Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

merrily

(45,251 posts)
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 02:44 PM Mar 2016

Will supporters of Bernie vote for Hillary as PUMAs voted for Obama?

WARNING: Please do not reply to this OP with anything that might get you a hide or a ban. If you post in this group often, odds are, I like you and do not want to see you banished, unless that is what you consciously want. You can always reply as to what you think people in general will do, not as to your own intentions, as you now see them.



Politicians and pundits tend to draw from past elections whatever lessons they wish to teach the hoi polloi (us). However, as I suspect they discuss among themselves, each election is really a one off. "They" are telling us now that supporters of Bernie will vote for Hillary, if she is the nominee, much as PUMAs voted for Obama in 2008. Whether courtesy of DNA or Sesame Street, I tend to see differences between and among superficially similar things. And, I see that 2016 is not like 2008 and supporters of Bernie are not like PUMAs.

In 2007, I chose "my" primary candidate based upon my assessment of the best chance to win the general, full stop. In May 2105, however, I chose my primary candidate based on historic policies, principles and trustworthiness. I don't imagine many looked at Hillary and Bernie in May 2015 and thought, as between these two, Bernie is the shoo in." Once he began drawing tens of thousands to his rallies, perhaps many people saw that, but I doubt many did in May 2015.

In 2008, Obama and Hillary were both establishment candidates. In 2016, Hillary is; Bernie was never establishment. Bernie always said that he ran as an independent because he did not want to be beholden to the big donors of the Democratic Party (and their legislative wishes). Many of Bernie's supporters are disillusioned current or former Democrats or never were Democrats. I don't see that group of his supporters voting for Hillary, if she is the nominee, simply because Bernie endorses her, no matter how much they admire him. (If endorsements swayed them, they would probably be supporting Hillary now.)

In 2008, many of Hillary's supporters were angry about the way in which the Party and the media treated Hillary, something I saw and admitted, even as a strong Obama supporter. Those things were indeed enough to turn some of Hillary's supporters to voting for McCain or staying home. However, party loyalty and the full-throated support of the Clintons for Obama won back many of them. The perception of PUMAs of Party and media discrimination against Hillary in 2008 is nothing compared with the perception of those things by supporters of Bernie.

In 2008, Hillary still had her eyes on the Oval Office, probably also on Secretary of State or Vice President, and therefore had a personal interest in having the PUMAs vote for Obama and remain loyal Democrats. I doubt Bernie has his eyes on another run for the Oval Office if he is not the 2016 nominee. (If Bernie runs in 8 years, I am not even sure I would would support him!)

In 2008, many voters were convinced that simply voting Democratic would suffice to get them a President with the principles and policies they associated with Democrats like FDR and LBJ (sans, of course, the wars, internment, etc.) My sense--and it's only my sense--is that fewer voters believe that now. Whether they will vote for Hillary anyway on the lesser of two evils theory, if she the nominee, I have no idea. Despite polling to the contrary, if any, I doubt anyone does know.

In 2008, Obama attempted to woo Republican voters who were more sane, more pro-choice, etc. than Republicans in general. The Obama campaign highlighted Julie Eisenhower's saying she would vote for Obama, but I did not hear much about "Obamacans" after that. This time, it looks as though both Hillary and Bernie would get some Republican votes, especially if Trump is the nominee. Kasich, however, would skew that issue very differently from Trump or Cruz. I don't know how this issue will play out in November, no matter who is the Democratic nominee.

Perhaps most importantly in my mind: In 2008, both candidates were indeed similar in policy, if not in temperament, gender, race or religion: Hillary is Methodist and I don't think Rev. Wright's church is Methodist. Health care was the policy difference that stands out most in my mind from 2008: Obama campaigned on a strong public option and no individual mandate. She did not. (We all know what happened.) The 2016 candidates are very different from each other in policy and perceived trustworthiness.

In 2016, Hillary's surrogates and supporters and others have, on occasion claimed that Bernie and Hillary are very similar in policy, having voted the same X% of the time, but that is very misleading. (For my explanation, please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511547074#post14 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/128037156 ) Although Hillary has changed her stump speech considerably from 2008, polls show people do not necessarily believe that she really espouses these changes or trust her to pursue them wholeheartedly should she become President. This is especially true of those supporters of Bernie who are most familiar with her history and his.

Lastly, THE SUPREME COURT, ever the ultimate argument of Democrats and now of both Democrats and Republicans. That, too, has changed from 2008. This year, Obama supposedly considered nominating a Republican (or maybe that was publicized so that the actual nominee would come as a relief to Democrats, who knows?). http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4975-Obama-Considers-Nominating-a-Republican-to-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States Obama did nominate a law and order moderate--and, even at that, Republicans may not bring his confirmation to the floor, let alone confirm him. Compare that with Democrat's having confirmed Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. If Democrats refuse to block another extreme right-wing, anti-choice nomination to the SCOTUS, shame on Democratic Senators. Professional Democrats, from DNC heads to politicians to pundits and strategists, would do themselves and the Party a solid, IMO, to stop blaming Republican politicians and those who vote Democratic for every single thing that goes wrong in this country: Take responsibility and Democrat up!

Bottom line: Assumptions that Bernie's supporters of 2016 will behave the way that Hillary's supporters did in 2008 are not taking in the differences in the candidates, the election-year climates, or the voting populations. If Hillary is the nominee, I assume and expect that a majority of Democratic supporters of Bernie will vote for her or not vote at all. However, I firmly believe that many will vote Green, write in Bernie or not vote the top of the ticket, assuming that they show up at that polls at all. I hope they do: If nothing else, down ticket races are at least as important as the Presidential and many "Sanders Democrats" are running down ticket, including Tim Canova, who is making Debbie Wasserman Schultz face her first primary ever, and many great state and local candidates.
http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?4694-Bernie-s-Coat-Tails-Important-List-of-Bernie-Democrats-Running-for-Office

DONATION LINKS

Bernie

DU link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforbernie

JPR link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jackpineradicals4bernie

Tim Canova

DU link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/du4timcanova

JPR link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jpr4timcanova

David Sparks (DUer: votesparks; AFAIK, no DU link for a DUer!) https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jpr4sparks

Edited version posted at http://jackpineradicals.org/content.php
69 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Will supporters of Bernie vote for Hillary as PUMAs voted for Obama? (Original Post) merrily Mar 2016 OP
Obama is a charismatic individual who duped us with the whole "Hope and Change" thing. jalan48 Mar 2016 #1
I'm not voting for frackers. Yuugal Mar 2016 #2
Thanks for your reply. merrily Mar 2016 #3
It was pretty easy for the corporatists... Yuugal Mar 2016 #4
Yes, and my post said that division over these issues is the negative, not merrily Mar 2016 #5
That is precisely what they've done senz Mar 2016 #7
These seemed potentially relevant merrily Mar 2016 #6
Excellent choices Merrily!! jillan Mar 2016 #12
Thanks, jillian! Don't you just love that adorable little footwear? Too cute! merrily Mar 2016 #14
Yes- but - now I have that song stuck in my head! jillan Mar 2016 #16
Not a bad song to have stuck in your head. Helps avoid false equivalencies. merrily Mar 2016 #24
I'm not voting Green. I don't think the movement Sanders has started belongs there HereSince1628 Mar 2016 #8
I call that terrorist political campaigning. merrily Mar 2016 #25
yes, imo, it's their attempt to project their priviledged self interest HereSince1628 Mar 2016 #30
Since formation of the DLC and election of Bill Clinton, party propaganda has sought to merrily Mar 2016 #36
You have no where to go...but that's ok...we are -always- better then republicans.... HereSince1628 Mar 2016 #43
I do not see the DLC/ThirdWay corporatists relinquishing their control on the Dem party. peacebird Mar 2016 #54
Not willingly, but they'll go where votes go, or they'll go extinct. Sanders has shown the way HereSince1628 Mar 2016 #57
I hope you are correct, but I thnk for that to happen we need Bernie elected,& elect progressives peacebird Mar 2016 #58
Yes, there's need to ID, support and elect LOTS of progressives this year and into the future HereSince1628 Mar 2016 #59
This should help some, as far as IDing and helping. merrily Mar 2016 #68
It's a whole different game now. 2008 was simple compared to this. senz Mar 2016 #9
Thanks senz. If she is the nominee, I will think more about it. merrily Mar 2016 #10
Ed Schultz was interviewed on our local progressive station. I will let his words speak for me. jillan Mar 2016 #11
I am not sure what to think about that. For one thing, I have no idea what he means. merrily Mar 2016 #13
He was saying that unless Hillary reaches out to Bernie supporters, don't expect Bernie voters jillan Mar 2016 #15
I understood that. But, how specifically is she supposed to reach out? merrily Mar 2016 #17
I have no idea - and I am laughing as I post this. And so was Ed as he said that. jillan Mar 2016 #18
We all need to remember that most Democrats have still never heard of Third Way or the DLC. merrily Mar 2016 #19
Third Way/DLC don't want to be widely known senz Mar 2016 #20
Her outreach would be some pathetic pandering SoapBox Mar 2016 #21
I hope it doesn't come to that. senz Mar 2016 #22
In that case, you'd best grab a barf bag because it has already come to that. merrily Mar 2016 #37
It's like something out of a bad movie. senz Mar 2016 #44
Several bad movies. The corporate media is doing its job, for the billionaires who own it. merrily Mar 2016 #46
I want the votes of the Bernie Bros my husband, supporters and media pals have been slandering? merrily Mar 2016 #23
This is a HUGE red flag about what her presidency would be like. senz Mar 2016 #45
I've been trying; I've been trying! merrily Mar 2016 #48
Exactly! BigMin28 Mar 2016 #38
Welcome to the Bernie Group. Please note the warning at the top of the OP, unless you are a long merrily Mar 2016 #60
Why would Bernie voters have any reason to believe anything she said? Seriously. peacebird Mar 2016 #55
That might depend, in part, on Bernie's attitude if Hillary is the nominee. Arkansas Granny Mar 2016 #26
I tried to explain in the OP why 2016 is very different from 2016. merrily Mar 2016 #27
So, did you only want me to reply if I agreed with you? Arkansas Granny Mar 2016 #29
Ummm, my post did not say that and was not the least bit confrontational. merrily Mar 2016 #32
Consider me gone. Arkansas Granny Mar 2016 #34
Good. Try reading past the subject line of an OP before you reply, too. merrily Mar 2016 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author Zorra Mar 2016 #39
my decision does not depend on what Bernie would do greymouse Mar 2016 #47
Agreed! nt revbones Mar 2016 #51
Nope. I'll vote for her if necessary but I'm certain lots of others won't. n/t mikehiggins Mar 2016 #28
No (nt) Autumn Colors Mar 2016 #31
Not even one of the Indies I know who registered as Dems to vote for Bernie in Zorra Mar 2016 #33
There were reasons those people left the Party and only Bernie brought them back. merrily Mar 2016 #41
I'm a lifelong registered Democrat since 1979 (age 18) Autumn Colors Mar 2016 #62
I support policy. VulgarPoet Mar 2016 #40
I know you do, you vulgar poet you! merrily Mar 2016 #42
Perfectly stated! Lorien Mar 2016 #50
You haven't seen me go full vulgar yet, I most certainly do deserve that part of my handle. VulgarPoet Mar 2016 #52
We'll keep this emote handy. merrily Mar 2016 #63
Hillary hasn't won the nomination Lorien Mar 2016 #49
Seems that way. When I think of all those people standing in the sun for hours... merrily Mar 2016 #65
ALEC too, apparently Lorien Mar 2016 #67
I wouldn't know for certain, but I assume the Koch brothers wield a lot of power within ALEC. merrily Mar 2016 #69
Very well written. guillaumeb Mar 2016 #53
Thanks, guillameb. You seem to be in a minority on this thread, but, as I posted somewhere, merrily Mar 2016 #64
What is Hillary offering us? A public option? grahamhgreen Mar 2016 #56
I believe the technical term is "peas." merrily Mar 2016 #61
Wellstone Democrats would never vote for Hillary. senz Mar 2016 #66

jalan48

(13,797 posts)
1. Obama is a charismatic individual who duped us with the whole "Hope and Change" thing.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 03:12 PM
Mar 2016

Hillary is not charismatic and her message is basically "No we can't." Big difference between the two. And more importantly, millions of Americans have caught on to how rigged the political system is-Bernie has exposed it for what it is. It's going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

Yuugal

(2,281 posts)
2. I'm not voting for frackers.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 03:31 PM
Mar 2016

I don't vote for people who support TPP, H1-bs, or warmongering either. I used to vote for other people's issues but now that I finally have someone who supports my issues and I see those same people voting against him I realize the alliance is over in this party. In the end, diversity was our weakness. Now I vote for what is best for me and mine.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
3. Thanks for your reply.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 03:40 PM
Mar 2016

Inasmuch as we both support Sanders, I probably agree with you on many issues. However, I disagree that diversity was the weakness of the Democratic Party. I think it was and is a strength, just as it's been a strength of the nation. Division over these issues, however, harms the nation and everyone else.

If I thought that Bernie would not protect the rights of women and of racial, ethnic and religious minorities, and members of the GLBT community, I would not be able to stomach the sight of him, much as I cannot stomach the sight of Santorum.

IMO, Bernie has been, and will be, better on those issues than Hillary has been or will be, except for women's rights which both have protected. I don't think Bernie would have been amending the Constitution re: Roe v. Wade and other pro-choice SCOTUS cases as has Hillary, either. Candidly, that shocked me.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
5. Yes, and my post said that division over these issues is the negative, not
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 03:47 PM
Mar 2016

the diversity itself. Racism, pandering by race, and other divisive things are very undesirable, wherever they rear their ugly head and that includes political campaigns.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
7. That is precisely what they've done
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 06:28 PM
Mar 2016

and Hill supporters play that destructive little theme to the hilt (or maybe I should say, Hillt). They are all about racial/gender outrage at anything and everything. The AA Hill fans here accuse all Bernie supporters of racism. The "feminist" Hill fans consider everything a Bernie supporter says as sexist and call us "Bernie Bros."

They sound phony baloney to me. I think it's a game intended to split Democrats.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
6. These seemed potentially relevant
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 05:48 PM
Mar 2016

[CENTER][video=youtube;6b0ftfKFEJg]

[/video]


[video=youtube;IHH8bfPhusM]
[/video]

jillan

(39,451 posts)
16. Yes- but - now I have that song stuck in my head!
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 09:36 PM
Mar 2016
Just like when my kids were little and they used to watch Sesame Street. I'd be singing it all day long.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
8. I'm not voting Green. I don't think the movement Sanders has started belongs there
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 06:38 PM
Mar 2016

even though there are some overlapping interests.

I will be voting for what I want, not against what others fear. They need to deal with their fear, not me.

I'm pretty sure that the ballot will provide me that option from top to bottom.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
25. I call that terrorist political campaigning.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 09:35 AM
Mar 2016

Vote X or the world will end!

Republicans and Democrats do it.

Meanwhile, the world will end--or at least life as we know it-- because neither of them has done enough about climate change soon enough.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
30. yes, imo, it's their attempt to project their priviledged self interest
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:13 AM
Mar 2016

On its face it looks pretty odd...

-THEY- have the anxiety that something bad will occur if -WE- act in a certain way.

Their anxiety comes from both their impressive need to get it their way and the reality that is an outcome they can't really control.

But they DO have an option they can completely control... they can JOIN with us and that also greatly reduces the risk of that bad thing (a republican/Trump victory) from occurring.

Yet, they simply cannot bring themselves to join us. I can only assume that is because they privilege their interests, and fears, too much to set any of them aside.

They can't live with us; they seek at all junctures to disenfranchise us of our hopes and dreams.

And yet, they aren't strong enough to WIN without us. They -must- have our support... so, they flog us with blame and guilt for visions of a bad future that in reality will result from -their- self-interested behavior as much as ours.

This isn't just about this election, it's about 20-ish years of these same behaviors whenever 'party' and 'partnership' enter considerations.

It's become a dysfunctional relationship based on one group providing the other endless narcissistic supply that preempts the empathy required for a mutually supporting healthy relationship.


merrily

(45,251 posts)
36. Since formation of the DLC and election of Bill Clinton, party propaganda has sought to
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:27 AM
Mar 2016

demonize, marginalize and scapegoat liberals, even if shet has to be made up weekly. Same for Republicans and media. It is what it is. Also, it's getting uglier, IMO.

Liberals have to decide what, if anything, they can and will do about it, besides learned helplessness.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
43. You have no where to go...but that's ok...we are -always- better then republicans....
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:45 AM
Mar 2016

When I look at political definitions, I don't think 'liberal' fits current Sanders progressives especially well.

I understand it's traditional, but within the traditional definitions -tolerance- is pushed as the most common and important feature. The one thing that Sander's supporters seem to express is an end to waiting for leaders to meaningfully come back from symbiosis with big money.

I think patience and tolerance are at an end for Sanders' supporters. Change is next, through renovation and rejuvination of the Democrats. or through innovation




peacebird

(14,195 posts)
54. I do not see the DLC/ThirdWay corporatists relinquishing their control on the Dem party.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:02 PM
Mar 2016

I will vote for Bernie Sanders in the general election. I know where he stands, I know he will work hard to make changes to help get America back on track.

I do not have any idea #WhichHillary we would be electing were She to be the nominee. My feeling is she will pivot hard right as soon as she thinks she has the nomination. Her speech to AIPAC was absolutely nauseating. I will never vote for Hillary. Hopefully we are able to nominate Bernie! But again. Not Ever Going To Vote For Hillary.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
57. Not willingly, but they'll go where votes go, or they'll go extinct. Sanders has shown the way
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:14 PM
Mar 2016

Selling out to corporations for access to war chests of campaign funds doesn't have to be the only way.

That's Rahm's vision from the politics of 1992. In 2016 Sanders is showing the other path. Trusted politicians can accumuate yuuuuuuuge funds $27 at a pop.

Of course 3rd-ways approach will work as long as we accept corporate funded candidates who want to leave office as millionaires and accumulate hundreds of millions in retirement.

Once we don't accept that change, will follow. Across a decade voters can make Congress receptive to people again.

peacebird

(14,195 posts)
58. I hope you are correct, but I thnk for that to happen we need Bernie elected,& elect progressives
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:18 PM
Mar 2016

downticket to support him. That includes Canova to lance that boil on the DNC, DWS.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
9. It's a whole different game now. 2008 was simple compared to this.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 08:46 PM
Mar 2016

Despite the important difference between the two on the Iraq War Resolution and her somewhat more warlike attitudes toward foreign countries, Hill and O weren't terribly divergent in policy positions and basic outlook. But as the primaries wore on, it became apparent that they were hugely different human beings. He's fairly normal, she's unscrupulous with knee-jerk gutter instincts. She fought an increasingly dirty, demeaning, racist, dishonest campaign until no one with an ounce of ethics and morality could possibly support her.

I think her hardcore supporters were primarily personality cultists enamored of the notion of a female president. It was difficult for some of them to let go, but Obama could not have been an entirely unattractive alternative for most of them.

In 2016, those who pay attention to politics know quite a bit about Hillary. Those of us fortunate enough to have become acquainted with Bernie over a span of years via the TH program also know quite a bit about him, and others learned about him in 2015. For liberals, progressives, and anyone who sees a threat to democracy in the corporate control of our government, he's unbelievably good. She remains unbelievably bad. So for some of us, it's a no-brainer whom to back in the primary and the GE.

However, if Hill wins the nomination, it's a tough choice. For people like me, Hill's personal qualities make her unacceptable as a potential president of the United States. But Repubs, whether they're bad people or not, happen to hold repulsive political views. So it's like being caught between a rock and a hard place. If Hill's true political views were known, it might be easier, but I have no idea what she actually believes in. Since 2008, she's said nothing, done nothing, and written nothing to indicate an interest in anything beyond money, power, reckless regime change in unstable countries, fracking as a good source of oil, and trade agreements. She's been quick to distance herself from some of her previous positions such as her formerly passionate advocacy for the TPP. After she threw her hat in the ring about a year ago, she didn't espouse domestic policies until Bernie jumped in and she saw how people liked his (lifelong) policies, at which point she adopted his issues with her own truncating twists. That's fine, but why should I believe these new policy positions actually matter to her, since they didn't until after she saw people responding to Bernie's issues?

And then we get to the Supreme Court. From what I know of where Hill has been spending her time in recent years and where she gets the majority of her funding, I would expect her to nominate someone generally corporate friendly and specifically Wall Street friendly.

So if Hill's the nominee, for many of us it will be an unpleasant choice between two essentially unacceptable candidates.

However, Democrats who haven't been paying attention will undoubtedly see it differently. For them, it would be easier to choose Hill without thinking much of it.

I hear Republicans are also unhappy with their choices. So if Hill is the nominee, it is not unimaginable that a third party candidate might see a ripe opportunity. Then, of course, it would depend on that candidate's history, character, political philosophy, and previous stands on the issues.

It is a shame there weren't more strong Democratic candidates in the 2016 race. It's as if Hillary Clinton's multiyear focus on 2016 sucked the air out of it way too early.

Just some thoughts, hope they're not too hard to follow.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
10. Thanks senz. If she is the nominee, I will think more about it.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 09:22 PM
Mar 2016

I know that Massachusetts will go for the Democratic nominee no matter what or who. It went to Eisenhower and Reagan and that's it, as far as modern times.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
11. Ed Schultz was interviewed on our local progressive station. I will let his words speak for me.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 09:30 PM
Mar 2016

Hillary is going to have to reach out to Bernie voters because they will not reach out to her.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
13. I am not sure what to think about that. For one thing, I have no idea what he means.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 09:33 PM
Mar 2016

It's not as if they don't know she's there.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
15. He was saying that unless Hillary reaches out to Bernie supporters, don't expect Bernie voters
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 09:35 PM
Mar 2016

to support Hillary.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
17. I understood that. But, how specifically is she supposed to reach out?
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 11:24 PM
Mar 2016

What form, specifically, would her outreach take? Is she supposed to promise more than she has already promised? If she does, will they believe her? IOW, I understand what he said. I don't understand what he meant by it.

jillan

(39,451 posts)
18. I have no idea - and I am laughing as I post this. And so was Ed as he said that.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 11:34 PM
Mar 2016

It really boggles my mind that her campaign tells Bernie to drop out and all she has to say about us is
"They don't support me but I support them".

It's worse than I realized. Yesterday I canvassed in Phx for Bernie at his headquarters in Phx.
There were a bunch of people from LA volunteering. (Amazing group of people).

They all said Bernie or Bust. Really I shouldn't have been surprised. These are people that are willing to pack up and travel to volunteer for Bernie. That says a lot about their belief in Bernie.
This feeling is pretty wide spread.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
19. We all need to remember that most Democrats have still never heard of Third Way or the DLC.
Wed Mar 23, 2016, 11:44 PM
Mar 2016

I'm talking smart people who read papers, listen to the news, etc.

We are an unusual subset of people when it comes to politics.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
20. Third Way/DLC don't want to be widely known
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:40 AM
Mar 2016

because they operate behind the scenes. They took over the party by stealth. And the MSM is not about to expose them because the MSM and the DLC/Third Way are all part of the oligarchy.

Regular Democrats are peons kept in ignorance, sending money and providing votes.

Bernie could blow the lid off that act.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
21. Her outreach would be some pathetic pandering
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:46 AM
Mar 2016

about how she would welcome everyone with open arms, in a canned speech...

And then the impotent, lame, sock puppet media will replay, replay, replay.

But I doubt that the Berners are going to fall for it.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
37. In that case, you'd best grab a barf bag because it has already come to that.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:30 AM
Mar 2016

While her husband, supporters and media pals slander "Bernie bros,"as they did "Obama Boys," she smiles and says "they don't support me, but I support them."

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
44. It's like something out of a bad movie.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:54 PM
Mar 2016

If the media were doing its job, we'd be seeing/reading analyses of these behaviors.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
46. Several bad movies. The corporate media is doing its job, for the billionaires who own it.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:58 PM
Mar 2016

You may be thinking of Peter Zenger, the revolutionary journalist who was one of those who inspired the First Amendment. Those days are gone, I fear.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
23. I want the votes of the Bernie Bros my husband, supporters and media pals have been slandering?
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 09:32 AM
Mar 2016

I should have put that in the Op, too. The Obama campaign never attacked Hillary's supporters in 2008. She attacked his, with the same card: Obama Boys. "Boys" was a triple threat: "racially tinged," victimized woman and insult to all adult males who supported Obama.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
45. This is a HUGE red flag about what her presidency would be like.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:58 PM
Mar 2016

She'd essentially pull a Trump on her critics, protesters, dissenters. She'd have her surrogates demonize them and set them up as targets for the American public to hate.

Can we please stop this person from taking the presidency?

BigMin28

(1,149 posts)
38. Exactly!
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:31 AM
Mar 2016

I have watched both Bernie and Clinton for many years. I base my judgement of them on the things they have said and done over all those years, not what I have read or been told about them. In the end I wholeheartedly support Bernie. But if she winds up as the nominee, then she will have to _earn_ my vote. I'm not sure she is up to the job.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
60. Welcome to the Bernie Group. Please note the warning at the top of the OP, unless you are a long
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:30 PM
Mar 2016

time lurker and know the score.

Arkansas Granny

(31,483 posts)
26. That might depend, in part, on Bernie's attitude if Hillary is the nominee.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 09:45 AM
Mar 2016

I'm sure that many of Hillary's supporters in 2008 noticed that after taking a short break from campaigning in the primaries, Hillary came back and hit the campaign trail again in support of Obama, which may have been instrumental to his election. Many of her supporters followed her lead.

Arkansas Granny

(31,483 posts)
29. So, did you only want me to reply if I agreed with you?
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:03 AM
Mar 2016

One constant between 2008 and 2016 is that either of the candidates running as Democrats would be preferable to either of the candidates running as Republicans. The thought of President Trump or President Cruz makes me physically ill.

I put my feeling aside in 2008 to vote for Obama and I have never regretted that. I would hope that if Hillary takes the nomination, that Bernie's supporters will consider the good of the country when they cast their ballot.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
32. Ummm, my post did not say that and was not the least bit confrontational.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:14 AM
Mar 2016

The entire OP explains why the same thing that happened in 2008 may not happen in 2016 and your first post says it's going to be the same, but doesn't say why. Therefore it seemed you did not read the OP, beyond the subject line. I hope you can understand my totally mild, polite response to that. What was I supposed to do? Copy and paste the entire OP into my reply to you?

BTW, this is the Bernie Sanders Group, for posts from DUers who want to support Sanders in defeating Hillary in 2016, not for those who supported Hillary in 2008 and 2016 to snark for no apparent reason. Please leave.

Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #26)

greymouse

(872 posts)
47. my decision does not depend on what Bernie would do
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:07 PM
Mar 2016

I know that traditionally the losing candidate rallies his or her troops to the winning nominee. But Hillary is so far outside what is acceptable to me that I wouldn't vote for her if Bernie came to my house and asked me to. Okay, I'd listen to him, but he'd have to convince me that she isn't a lying incompetent, and that's impossible.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
33. Not even one of the Indies I know who registered as Dems to vote for Bernie in
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:15 AM
Mar 2016

the primaries will vote for Clinton in the GE.

The corporatist Third Way right center ideology of what is called the Democratic party is the reason that these Independents are not Democrats.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
41. There were reasons those people left the Party and only Bernie brought them back.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:38 AM
Mar 2016

After the way that the DNC, the Clintons and their supporters and media pals and Democratic politicians have treated Bernie and his supporters,I don't know why indies who returned to the Party simply to vote for Bernie would either stay in the Party or vote for Hillary. After all, there were reasons why they left what had become the Third Way Democratic Party.

The question is, how will the numbers ultimate work out though? Between Hillary fans, sane Republicans who will note vote for Trump and LOTE voters, will she win the general if she is the nominee?

I found it very interesting that Trump said Bill Clinton told him (Trump) to run for President. Bill denied it. Trump lies something like every five minutes on the stump on average and Bill lies, including under oath. So......whom you believe is probably a reflection or your already existing bias.

 

Autumn Colors

(2,379 posts)
62. I'm a lifelong registered Democrat since 1979 (age 18)
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:50 PM
Mar 2016

I've voted straight Dem. ticket in every election since then.

My answer to your question about my vote is .... NO. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the GE. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for ANY office now or in the future.

I speak only for myself and my vote here. I will vote for down ticket Dems, though.

VulgarPoet

(2,872 posts)
40. I support policy.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:37 AM
Mar 2016

Not endorsements. Not gender. Not age. Not race.

Policy.

If I supported any of the above, I'd either be a Hillary supporter, a Fiorina supporter, a political sheep, or a Carson supporter.

Policy.

Lorien

(31,935 posts)
49. Hillary hasn't won the nomination
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:41 PM
Mar 2016

and she doesn't need our votes. Arizona proved that all she needs is 1% counted and the Associated Press.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
65. Seems that way. When I think of all those people standing in the sun for hours...
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:40 PM
Mar 2016

I have not read a lot about Arizona myself yet, but I did see one headline about the Koch brothers having been involved. I think that is the story I will read first.

Lorien

(31,935 posts)
67. ALEC too, apparently
Fri Mar 25, 2016, 12:40 AM
Mar 2016

but it was upsetting that Clinton was standing at her podium ready to give her victory speech WHILE people were still trying to vote. That's a rare display of disrespect, even for her.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
53. Very well written.
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:50 PM
Mar 2016

Non-voting in the general election is actually voting for the GOP candidate if the non-voting is statistically significant and the Democratic non-votes equate to a GOP win.

HRC is not my first choice, but Trump or Cruz would not be in my top 10,000 candidates for any office in the country. So to my view there is only one choice, and that is, no matter the candidate, to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
64. Thanks, guillameb. You seem to be in a minority on this thread, but, as I posted somewhere,
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:37 PM
Mar 2016

DU is an unusual population. Knowledgeable, very invested in politics, etc.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
61. I believe the technical term is "peas."
Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:31 PM
Mar 2016

j/k.

I'm sure she's offering more than that, at least, ever since the huge Draft Warren movement and Bernie's announcement that he was exploring a run.

The issue around what she offers is, do you take her at her word, as she took Senator Obama at his word when he said he was not a Muslim, as her campaign interns had intimated. Of course, they were dismissed when their emails hit the fan so she really blew their attempt into the water by saying on national TV, "He says he isn't and I take him at his word." I guess her campaign could get tapes of Wright's sermons but no evidence that the Obama's had ever attended? But, wouldn't that have rendered the sermons irrelevant?

Sorry, I can't follow some of this stuff. It just seems to fold in on itself. It's "perne in a gyre" or dark energy or something.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Will supporters of Bernie...