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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

M Kitt

(208 posts)
26. Supposing that were true, it's not, but supposing.
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:30 PM
Jan 2016

Then by supporting MOM (no chance of winning either primary or general election) what will that accomplish in the long run?

How does that complete opposition to what you're defining as "Insiders" affect the general election (GE), do you think?

Discouraging Participation


If you brand the entire system "Corrupt" and without merit, you're essentially promoting non-participation in the current election process by the voting public.

Or was that the point? I'm guessing so, otherwise you'd likely have given us a 2nd preferred candidate.

Alternate?

For instance, if HRC breaks out over the next months and becomes the clear front-runner, I'd still vote for her in the GE as the best candidate in opposition of the GOP "Leadership".

What's the alternative candidate for the position you're taking, "Green Party"? Again, the outcome of that would be discouragement of voter turnout in the general elections.

Maybe you'd rather we had another "spoiler" like Ralph Nader?

Sen. Sanders has been a D.C. political fixture for decades bigtree Jan 2016 #1
Yup. Agschmid Jan 2016 #3
But as an independent. mmonk Jan 2016 #6
who caucused with, voted well over 95% of the time, with Democrats in Congress bigtree Jan 2016 #7
Because they were closer to his beliefs. mmonk Jan 2016 #9
thus, 'principled' bigtree Jan 2016 #12
Maverick is fine. mmonk Jan 2016 #17
Sanders is not in the pocket of the establishment, by that standard he's an outsider. TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #10
he's enmeshed in establishment politics bigtree Jan 2016 #13
Well, let's define what an "Outsider" would be. M Kitt Jan 2016 #14
Bernie is obviously an outsider. Hillary is an insider. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #23
Thanks JDP, agreed. M Kitt Jan 2016 #27
Supposing that were true, it's not, but supposing. M Kitt Jan 2016 #26
I agree somewhat. With Democrats at mmonk Jan 2016 #2
Excellent post!!! K & R! TIME TO PANIC Jan 2016 #4
Bernie has wisdom and experience that Obama didn't have, as special as he also is. Gregorian Jan 2016 #5
Bernie as an outsider??? ha ha. riversedge Jan 2016 #8
Outside of Jamie Dimon. mmonk Jan 2016 #11
He actually is, in many ways, an outsider. It's not just his party status cali Jan 2016 #15
See Reply #13. M Kitt Jan 2016 #16
He is of course NOT an outsider, just the opposite. But, I dont want one anyway randys1 Jan 2016 #18
Refer to comment #13, please. M Kitt Jan 2016 #21
Insider/Outsider? Well, he certainly isn't "politics-as-usual" or "not as bad". K&R Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2016 #19
Aw... Look whose thread got locked! Now talk some more shit! Blue_Tires Jan 2016 #20
Hmm. I'll just say that some of these comments impress me beyond words. M Kitt Jan 2016 #22
K&R. Thanks. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #24
When I first went to the Hill in 1993, Sanders was there. Clinton wasn't. O'Malley wasn't. Recursion Jan 2016 #25
Another Denier, and who do you support? MOM, I see. M Kitt Jan 2016 #28
"Another denier"? What the hell does that even mean? Recursion Jan 2016 #29
Messianic? Replied to in kind, what the hell does that even mean? M Kitt Jan 2016 #30
No, not productive at all Recursion Jan 2016 #31
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2016 #32
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Senator Sanders is an Out...»Reply #26