms me.
It is what it is.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... it IS what it IS.
And you are what you are - and always have been.
Again, I will wait (in vain) for the Admins to deal with someone advocating not voting for the Democratic nominee next November here on their Democratic-supporting site.
But as we all know - you especially - they won't do a god-damned thing.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I try to do real good, but some people on a web site called hillaryclintonsupporters.com tell me that I'm dumb as a brick and twice as thick. That hurts me inside real bad, and sometimes I lash out.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... by encouraging voters to NOT vote for the Democratic nominee.
I'm sure all the "right people" are thankful for your service.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)all the sudden I see red lights all over, and I can't help myself, and I do the bad things.
Hey! Maybe, Ms. Greggs, you and I can together find those who do this and ask them to stop! You being such a great writer, you can convince them to stop. I know you can!
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... before you read that phrase?
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)We don't want a corporate war mongering phony as our nominee. Any good progressive liberal would agree, and that's why there are so many of us and so few of you
Rex
(65,616 posts)He was a real scrapper that one.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)That was good.
murielm99
(32,988 posts)His posts won't be hidden. He has too many little friends who sit on juries.
He sort of reminds me of the Westboro Baptist Church. He goes right up to the line, but he does not cross it. I think he did cross it this time. Let's see if anything happens.
I'm with you. I think his defiance of the TOS will be ignored.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... a long time ago. Skinner himself said that "juries are not expected to enforce the TOS."
Given that statement, I wonder why the TOS still exists - even on "virtual paper" - when it is no longer in force.
I think the honest thing to do would be for the Admins to explain that DU's rules no longer apply. It would save a lot of people from alerting on TOS violations if that was pointed out in no uncertain terms.
Posters are still alerting on what used to be against "the rules" - so if there are no rules anymore, why not just say so?
It would really cut down on alerts from posters who believe such rules still exist.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If the majority of us like the administrators and feel comfortable with our own politics, why on earth would there be any benefit in listening to you whine and whimper about how much you hate this website? Sure, sure, post whatever you want. Just don't be surprised when no one can be bothered to care.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)
I have no idea either.
Logical
(22,457 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... that DU has dwindling participation.
How is stating that fact "whining"? I have no reason to whine - it's not my site. It doesn't matter to me what happens to it.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)Lamenting about the direction this site has gone.
So, yes, you have been whining.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)They're going to wait until the primary season ends.
Many of those screaming that they won't vote for the nominee will either change their minds or stfu about it.
If they don't, I think the admins will act.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Probably higher, once you eliminate the sockpuppets.
Andy823
(11,555 posts)I know there real Bernie "supporters" here, but you don't hear from them very much because the "we hate everything" group, which now claims to support Bernie, dominates the board. OP's like this, hit and run, are simply about keeping the feud going by stirring up the gang, and the OP never has to answer any questions.
I think the majority of those here who rec these threads are not really what they claim to be. Sadly many here are gullible enough to buy into the carp some spread around here, but the doesn't really mean they are Bernie supporters. The OP doesn't have to prove any of his BS as long as the flock never questions him.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)They deserve a Republican President. No sympathy from me. THEY-DESERVE -A-REPUBLICAN -PRESIDENT. They like right wing? They're going to get it. BIG TIME.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)The majority of Democrats want HRC to be the nominee. So "they" - along with the entire nation - deserve a president Trump or Cruz simply because you didn't get your way?
Well, the true colours are out on full display tonight. "I get what I WANT - or screw everybody."
Nice.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)We'll know what the majority of Democrats think when the votes get counted.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... that the polls showing BS garnering support all summer, which were posted here as accurate and unimpeachable, suddenly became suspect the minute BS's numbers started stagnating.
Funny coincidence, that.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)All the way to November!
Renew Deal
(85,169 posts)mother earth
(6,002 posts) 
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)You have to really be into war and death to support Clintons policies.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Roy Ellefson
(279 posts)agree completely...not interested in any Dem solidarity anymore...time for a new movement...a new party...time for a national Democratic Farmer Labor Party...like they have in Minnesota.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
Scruffy1
(3,534 posts)I don't post a lot since I think arguing is generally pointless and most of the topics are well covered. What I've learned here over the years is how intelligent and informed this part of the electorate is, and how the party leadership underestimates us. It's time to stand up for our rights. The whole scenario of the last 30 years has been a complete disaster and yet they expect us to vote "more of the same". If it splits the party, then it's time for a new party of the people, not the leaders.
Blue_Adept
(6,499 posts)On Sat Dec 19, 2015, 10:06 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
I'm with you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=917070
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
ToS violation "If it splits the party, then it's time for a new party"
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 19, 2015, 10:14 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pretty much sums up Bernie Underground these days. It's what it's become.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If the truth hurts, go after the party, not the poster.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Well, is he wrong?
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I will vote to hide as a favor to the poster, as I hope they will come to realize that advocating against the Democratic Party on Skinner's site can/will get him/her banned.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There's no explicit call not to vote for Democrats here. Stop abusing the alert system. If you don't like free discussion of issues and ideas, you can always go to the Clinton Cave.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Siddown, Waldo.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Always the victims.
The irony is amazing though.
So many of the ideologues worshiping at Sanders' feet have spent YEARS claiming it was those of us who mostly supported Obama and the Democratic party despite our differences who were called blind cult-followers.
Whatever it takes to come to terms with the crappy, amateurish campaign your candidate has put together.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)Maybe the private prison system loves Hillary. Because she already said that marijuana needs more study. As if people haven't been smoking all these years. The victims I see are those people filling those prison cells. Oh, I have more, if you have the stomach for it.
LS_Editor
(920 posts)And I think Hillary and the DNC are going to pay a very high price for this.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Renew Deal
(85,169 posts)
Ino
(3,366 posts)ilTupe
(12 posts)I'll just vote for the least conservative candidate.
DocMac
(1,628 posts)
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Anywhere.
ilTupe
(12 posts)But she is much more likely to win. I don't want a Republican under any circumstance.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)THINK this through. It's an easy choice. Ridiculously easy.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Welcome to DU!
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)So much to do about nothing, as usual.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I can't wait for the primaries to start and put an end to Camp Perpetual Victim!
Gmak
(88 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)BUT I will go for Bernie in the primary, and as soon as holidays are over and I have some cash in my pocket again I will share some of it with as real Democrat... The entire fiasco going on today is a slap in the face to true Dems and whether they realize it or not they probably just gave Bernie the nomination....
If we give in to their BS and vote against her by writing Bernie in,if she makes it to the GE we allow DWS and her repug friends to win.. this is exactly what they want in the end...So I will not go so far as to hand it to the repugs like that...
I just hope that it doesn't come to that..
Renew Deal
(85,169 posts)At least you finally stated it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The spin from Sanders' side cracks me up.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)They tried the same thing in 2008 and failed miserably. I'm not as optimistic about the situation this time around.
I hope no matter how this turns out we get the behind the scenes story about what has been happening during this primary.
Finally, I just want to say I stand with Manny (even though he is a bit weird).
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)Not at this point, anyway. Yes, we noticed and yes, we were appalled.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)
moobu2
(4,822 posts)will vote for Hillary once he concedes and endorses her so waste your vote if you want to.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)the trends on reddit and twitter are to do write ins or vote stein. and i have read a large number of comments from people saying they will vote trump at this point just to keep hillary out of the wh.
many of us would have held our noses and voted for her if she ran fair and square. but the long overdue exposure of the blatant rigging by the dnc has pushed many of us out the door.
they get the privilege of requesting our votes when they play fair. they are insane if they think they can demand, expect, or bully our votes after cheating.
done.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)material was the DNC's fault has serious judgement issues so there's no telling what they would do. Who cares? Once Bernie endorses Hillary most of his worshippers will fall in line.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)she will be endorsing him
and how very nice of you to suggest that significant numbers of progressives have judgement issues. i am sure their judgement will suit bernie just fine now, and in nov 2016
have a lovely day!
moobu2
(4,822 posts)That's in the real world not on Twitter.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i am not putting stock in any cooked up m$m poll, but if it makes you happy, enjoy!
the proof will be in the votes, which we shall all see soon enough....
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)to spite your teeth.
Anybody who votes for Trump, regardless of the reason, is just as much a Brownshirt as the thugs at his campaign rallies.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)just sharing what i read in social media
its an important metric. if progressives are pissed enough to vote trump, hillary is toast, even if she manages to squeak out the nom, which is unlikely.
so progressive supporters are "thugs?" wow.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)There's absolutely nothing progressive about that. Some people seem to have confused "progressive" with "anti-Clinton."
If someone votes for Trump, whatever the reason, they're no different than the assholes at his campaign rallies. At least if they vote third party or write-in, they can claim they didn't vote for Trump.
You can't be a progressive and vote for a fascist.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)agree that trump is scum. but if it makes you feel any better, my guess is that many saying trump are just really pissed right now. they are more likely to write in bernie or,vote stein. of course, that still won't help hillary if she is the nom, but the vote totals will more accurately reflect the voices of the progressives.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Nobody who threatens to vote for Trump, but not even bother to "hold their nose and vote for Clinton" was ever a progressive.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)many were previously willing to hold their noses. but in the face of obvious collusion and cheating have now decided that is no longer an option they can live with.
perhaps you should have a conversation with dws. she pushed this snowball down the hill and now everyone wants to blame bernie supporters for the avalanche it caused.
senz
(11,945 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)
Some of y'all add putrid frosting to a bad cake.
but fyi I edited slightly as I think something's up.
The Blue Flower
(6,492 posts)It would be yet another disaster this nation cannot afford. We MUST put Bernie in the White House.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)A party that nominates Hillary Clinton for President no longer speaks for me at a national level. I'm with Sanders all the way til 11/4/2016!
I'm going to continue to vote for the most progressive candidate in Democratic state/local primaries and pushing to move the party left--but Hillary-disruption is now part of my support litmus test. If you will support her agenda nationally...I will not be supporting you in any Congressional or statewide race. Hillary is not part of my Democratic party...she's a parasitic invader to my party. I'm working to purge the Hillary infection.
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)And I think your numbers are hopeful at best.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)Hillary Clintons hard work and shut up about it. If the DNC objects, it's Hillarys fault Bernie stole her stuff. That's Bernie world logic folks.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)you and the rest of the "Bernie or Nobody" crew. 85%? Maybe of DU, but not the nation, or the nation's Democrats. But 85% of DU is questionable in itself, not that you care.
You can scream bloody murder about how you "voted your conscience" and get your fans riled up as we inaugurate President Cruz, but I don't hear much about how you're going to bust your ass to make sure you have a Democratic Congresscritter or Senator. Or city council member. Much easier to bloviate on a message board than actually go out knocking on doors.
We had 8 decent, maybe not as great as they could have been but decent, years under Mr. Clinton, and I don't see why we go to hell under Mrs. Clinton. But go ahead and trash the OK in the blind quest for the perfect.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)And a lot of the DNC comes from state party members. When people completely ignore these elections, yeah, it's no surprise that the DNC is full of terrible people.
Our state party had broken it's bylaws and suspended elections for two years simply because they wanted to stay in office longer. We had a good slate of solid activists challenge them across the board, and almost all of them lost. Almost none of the voters paid any attention to the campaign. So yeah, maybe it's time for voters to start paying attention to this stuff and not reelecting terrible people simply because their too lazy to spend 5 minutes Googling what's going on.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)You can't see that yet?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The GOP is the other party, the Republicans. Are you new to this country or something? The Republicans are Trump, Rubio, Cruz, a bunch of right-wing nuts.
senz
(11,945 posts)You'd better look at that and accept it because it is the truth.
Know what you're backing. Know it. Admit it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Hillary is a Democrat. Manny, unsurprisingly, is doing what he can to help ensure a GOP victory next fall.
senz
(11,945 posts)and I don't feel up to the task this morning so I'll have to leave you in a state of ignorance. More's the pity.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)is NOT being a conspiracy theorist.
I don't know how to help you. 
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Your face seems to have weird conspiracies in front of it though. Not sure how I can help you with that.
Democat
(11,617 posts)They still haven't learned.
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)It was the grading metadata about the people on the mailing lists.
The contacts are graded as to support and those metrics are stored in the system such that one can find all supporters who are say 60% or more solid for Bernie so you don't waste resources trying to convince them. Likewise you can query who is less than say 30% solid and target them.
I'm going back to my email archive to see if I got something from Hillary during the first opening.
senz
(11,945 posts)read it, assumed she had Obama's old database, and discarded it somewhere.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)There are a heck of a lot of trolls impersonating as democrats.
ybbor
(1,750 posts)I love reading your posts or your alter-ego's. You're like a brother from another mother. Except my brothers and I don't always see eye to eye on politics. One of them rarely if ever.
Any who, keep on rocking on!
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)The democratic establishment
has abandoned the democratic base.
senz
(11,945 posts)is out of touch with reality.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)I know the ones here in NC do.
MoonRiver
(36,975 posts) merrily
(45,251 posts)I don't think that is the latest poll, but it was, for me, the most eye-opening poll.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)My intentions are to vote for the Democratic nominee in November. Those have always been my intentions.
Each of us has one vote, just like everyone else. Good luck!
Tarc
(10,601 posts)Congrats on being the 2016 version of PUMA, Manny.
The number of diehards that will follow you are, thankfully, negligible.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Remind me who made that "a thing" in the Democratic Party.
Remind me which candidate for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination said on nation television that she and Senator McCain were ready for that 3 am phone call, but the likely nominee of the Democratic Party was not.
Never in history had a candidate for the Presidential nom from one Party recommended the candidate of the opposite Party for President over a candidate of his or her own Party.
IMO, Hillary supporters have one fscking nerve throwing around the term "PUMA."
Tarc
(10,601 posts)One can only hope that the petulant Bernie fans will do the same if he does not win the nomination.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And, as of now, you have no clue who will or will not wake up after the primary ends, nor is that what your first post referred to.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
Post removed
GusBob
(8,249 posts)He fell on his sword fighting a losing battle in a lost cause
Rex
(65,616 posts)Account status: Flagged for review
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 38,389
Number of posts, last 90 days: 1039
Favorite forum: General Discussion: Primaries, 545 posts in the last 90 days (52% of total posts)
Favorite group: Sports, 7 posts in the last 90 days (1% of total posts)
Last post: Sat Dec 19, 2015, 03:16 PM
Jury
Willing to serve on Juries: Yes
Eligible to serve on Juries: Yes
Chance of serving on Juries: 20% (explain)
2000 or more total posts: +20
200 or more days of membership: +20
20 or more posts in the last 90 days: +20
Star member: +40
4 posts hidden in 90 days: -80
TOTAL: 20
Detailed explanation | Close
The war will go on, but so many keyboard warriors are down for the count.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's like America declaring war on Somalia.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Laters!
Number23
(24,544 posts)
Rose Siding
(32,629 posts)Who could find that true thing, that iconic statement of fact to suddenly, first time ever, to violate rules on a Democratic board?
Through the Looking Glass City.
Number23
(24,544 posts)of mourning. Between the bannings here and the actions of a certain candidate's campaign, it's not been a good last couple of days for a number of folks here. I think we're in the Anger stage now.
As a result, all bets are off right now. Be careful what you say and where you say it. The mourners are everywhere and by all appearances, they are very, VERY angry.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Renew Deal
(85,169 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your banning was a huge mistake.
Agony
(2,605 posts)...
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 20, 2015, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)
William769
(59,147 posts) seabeyond
(110,159 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)William769
(59,147 posts) 
seaglass
(8,185 posts)is gone. I hope others saying the same thing will be banned because anyone who supports Repubs directly or by default is not on my side.
senz
(11,945 posts)but not the way you'd hoped.
seaglass
(8,185 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)
If that poster EVER voted for a Democrat, I'm the fucking Queen of Sheba.
senz
(11,945 posts) BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Since I haven't been banned, but then I'm not a Republican either.
I recall that you accused me of voting for Reagan, when I've never voted Republican in my life. And now you're pissed off I'm not crying about the PPR of someone who admitted to voting for Reagan and other Republicans.
senz
(11,945 posts)I sorta thought you were a Republican when you told me this country was founded on capitalist principles.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)The capitalist state. Try a google search.
I understand most folks educated in the wake of McCarthyism didn't read Marx, but time has passed and it's okay now, really.
senz
(11,945 posts)You insulted my educational level, just as you did before. Your consistency is admirable, Bane! Feeling superior to others must be a great comfort. Enjoy!
zeemike
(18,998 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Accusing someone of being a sock-puppet and a republican.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 19, 2015, 02:39 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see it.
senz
(11,945 posts)Love you all. 
I knew something was up and believe there is more to come. Some folks are more prickly and vindictive than others, and no I'm not referring to Madame Clinton this time.
Just watch this thread. 
But thank you, thank you, thank you. 
zeemike
(18,998 posts)All DUers are equal, but some are more equal than others.
I love the imagery with which Orwell accompanied that revelation.
senz
(11,945 posts)No, I didn't accuse you of voting for Reagan; I accused you of thinking like Reagan. There is a difference.
IMHO, Manny is more Democratic than you could ever be.
Now please don't edit again; it's tiring trying to keep up with each new version.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)and I'm not going to stop because you have trouble keeping up. I suggest you wait 5-10 minutes before responding.
Manny despises the Democratic Party. If that makes him a Democrat, then Ted Cruz is a better Democrat than I am too.
Given that you think the capitalist state is a Republican idea, I don't put much stock in your opinion. Think whatever you like. It is of no consequence to me.
As I recall, you thought our nation's founders were raging capitalists and wrote such views into the Constitution, and so I had to inform you that the Constitution is a political, not an economic, document, and then you seemed to back off, did a little more editing, and I actually saw you since then making the (imo, very important) point that "political" and "economic" are different concepts, which I found strangely gratifying.
I think that's all I want to say to you. I have things to do today.
Bye.
kath
(10,565 posts)Like that??? (No time to find the link, but some are definitely more equal than others here.)
Sudden silence on the part of a normally verbose individual could indicate a trip to another website for the purpose of rounding up a posse (stacked jury). Have seen it happen before. Of course, there could be other reasons, too. But, the odds lend credence to my suspicion. So if you wish to delete, you perhaps should. But I'm leaning toward leaving my mild (though perhaps irritating to someone) comments up.
Starry Messenger
(32,381 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)I think things are what they seem to be here.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)If it was alerted on, the jury voted to leave it. Manny being in violation of DU's TOS is a separate issue which the admins obviously dealt with. And when someone is banned their threads do not automatically get locked.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)maybe not this one, but one of them.
As a remembrance of one of DU's brighter stars
senz
(11,945 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)He simply stated his preference for himself. I do not believe that is disallowed by the TOS.
What stands out about Manny for me is his refusal to be cruel or vindictive toward those who repeatedly verbally abused him. He is consistently kind and polite. That's character. And yes, Hillarians, it matters.
I respect and admire Manny and am grateful for the light, laughter, and humanity he has brought to this website. The admins should be grateful for what he gave to them.
Manny, if you're reading this, know that you are loved by many -- and enjoy it. Because you truly do deserve it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)are talking about their own vote, but advocacy against supporting the Dem nominee is never ok. Someone else got TSd not long ago for the same reason.
senz
(11,945 posts)He said,
In case there's a reading comprehension issue in understanding this, it means
"You should be tired of having your life served up to the highest bidder."
You should be ....
He did NOT say, "You should refrain from voting for Hillary in the GE." He did not tell anyone how they should vote.
Therefore, he did not break the TOS and his banning should be reversed.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)except for a notable two for many years. I think he tried really hard not to say directly exactly what he wanted to say- do not vote for anyone by Bernie. It is pretty clear exactly what he advocates for.
senz
(11,945 posts)I can tell you how you should feel. And I can tell you who you should vote for or not vote for.
The two are quite different.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)should feel the same way. To what purpose? X.
99% percent of his posts were inferring things he would never actually admit to outright saying- for exactly the same reason. All that hairsplitting was a cynical game. Tiresome.
senz
(11,945 posts)You seem to prefer the interpretive approach: "Well if he said this, then he must have meant that." TOS statements don't work that way. Why? Because interpretation is subjective.
And actually, I'm a rather honest person, intellectually as well as otherwise. So don't be calling me names, okay?
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
senz
(11,945 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)was awfully strange to watch people cheer in lockstep while using the word lock step in every other post.
Cha
(319,086 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and I highly doubt he had never ever heard hateful fried chicken / watermelon shit either. the man lived to pretend that nothing had context. played possum all day long. And that his hatred of 98% of Dems was just a coincidence. what a ton of bullshit, all of it.
Cha
(319,086 posts)still be here.
I'm glad Skinner banned him for advocating others not to vote for the Dem nominee. This is our Planet I don't want any damn repubs in the White House.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)you'd have to be playing stupid (like he always did) not to understand why they could be so fucking reckless.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)I can just imagine the outrage and the endless accusations if it had been Clinton staffers who had accessed Sanders' voters' list.
Hypocrisy much?
senz
(11,945 posts)if Hillary's group had discovered the database breach two months ago and complained about it to the vendor, seeking to have it repaired.
That was the honorable way to handle it, which is what Bernie's staffers did in October.
Now let us hope for a fair and impartial audit so that we can learn what actually happened.
Beacool
(30,518 posts)They accessed Clinton's voters' documents a couple of dozen times. They acted inappropriately. The Sanders' campaign would have been outraged if the reverse had occurred.
senz
(11,945 posts)and we won't know until a fair and impartial audit is conducted and publicized.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)but I wish I did .
Number23
(24,544 posts)Edit
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Merry Christmas, Frog. 
Number23
(24,544 posts)And somehow manages to increase my enjoyment of all this even more. So thanks for that.
senz
(11,945 posts)insulting and putting down others.
That says so much about you and your group.
Number23
(24,544 posts)yourself chasing after and trying to scream down half this board. Do you think no one has noticed? That would be one more thing you'd be wrong about.
So spare me your faux tears of outrage. Or at least direct them to someone who may actually care.
senz
(11,945 posts)I don't "scream" and have no idea where you get the "tears of outrage" idea. You must be blessed with a powerful imagination.
Adios, Number23.
Number23
(24,544 posts)you'd be wrong about. Although it goes a long way towards explaining the group of people you pal around with here as well as the caliber of folks you choose to mourn when they (inevitably) get tombstoned.
See ya.
senz
(11,945 posts)Well, see, I like nice people. For instance, I have never seen Manny say anything cruel or ugly to anyone. That probably seems trivial to you, but it impresses the heck out of me.
See ya.
Number23
(24,544 posts)That poster was one of the most divisive, corrosive influences on this entire board. He shit on this president every chance he got which made perfect sense considering that he openly lamented that McCain had not beaten him. He regularly antagonized women and minorities here. But let me guess, since you're not a member of these groups you didn't "see" any of this. Right?
You said "Adios" two posts to me. Hopefully you'll mean it this time.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)that's been going on since the neo-liberals gained power.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)However the DC was too much for ye. Live long and prosper Manny Goldstein.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)realize that they are driving many (even longtime) Democrats a way from the party. That is a true shame.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)for, you know, actual liberal and progressive policy from the Democrats.
senz
(11,945 posts)I've never seen anything quite like it before.
jfern
(5,204 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Stupid non-scandal.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Democat
(11,617 posts)Same group who gave us Bush in 2000.
Hal Bent
(59 posts)If so, why? Sure, it was strident, but this Hillary supporter believes that freedom of speech should ALWAYS prevail.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The owners have the right to set and enforce the rules here, smart, stupid or anywhere in between.
I think this is a short sighted move that will further lead to the deterioration of the site as an interesting place to visit and comment and eventually cost the admins income from this site.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)from the same party if Hillary Clinton becomes president. To me this is just like the situation that is being adjudicating by the DU Admin, now. It seems to be a separation between progressive and third way thinking. A difference is, will campaign promises be unkept by an incoming candidate? Because of unkept promises, the realities of Barack Obama have been welcome here on this board.
During the debate last night, I heard one candidate move to the Left some more, in statements. Are those promises going to be kept? Are we looking at 12 years of more progressive promises made by a second, New Democrat-Hillary Clinton? It is already being discussed way in advance. It is wonderful how progressives learn from history. It looks to me like Clinton is achieving a division in the party, but not to fast. It might take four more years. We all know that the GOP is about to go over the cliff. What and who will take its place?
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)
panader0
(25,816 posts)DonnaM
(65 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts) 
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)H2O Man
(79,056 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
me b zola
(19,053 posts) colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)Pretty strident indeed, but the post was pretty dead on with what it said IMHO.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)The keepers. They are ordaining the first Queen of the US, and want no interference with "elections."
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Would you act like an obnoxious jerk in a house where you were an invited guest?
...or rummage around in their private records?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Or he vill go to ze gaz chamber!