Best move for Bernie and Dems!

[Ntharotep]

Which is why we (Bernie supporters) and Clinton supporters, need to compromise immediately.

No more of this hating on and deriding the opposing sides' candidates. Set aside your bias of them, and let them just share the ticket, please? Everyone will be happy in the end.

There can be no and should be no compromise between an honest man with a real concern for his country and a bold faced liar who cares about her own status.

 

[Sherman123]

There is not going to be a Clinton/Sanders ticket anymore than there will be a Sanders/Clinton ticket. The question remains what Senator Sanders role will be this election season after the primary is over.

 

[Frank Apisa]

There can be no and should be no compromise between an honest man with a real concern for his country and a bold faced liar who cares about her own status.

That kind of thinking is a huge part of the problem we face in America right now.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

There is not going to be a Clinton/Sanders ticket anymore than there will be a Sanders/Clinton ticket. The question remains what Senator Sanders role will be this election season after the primary is over.

You defeat the argument you asserted in your first sentence with the bolded much more supremely than I ever could.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

There can be no and should be no compromise between an honest man with a real concern for his country and a bold faced liar who cares about her own status.

I see where you're coming from, but as of this moment, the bigger threat is Donald Trump. The best way for Clinton to defeat Donald Trump is with the enthusiasm and devotion of Sanders' supporters, quite a few of whom (myself included) will never vote for Clinton over Bernie Sanders. This is the best way for Clinton to counter the suspicion soaring in America about how much she really cares about the people of this country. There is no other way for her to prove that she has the best interests in mind - not just of her own supporters - but of the country as a whole.

Otherwise, she alienates 42% of the population (Independents), permanently divides the party and hands the Presidency to Donald Trump.

And everyone loses.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I see where you're coming from, but as of this moment, the bigger threat is Donald Trump. The best way for Clinton to defeat Donald Trump is with the enthusiasm and devotion of Sanders' supporters, quite a few of whom (myself included) will never vote for Clinton over Bernie Sanders. This is the best way for Clinton to counter the suspicion soaring in America about how much she really cares about the people of this country. There is no other way for her to prove that she has the best interests in mind - not just of her own supporters - but of the country as a whole.

Otherwise, she alienates 42% of the population (Independents), permanently divides the party and hands the Presidency to Donald Trump.

And everyone loses.

How would she do that, Abba?

 

[Abbazorkzog]

How would she do that, Abba?

By confirming everyone-whose-not-a-Clinton-supporter's suspicions that she does not have their best interests in mind.

 

[Frank Apisa]

By confirming everyone-whose-not-a-Clinton-supporter's suspicions that she does not have their best interests in mind.

If you could be serious, I'd appreciate it.

I think you are correct that in the General Election, Hillary Clinton needs the people who are presently fixed on Bernie Sanders.

I just have no idea of how to the "confirming" thing...and I am seriously (and I hope respectfully) asking if you have some ideas as a Bernie fan.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

If you could be serious, I'd appreciate it.

I think you are correct that in the General Election, Hillary Clinton needs the people who are presently fixed on Bernie Sanders.

I just have no idea of how to the "confirming" thing...and I am seriously (and I hope respectfully) asking if you have some ideas as a Bernie fan.

The next best thing would be for her to pick Warren for VP. I know a lot of people (mostly on the Clinton side it seems) like to underestimate the influence of the VP. They may be right as far as domestic policy is concerned, but on foreign relations it is a different animal. A peacenik like Bernie or Liz could help reduce the potentiality of a massive conflict unfolding under Clinton's hawkish regime. Considering one of Bernie's strongest points (in my opinion) is coming down hard on the regime-change interventionist wars we've been engaged in for decade after decade... the most important thing is her having a running-mate as critical as Bernie about getting involved in wars and inflating the war machine/military-industrial complex, and could prevent Clinton from running away with her connections indicative therein.

 

[Frank Apisa]

The next best thing would be for her to pick Warren for VP. I know a lot of people (mostly on the Clinton side it seems) like to underestimate the influence of the VP. They may be right as far as domestic policy is concerned, but on foreign relations it is a different animal. A peacenik like Bernie or Liz could help reduce the potentiality of a massive conflict unfolding under Clinton's hawkish regime. Considering one of Bernie's strongest points (in my opinion) is coming down hard on the regime-change interventionist wars we've been engaged in for decade after decade... the most important thing is her having a running-mate as critical as Bernie about getting involved in wars and inflating the war machine/military-industrial complex, and could prevent Clinton from running away with her connections indicative therein.

I would have a lot less problem with Hillary picking Warren as her running mate...than with her picking Bernie Sanders. I feel Sanders with his "socialist" label would be a huge liability.

Warren is, and has been, a Democrat...and does not use the "socialist" label.

Two women make as much sense to me as two men...more sense, actually, than two men. I am one of those males who would like to see the political complexion of our country change from male dominated...to just about equal between male and female. I hope this does not come across as sexist, but I think there are female (maternal) characteristics that make for better governance. (Just a personal feeling.)

Hillary may be advised against choosing Warren and there may be good reasons for it. She may heed that advise.

Other than the choice of running mate...are there things she can do that you think might "confirm" to Sanders' supporters that she has the general population in mind?

One comment that I deem necessary here: EVERY POLITICIAN I HAVE EVER KNOWN (and I have known MANY) has personal interests in mind...perhaps primarily in mind. That is not a fault of politicians...but of humans. We all put our own well-being and well-being of our families foremost. It is a human trait...and I think it unrealistic to suppose self-interest should disappear for people interested in governance. We certainly wouldn't ask it of physicians or lawyers or CEO's...and should not be asking it of people in governance.

 

[Surrealistik]

The next best thing would be for her to pick Warren for VP. I know a lot of people (mostly on the Clinton side it seems) like to underestimate the influence of the VP. They may be right as far as domestic policy is concerned, but on foreign relations it is a different animal. A peacenik like Bernie or Liz could help reduce the potentiality of a massive conflict unfolding under Clinton's hawkish regime. Considering one of Bernie's strongest points (in my opinion) is coming down hard on the regime-change interventionist wars we've been engaged in for decade after decade... the most important thing is her having a running-mate as critical as Bernie about getting involved in wars and inflating the war machine/military-industrial complex, and could prevent Clinton from running away with her connections indicative therein.

I would much rather EW remain where she is, where she has actual power and influence.

Beyond that, Bernie supporters would rightfully perceive an EW appointment as a betrayal of him and her principles for political favours given that her endorsement absolutely would have made the difference in Massachusetts, so this would ultimately prove a strategic misstep for Hillary.


Also, I do note with amusement sudden, concerted attempts at coercion by the Hillarites to terrify Bernie supporters with the ridiculous prospect that his name and movement will be discredited and cast down in the event they do not support Hillary: that if you care about Bernie and his legacy, you will shut up, sit down and and get in line or he will take the blame and all he will have worked for will be lost; as if responsibility would or should be accorded with them rather than the DNC's attempts to rig the nomination process against Sanders however it is able, or a neoliberal false progressive with terrible favourability ratings hopelessly beholden to the corrupt system she falsely claims to be willing and able to fix. The desperation of Clinton backers is becoming painfully obvious; it seems her camp will do anything and everything to get our vote _except_ commit to pursuing any of Sanders' key policies.

 

[Sherman123]

You defeat the argument you asserted in your first sentence with the bolded much more supremely than I ever could.

How so? He isn't going to be the nominee or the vice presidential nominee so his role in the upcoming election is unclear. Will he be a surrogate? An advocate? An opponent?

 

[Frank Apisa]

I would much rather EW remain where she is, where she has actual power and influence.

Beyond that, Bernie supporters would rightfully perceive an EW appointment as a betrayal of him and her principles for political favours given that her endorsement absolutely would have made the difference in Massachusetts, so this would ultimately prove a strategic misstep for Hillary.


Also, I do note with amusement sudden, concerted attempts at coercion by the Hillarites to terrify Bernie supporters with the ridiculous prospect that his name and movement will be discredited and cast down in the event they do not support Hillary: that if you care about Bernie and his legacy, you will shut up, sit down and and get in line or he will take the blame and all he will have worked for will be lost; as if responsibility would or should be accorded with them rather than the DNC's attempts to rig the nomination process against Sanders however it is able, or a neoliberal false progressive with terrible favourability ratings hopelessly beholden to the corrupt system she falsely claims to be willing and able to fix. The desperation of Clinton backers is becoming painfully obvious; it seems her camp will do anything and everything to get our vote _except_ commit to pursuing any of Sanders' key policies.

Okay...see desperation and duplicity if you choose.

I repeat: Many pundits think that without the aid of a majority of Sanders supporters...Hillary will lose the General Election. The thinking goes: If she loses a majority of the Sanders supporters...she will also lose a majority of the independent voters and SHE WILL LOSE the election.

Trump will become president.

We will survive Trump. I'd rather we not be faced with that task, but if we are, we will survive him.

And the Sanders people will say what the Nader people said: It was not our fault that Hillary lost. We stuck to our principles...and the fault lies with the losing candidate.

Not easy to disagree with that.

 

[Surrealistik]

Okay...see desperation and duplicity if you choose.

I repeat: Many pundits think that without the aid of a majority of Sanders supporters...Hillary will lose the General Election. The thinking goes: If she loses a majority of the Sanders supporters...she will also lose a majority of the independent voters and SHE WILL LOSE the election.

Trump will become president.

We will survive Trump. I'd rather we not be faced with that task, but if we are, we will survive him.

And the Sanders people will say what the Nader people said: It was not our fault that Hillary lost. We stuck to our principles...and the fault lies with the losing candidate.

Not easy to disagree with that.

It would be so easy for Clinton to take the preponderance of our votes: all she has to do is commit to at least a couple of Bernie's centerpiece policies (hell if she devoted herself to say singlepayer and meaningful lobbying/electoral finance reform that would be enough in my case), but she refuses to; she feels she doesn't have to make any kind of concession whatsoever, and so we will turn our backs on her, and she will probably lose.

 

[Celebrity]

I would have a lot less problem with Hillary picking Warren as her running mate...than with her picking Bernie Sanders. I feel Sanders with his "socialist" label would be a huge liability.

Warren is, and has been, a Democrat...and does not use the "socialist" label.

Two women make as much sense to me as two men...more sense, actually, than two men. I am one of those males who would like to see the political complexion of our country change from male dominated...to just about equal between male and female. I hope this does not come across as sexist, but I think there are female (maternal) characteristics that make for better governance. (Just a personal feeling.)

Hillary may be advised against choosing Warren and there may be good reasons for it. She may heed that advise.

Other than the choice of running mate...are there things she can do that you think might "confirm" to Sanders' supporters that she has the general population in mind?

One comment that I deem necessary here: EVERY POLITICIAN I HAVE EVER KNOWN (and I have known MANY) has personal interests in mind...perhaps primarily in mind. That is not a fault of politicians...but of humans. We all put our own well-being and well-being of our families foremost. It is a human trait...and I think it unrealistic to suppose self-interest should disappear for people interested in governance. We certainly wouldn't ask it of physicians or lawyers or CEO's...and should not be asking it of people in governance.

Are you mistaking personal interest for conviction? How many single politicians do you know?

If you're pro business and don't like the idea of dems going on strike if hrc wins the nomination, Calvin Coolidge is your guy. I think this is what Republicans were going for when they got caught up in a fundamentalist quagmire.

 

[Frank Apisa]

It would be so easy for Clinton to take the preponderance of our votes: all she has to do is commit to at least a couple of Bernie's centerpiece policies (hell if she devoted herself to say singlepayer and meaningful lobbying/electoral finance reform that would be enough in my case), but she refuses to; she feels she doesn't have to make any kind of concession whatsoever, and so we will turn our backs on her, and she will probably lose.

When Hillary lost in 2008, Surrealisik, she gracefully moved aside...and supported Barack Obama. He was the winner...she as the loser did not dictate terms to him.

It is alright for Sanders to want some of his key policies to be part of the Democratic platform...but the DNC has already conceded significantly on allowing him input into the platform.

As I see it, the best the Democrats can do is to keep as centered as possible...and allow the Republicans to veer to the unacceptable political edge. And then, if they win, attempt to initiate and further more policies toward the left...but which can turn lots of voters off during the election.

BUT...if the Sanders people think the best move is to withhold support from Hillary...and, in effect, to help the Republicans and Donald Trump to win the top office...

...we all will have to live with it.

I will.

In fact, I see the gridlock as so damaging, that if they win, I will suggest we move in the direction the want us to move.

What a revolting development that will be.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Are you mistaking personal interest for conviction? How many single politicians do you know?

If you're pro business and don't like the idea of dems going on strike if hrc wins the nomination, Calvin Coolidge is your guy. I think this is what Republicans were going for when they got caught up in a fundamentalist quagmire.

What in hell are you raving about?

 

[Celebrity]

What in hell are you raving about?

Obama had the momentum in 2008 that Bernie has today. Some of the reasons why detractors thought he wouldn't be successful (male, foreign born, possible drug use, etc) were used to smear his campaign. Still, the American people elected Obama and reelected him to office because we are willing to overcome our differences.

Similarly, we can see that establishment party bosses are not seen favorably in 2016. The best move for Bernie and dems is to look for issues which many people support and try to identify with people who have historically supported those ideas. If you can think outside the box and still find common ground with independents, without losing democrats, you'll win the nomination at the DNC.

For decades voters have looked for a candidate with family values. Your best bet is probably a non-custodial parent. A non-custodial parent probably has a family, but is willing to put America and the American people first. A democratic socialist is a great way to show people you care by delivering social services on the basis of need, and requiring from wealthy people a higher level of contribution. The candidate who is the best fit exemplifies this need/ability relationship. Non-custodial parents need jobs, and they have the time to commit to those jobs. So the non-traditional candidate who can tie in votes from black voters, young voters and liberals is someone who represents a familiar quality of standing up for what's right in communities. Bernie should be looking for a qualified VP right now, though I doubt he will make it past the convention so it likely won't matter.

I think your question is impossible to answer. You are trying to tie Bernie into an establishment that wants his votes, not the values of his constituents. For someone who has given 0 likes, I find it interesting that you think the DNC has made concessions for Bernie.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Obama had the momentum in 2008 that Bernie has today. Some of the reasons why detractors thought he wouldn't be successful (male, foreign born, possible drug use, etc) were used to smear his campaign. Still, the American people elected Obama and reelected him to office because we are willing to overcome our differences.

Similarly, we can see that establishment party bosses are not seen favorably in 2016. The best move for Bernie and dems is to look for issues which many people support and try to identify with people who have historically supported those ideas. If you can think outside the box and still find common ground with independents, without losing democrats, you'll win the nomination at the DNC.

For decades voters have looked for a candidate with family values. Your best bet is probably a non-custodial parent. A non-custodial parent probably has a family, but is willing to put America and the American people first. A democratic socialist is a great way to show people you care by delivering social services on the basis of need, and requiring from wealthy people a higher level of contribution. The candidate who is the best fit exemplifies this need/ability relationship. Non-custodial parents need jobs, and they have the time to commit to those jobs. So the non-traditional candidate who can tie in votes from black voters, young voters and liberals is someone who represents a familiar quality of standing up for what's right in communities. Bernie should be looking for a qualified VP right now, though I doubt he will make it past the convention so it likely won't matter.

I think your question is impossible to answer. You are trying to tie Bernie into an establishment that wants his votes, not the values of his constituents. For someone who has given 0 likes, I find it interesting that you think the DNC has made concessions for Bernie.

Apparently you did not understand my question. Here it is again:

What in hell are you raving about?

 

[Surrealistik]

When Hillary lost in 2008, Surrealisik, she gracefully moved aside...and supported Barack Obama. He was the winner...she as the loser did not dictate terms to him.

It is alright for Sanders to want some of his key policies to be part of the Democratic platform...but the DNC has already conceded significantly on allowing him input into the platform.

As I see it, the best the Democrats can do is to keep as centered as possible...and allow the Republicans to veer to the unacceptable political edge. And then, if they win, attempt to initiate and further more policies toward the left...but which can turn lots of voters off during the election.

BUT...if the Sanders people think the best move is to withhold support from Hillary...and, in effect, to help the Republicans and Donald Trump to win the top office...

...we all will have to live with it.

I will.

In fact, I see the gridlock as so damaging, that if they win, I will suggest we move in the direction the want us to move.

What a revolting development that will be.

Compromising with Bernie supporters to unify and build a coalition is not a case of them 'dictating terms'. I thought negotiation and diplomacy were things Clinton was supposed to be good at; evidently not. For all the accusations her supporters throw at the Sanders camp of destructive recalcitrance, they sure seem eagerly willing to ignore Hillary's own glaring faults and stubbornness in this regard.

Second, there is a reason Bernie is by far the most popular candidate nationally, and that being the case, Clinton only hurts herself by not moving more towards his platform which is exceedingly popular; being a right of center neoliberal is exactly why, beyond her corporate bankrolling and utter lack of charisma and consistency, Hillary is thoroughly disliked. The polls are telling us repeatedly and without variation that Bernie's platform is popular and very well liked; a principled position on the left, not in the vicinity of Republican lite is by far the better strategy. If Sanders' positions were to prove such a disaster in the general, and if they were so anathema to independents who decide the election, his approval ratings and popularity outside the Democratic party wouldn't be nearly so high. Again, the greatest threat to his presidential bid is, and has always ever been Hillary and the DNC that has striven to appoint her, not the political opposition.

 

[Celebrity]

Apparently you did not understand my question. Here it is again:

What in hell are you raving about?

Good try, Frank. Repeating your question again and again to get the answer you want, while failing to address claims I've made in my post won't work for anyone except the ignorant. By the way, your signature has too many commas in it.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Compromising with Bernie supporters to unify and build a coalition is not a case of the latter 'dictating terms'. I thought negotiation and diplomacy were things Clinton was supposed to be good at; evidently not. For all the accusations her supporters throw at the Sanders camp of destructive recalcitrance, they sure seem eagerly willing to ignore Hillary's own glaring faults and stubbornness in this regard.

Second, there is a reason Bernie is by far the most popular candidate nationally, and that being the case, Clinton only hurts herself by not moving more towards his platform which is exceedingly popular; being a right of center neoliberal is exactly why, beyond her corporate bankrolling and utter lack of charisma and consistency, Hillary is thoroughly disliked. The polls are telling us repeatedly and without variation that Bernie's platform is popular and very well liked; a principled position on the left, not in the vicinity of Republican lite is by far the better strategy. If Sanders' positions were to prove such a disaster in the general, and if they were so anathema to independents who decide the election, his approval ratings and popularity outside the Democratic party wouldn't be nearly so high. Again, the greatest threat to his presidential bid is, and has always ever been Hillary, not the political opposition.

Well...then the Sanders supporters who think as you do ought to withhold their votes from Hillary Clinton...or vote for Donald Trump or someone else.

If enough of you do...Hillary will lose...and Trump will win.

No problem.

And you will have taught her a lesson she won't soon forget.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Good try, Frank. Repeating your question again and again to get the answer you want, while failing to address claims I've made in my post won't work for anyone except the ignorant. By the way, your signature has too many commas in it.

Ahhh!

 

[Celebrity]

Compromising with Bernie supporters to unify and build a coalition is not a case of them 'dictating terms'. I thought negotiation and diplomacy were things Clinton was supposed to be good at; evidently not. For all the accusations her supporters throw at the Sanders camp of destructive recalcitrance, they sure seem eagerly willing to ignore Hillary's own glaring faults and stubbornness in this regard.

Second, there is a reason Bernie is by far the most popular candidate nationally, and that being the case, Clinton only hurts herself by not moving more towards his platform which is exceedingly popular; being a right of center neoliberal is exactly why, beyond her corporate bankrolling and utter lack of charisma and consistency, Hillary is thoroughly disliked. The polls are telling us repeatedly and without variation that Bernie's platform is popular and very well liked; a principled position on the left, not in the vicinity of Republican lite is by far the better strategy. If Sanders' positions were to prove such a disaster in the general, and if they were so anathema to independents who decide the election, his approval ratings and popularity outside the Democratic party wouldn't be nearly so high. Again, the greatest threat to his presidential bid is, and has always ever been Hillary and the DNC that has striven to appoint her, not the political opposition.

Right, saber rattling in primary season only serves to weaken a candidate in the eyes of voters. If she actually had a fundamental disagreement on some issue, like trade, she could wait until the general election. HRC and BS agree on many things, however they have to debate in order to prove that they can run a viable campaign. So where HRC has tried to show she has the upper hand, BS has shown a track record of success with integrity. The most HRC can do to diminish BS success is to demean it by making it seem insignificant on a large scale, blowing things out of proportion and making her look very weak in comparison. She needs to adopt enough of his ideas to run a successful campaign for Democrats, not just BS or HRC supporters. Unfortunately for HRC, it seems like BS has already had all the good ideas, so he need not adopt any of her ideas to clinch a nomination. Furthermore, he can claim authorship where HRC can only claim administration so it seems like he means it when he says he is dead set on forcing a vote.

There's some drama for you drama lovers out there. BS came up with raising the minimum wage. HRC came up with the idea to retreat into her marginal lead at the last minute before NJ and CA primaries, like a coward.

 

[Celebrity]

Well...then the Sanders supporters who think as you do ought to withhold their votes from Hillary Clinton...or vote for Donald Trump or someone else.

If enough of you do...Hillary will lose...and Trump will win.

No problem.

And you will have taught her a lesson she won't soon forget.

Frank, I think the American people have enough at stake here. No one is teaching a lesson in vain.

If you want to be a pragmatic person, you should live life pragmatically. The presidential candidates know that you can't please everyone. Conviction is one thing, but not participating in an open forum or debate doesn't make me see HRC as a more pragmatic candidate.

BS has said he does not consider himself a leader, but if you look back to what has been accomplished, HRC will try oneupmanship where Bernie can point to a meaningful contribution which directly impacted his constituents. Democrats should be interested in bipartisanship in the long term, inasmuch as Republicans will allow it. By stating that BS policies won't work, HRC has shown that she's very adverse to positive change. BS is not a wishful thinker. Trump is not a wishful thinker. I don't think HRC can win the election by playing hardball and victim at the same time, simply because she's a philanthropist. People don't want to see the President throw money around willy nilly. They don't want someone who's a "gosh darn good person," although that would be a significant benefit to that candidate's accountability. It's not enough to ignore the distaste people have for certain candidates, so what more can the DNC do for this country?