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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton [View all]randome
(34,845 posts)38. It is what it is. A ridiculous tautology, sure, but inescapable.
There are battles to be fought, still, but Sanders versus Clinton doesn't seem to be one, IMO. We have to deal with reality. That's not a self-fulfilling prophecy but unless someone has a plan to change tens of millions of voters' preferences, it seems to be the reality we're stuck with.
Why engage in useless vitriol? (Not you, personally, I mean in general.) It won't change anything except, perhaps, the shape of one's head.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
112 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You do realize there is a primary first where we can pick the Democrat we really want
LynneSin
Nov 2015
#51
they seem to forget that it's a "Democratic" primary and not liberal or progressive.
demosincebirth
Nov 2015
#57
I quote Cesar Chavez because I was a farmworker as a very young man. I was a teamster stewart
demosincebirth
Nov 2015
#88
In a sane world it would not be a choice between Hillary/Sanders vs. Top Republican Clown
LiberalLovinLug
Nov 2015
#112
But if we nominate Bernie, this whole "hold our noses and vote for a bad Democrat" nonsense
Maedhros
Nov 2015
#12
The 'progressives' voting for Hillary are acting out of fear, playing not to lose.
Maedhros
Nov 2015
#19
They needn't worry. This is not 1972. The historical parameters are very different.
JDPriestly
Nov 2015
#72
But it's this cyclical lament, wrought with much wailing and gnashing of teeth,
Maedhros
Nov 2015
#94
Only if she is the nominee. Even then, she has no appeal to the 63% who sat out 2014 n/t
eridani
Nov 2015
#97
That is just the opposite of wingnuts saying candidates that lose to Dems were not conservative
upaloopa
Nov 2015
#74
You need to prepare people to accept your thinking first. In 2016 that simply is not happening
upaloopa
Nov 2015
#100
Wrong. Here in Wisconsin we elected the "Madison liberal lesbian" to the US Senate ...
Scuba
Nov 2015
#95
Very true. But she was up against Charismatic Obama then. Sanders doesn't have that charm.
randome
Nov 2015
#41
I don't agree about her having it sewn up, but I agree with the rest of your post.
blackspade
Nov 2015
#48
Blah, blah, blah - more twisting of facts to "prove" something - that's why that piece....
George II
Nov 2015
#40
Yet they are, probably because they have bothered to look at her actual policies
BainsBane
Nov 2015
#58
that might convince enough DUers, but there's no way that can win any more votes
MisterP
Nov 2015
#81
but it's not DUers that won't vote, it's millions of Americans who saw the chance
MisterP
Nov 2015
#91
Maybe you'd like the status quo to continue with a corporate Wall Street candidate.
pinebox
Nov 2015
#107