Sanders supporters have a point

[iguanaman]

You and certain other Hillary supporters' continued indigence, disrespect and condescending attitude toward criticisms of Clinton merely reinforce the zeal of Sanders' supporters and the piece this OP links to.

:coffeepap

At a time when the GOP is uniting behind Trump as a candidate it is extremely un-helpful when a portion of the Democratic majority chooses to show disrespect and a condescending attitude to the presumed nominee of the party. You had you fun now it is time to defeat Trump. Remember,"pigs get slaughtered."

 

[Surrealistik]

Where where those "true Progressives" in 2010 and 2014 when Congress moved further and further right? Why do you think Dems have moved right too? Because they want to get elected. Your dreams are dangerous to the progressive movement and the fact that you can't see it makes it all the more so. If you truly cared about progressive causes you would want them to be enacted and not make them "poison pills" that Democrats are forced to eat at their peril. Keep it up and Trump will show you how bad Govt. can be, just like GW Bush did. Is that you true goal? Because it seems that way to me.

In case you haven't noticed, people are sick of this status quo and toxic movement ever rightward that enriches the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Perhaps the absenteeism in 2010 and 2014 has much to do with Obama being such an egregious disappointment for progressives and their subsequent disenchantment. Inching further to the right simply doesn't work anymore, particularly when all the polling indicates that people want progressive solutions and policy. On that note, Bernie is the strongest candidate this election cycle by far per all metrics available to us, whereas Donald and Hillary are in fact laughably weak and both despised by the general electorate. The only thing compelling a sustained shift to the right these days is the corporate money that backs this economic direction, full stop. If Trump is what it takes for the DNC to come to this realization, then so be it.

 

[iguanaman]

In case you haven't noticed, people are sick of this status quo and toxic movement ever rightward that enriches the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Inching further to the right simply doesn't work anymore, particularly when all the polling indicates that people want progressive solutions and policy. On that note, Bernie is the strongest candidate this election cycle by far per all metrics available to us, whereas Donald and Hillary are in fact laughably weak and both despised by the general electorate. The only thing compelling a sustained shift to the right these days is the corporate money that backs this economic direction, full stop. If Trump is what it takes for the DNC to come to this realization, then so be it.

What I have noticed is the Koch Brother's Tea Party taking over Congress. Is that the "change" you are hoping for?
Like I said, you seem to like Trump and that is why Sanders never had a chance. You guys don't really care about change only destruction and Trump is your man for that no doubt. His Supreme Court picks alone will stop any chance of Progressive change for 50 years. I hope that makes you proud.

 

[Surrealistik]

Like I said, you seem to like Trump and that is why Sanders never had a chance. You guys don't really care about change only destruction and Trump is your man for that no doubt.

I despise Trump and I much rather he weren't in office, but I can easily recognize that if he were to win, the DNC is very likely to seriously reconsider its policy of largely shutting out and silencing progressive voices as this stance would obviously prove the most decisive factor in a Trump win.

In the end, the DNC will reap what it sows, and I have no interest in rewarding its (largely successful) attempts to destroy its own internal democracy for the sake of the party's wealthy benefactors.

 

[Gaius46]

Plus MASSIVE gun control.

Is there a good reason to believe she'll have any more luck than Obama with that?

 

[iguanaman]

I despise Trump and I much rather he weren't in office, but I can easily recognize that if he were to win, the DNC is very likely to seriously reconsider its policy of largely shutting out and silencing progressive voices as this stance would obviously prove the most decisive factor in a Trump win.

Actually the opposite would happen and the Dems would move further right because a Trump win would mean that Hillary was too far left for the electorate. Then you have the Supreme Court picks that Trump would make which would make progressive change "unConstitutional" for a generation. A trump win will mean the end of the progressive movement for both those reasons.

 

[iguanaman]

So Hillary loses....so what? DNC shouldn't have rigged it to get her through. They want votes, they can out up a candidate more people can support. Why should anyone support someone they dont actually agree on?

Because the alternative is FAR worse.... Duh. You didn't get enough punishment under GW Bush? You want to make the same mistakes over and over and expect different results?

 

[Surrealistik]

Actually the opposite would happen and the Dems would move further right because a Trump win would mean that Hillary was too far left for the electorate. Then you have the Supreme Court picks that Trump would make which would make progressive change "unConstitutional" for a generation. A trump win will mena the end of the progressie movement for both those reasons.

If the DNC moves right despite the fact that the Bernie was and is polling double digits above Trump, that Trump is despised (albeit in this case less so than an anti-charismatic Hillary), that they lost because they couldn't appeal to their own progressive base and progressive independents (which is absolutely the most likely reason for Hillary failing vis a vis Trump), and that the preponderance of his blatantly progressive policies have majority support, then it is clearly headed by dumb and egregiously, even criminally incompetent people. I'd like to think that the DNC if nothing else is interested in winning and so will attempt to steer the party accordingly upon receiving such a clear signal that the future of the party is leftward.

As for the SC, there is no guarantee that Trump will have an opportunity for even one pick, never mind several.

 

[Ikari]

Because the alternative is worse.... Duh. You didn't get enough punishment under GW Bush? You want to make the same mistakes over and over?

Hillary is just another George Bush. A corporate politician looking to expand the government and our wars.

We do make the same mistake over and over. Each cycle it's the "lesser of two evils". The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Furthermore, the fact that that's the argument you're left with for support of Hillary shows how much she's not qualified for the job.

Establishment, corporate politicians are all the same, and we've has enough. Same mistake over and over indeed!!

 

[jmotivator]

I don't know. I always thought the terms DINO and RINO should be worn as badges of honor. I mean, by definition Bernie is a DINO.

Maybe Hillary wouldn't be considered a Democrat a few decades ago, but she definitely is the embodiment of them today.

Technically he's only been a Democrat for a little over a year...

 

[jmotivator]

Why stick with Bernie to the end? We continue to hear the question as the California vote is only a week away now. Let's be honest, it's a fair question. For those of us who support Sanders the answer may be more obvious than it is to others. The following quote is an excerpt from the best response, by far, to the question. I would add that the author's suggested implementation of the conditions for Sanders to support Hillary are bang on.

This is a piece well worth reading.


Wow! When it finally gets down to nut cutting this ^^^ is, at the moment, the most likely scenario if Hillary wins. That, and as you'll see in the article, is why I'm with Bernie to the end and beyond.

 

[Wiggen]

Why stick with Bernie to the end? We continue to hear the question as the California vote is only a week away now. Let's be honest, it's a fair question. For those of us who support Sanders the answer may be more obvious than it is to others. The following quote is an excerpt from the best response, by far, to the question. I would add that the author's suggested implementation of the conditions for Sanders to support Hillary are bang on.

This is a piece well worth reading.



Wow! When it finally gets down to nut cutting this ^^^ is, at the moment, the most likely scenario if Hillary wins. That, and as you'll see in the article, is why I'm with Bernie to the end and beyond.

DINO's, like RINO's, tend to be people in the middle of the political spectrum, which is why they are loathed by the extremists in both parties. It's OK. I think I can live with your contempt. I find the extreme right, and the extreme left - as manifested by Sanders and his chair throwing supporters who threaten to hold their collective breaths if they don't get their own way - equally loony and equally contemptible.

 

[jmotivator]

Sanders should totally run third party. He's run his whole career as an Independent socialist anyway. Why stop now?

 

[Risky Thicket]

DINO's, like RINO's, tend to be people in the middle of the political spectrum, which is why they are loathed by the extremists in both parties. It's OK. I think I can live with your contempt. I find the extreme right, and the extreme left - as manifested by Sanders and his chair throwing supporters who threaten to hold their collective breaths if they don't get their own way - equally loony and equally contemptible.

You are either misinformed or you refuse to recognize facts.

 

[shagg]

At a time when the GOP is uniting behind Trump as a candidate it is extremely un-helpful when a portion of the Democratic majority chooses to show disrespect and a condescending attitude to the presumed nominee of the party.

Why is she the presumptive nominee? Its disrespectful and condescending to take on the mantle of "Presumptive Nominee" when one is not yet, in fact, the presumptive nominee. Trump didn't use the term until all his opponents had dropped out, despite having a commanding lead. Just one more example of the attitude towards Sanders. You guys have been trying to say "Will you people get the **** out of the way!" without pushing more votes to the right for months now. It's not an easy thing to do, and as they get more frustrated, the condescending arrogance of Clinton supporters is starting to show more and more. And Shillary herself has done little to try and bring Bernie supporters around to the point of being willing to vote for her. She's relying so heavily on the anti-Trump vote that she's not even going to try. And yet it's the Bernie supporters that are being unreasonable or petulant or childish.

You had you fun now it is time to defeat Trump. Remember,"pigs get slaughtered."

We had our fun? Really? We wanted to win. We're pretty sore about the crooked game that's been played. Nothing, and I mean nothing, makes me want to vote Trump more than being told I've had my fun but now it's time to back whatever it is that's running against Trump. The DNC is gambling on being able to push the what is arguably second worst candidate ever through to POTUS based on people voting against the worst candidate ever. No one has ever relied so much on the "vote against". It's getting to the point where I'd almost rather gamble on Trump flaking on his SCOTUS commitment. Almost.

 

[iguanaman]

Why is she the presumptive nominee? Its disrespectful and condescending to take on the mantle of "Presumptive Nominee" when one is not yet, in fact, the presumptive nominee. Trump didn't use the term until all his opponents had dropped out, despite having a commanding lead. Just one more example of the attitude towards Sanders. You guys have been trying to say "Will you people get the **** out of the way!" without pushing more votes to the right for months now. It's not an easy thing to do, and as they get more frustrated, the condescending arrogance of Clinton supporters is starting to show more and more. And Shillary herself has done little to try and bring Bernie supporters around to the point of being willing to vote for her. She's relying so heavily on the anti-Trump vote that she's not even going to try. And yet it's the Bernie supporters that are being unreasonable or petulant or childish.



We had our fun? Really? We wanted to win. We're pretty sore about the crooked game that's been played. Nothing, and I mean nothing, makes me want to vote Trump more than being told I've had my fun but now it's time to back whatever it is that's running against Trump. The DNC is gambling on being able to push the what is arguably second worst candidate ever through to POTUS based on people voting against the worst candidate ever. No one has ever relied so much on the "vote against". It's getting to the point where I'd almost rather gamble on Trump flaking on his SCOTUS commitment. Almost.

LOL There is nothing funnier that indignant Bernie-ites who somehow have missed the fact the Hillary has been the presumed nominee for 8 years. The time to rise up against her is long past (unless you are a Republican). Then there is the current fact that there is no way that Bernie can get more pledged delegates or primary votes than Hillary which you also ignore. It has become nore and more obvious that unlike Bernie, many of his supporters are simply anti-Hillary and instead of being progressive they are really just anti-establishment which makes Trump an even more attractive candidate than Bernie. You don't give a hoot that Trump would destroy the Progressive movement in fact you are looking forward to it. There is no getting around this fact since you won't vote for Hillary even if Bernie is begging you to. Bernie and his movement can[t mean **** to you it that is how you feel.

 

[iguanaman]

Hillary is just another George Bush. A corporate politician looking to expand the government and our wars.

We do make the same mistake over and over. Each cycle it's the "lesser of two evils". The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Furthermore, the fact that that's the argument you're left with for support of Hillary shows how much she's not qualified for the job.

Establishment, corporate politicians are all the same, and we've has enough. Same mistake over and over indeed!!

You have had enough? That is why you are willing to allow a arrogant demagogue who you admit is worse than Hillary set the tone for the country for the next 25 years? That has to be the stupidest reasoning I have ever heard. It is often said that liberals are their own worst enemy and now I see why.

 

[Ikari]

You have had enough? That is why you are willing to allow a arrogant demagogue who you admit is worse than Hillary set the tone for the country for the next 25 years? That has to be the stupidest reasoning I have ever heard. It is often said that liberals are their own worst enemy and now I see why.

Worse than Hillary? Perhaps somewhat, if you zoom in close enough. Not better than the third party options.

If it's so "stupid", why don't you tell me why I should, once again, support evil? Why don't you tell me why the third coming of Bush is better than Trump and why I have to do it.

Gary Johnson is certainly better than Hillary.

 

[shagg]

1) LOL There is nothing funnier that indignant Bernie-ites who somehow have missed the fact the Hillary has been the presumed nominee for 8 years. The time to rise up against her is long past (unless you are a Republican). 2)Then there is the current fact that there is no way that Bernie can get more pledged delegates or primary votes than Hillary which you also ignore. 3)It has become nore and more obvious that unlike Bernie, many of his supporters are simply anti-Hillary and instead of being progressive they are really just anti-establishment which makes Trump an even more attractive candidate than Bernie. 4)You don't give a hoot that Trump would destroy the Progressive movement in fact you are looking forward to it. There is no getting around this fact since you won't vote for Hillary even if Bernie is begging you to. Bernie and his movement can[t mean **** to you it that is how you feel.

1)Laugh at us all you want, without our votes, she loses. Laughing at some one is not the best way to garner their support fyi..... and the fact that you seem OK that someone can be the presumptive nominee for 8 years is kind of off-putting. Perhaps its that kind of ... directed... politics that some of us don't like?

2)She's ahead by ~250 delegates. It's looking more and more like she can't win without the super delegates. Sure, she's the likely nominee, but yall are jumping the gun on presumptive. If you have to rely on superdelegates to secure the nomination, you are at no point the presumptive nominee.

3)Do you not understand why someone would not like Shillary? Especially someone who supports Bernie for his goal of separating big money from politics? Big money that the Clintons have been grabbing with both hands for as long as they have been able? You seem to be focused on the other guy being worse and glossing over her flaws. Trump was semi anti-establishment, but has since gotten into bed with them. The little appeal he had in that department he lost since becoming an actual presumptive nominee. He looks a little more establishment every day. Regardless though, I'm not voting Trump, and I will probably pull the lever for Shillary. Even though I hate much of what she stands for. Deregulation, free trade, military interventionalism, corporatism, disciple of the oligarchy's money. I will vote for her to stop social conservatism, but I have to compromise on every thing else that's important to me. That's both sad and completely justifies my hatred of her.

4) No offense, but you haven't a clue about what I give a hoot about. You put words in my mouth and then condemn me for them. I think in a single post you have shown most of whats wrong with the typical Shillary supporter. But by all means, keep spouting your nonsense. You might push a few more "Bernie-ites" into voting Trump, third party, or staying home. I'm sure that moment you got to look down on us with paternal condescension and laugh at our "unrealistic" view of the world was worth it.

 

[iguanaman]

If the DNC moves right despite the fact that the Bernie was and is polling double digits above Trump, that Trump is despised (albeit in this case less so than an anti-charismatic Hillary), that they lost because they couldn't appeal to their own progressive base and progressive independents (which is absolutely the most likely reason for Hillary failing vis a vis Trump), and that the preponderance of his blatantly progressive policies have majority support, then it is clearly headed by dumb and egregiously, even criminally incompetent people. I'd like to think that the DNC if nothing else is interested in winning and so will attempt to steer the party accordingly upon receiving such a clear signal that the future of the party is leftward.

As for the SC, there is no guarantee that Trump will have an opportunity for even one pick, never mind several.

LOL There is one pick waiting for him as we speak are you that out of it? I expect he next President will be choosing at least 2 and probably 3 judges.
Stop with all that BS about Bernie's polls. Not one dime has been spent on ads opposing him by Republicans, why do you think that is? Because they want him as the nominee and have all along. They know he will lose once the voters hear his SOCIALIST history and his proposed tax increases for the middle class. You can bet there will be a shift to the right to counter the right wing Congress and right wing President that voters have elected. No one will even want to hear Sanders name again. But you will be happy because.....Hillary.

 

[iguanaman]

1)Laugh at us all you want, without our votes, she loses. Laughing at some one is not the best way to garner their support fyi..... and the fact that you seem OK that someone can be the presumptive nominee for 8 years is kind of off-putting. Perhaps its that kind of ... directed... politics that some of us don't like?

2)She's ahead by ~250 delegates. It's looking more and more like she can't win without the super delegates. Sure, she's the likely nominee, but yall are jumping the gun on presumptive. If you have to rely on superdelegates to secure the nomination, you are at no point the presumptive nominee.

3)Do you not understand why someone would not like Shillary? Especially someone who supports Bernie for his goal of separating big money from politics? Big money that the Clintons have been grabbing with both hands for as long as they have been able? You seem to be focused on the other guy being worse and glossing over her flaws. Trump was semi anti-establishment, but has since gotten into bed with them. The little appeal he had in that department he lost since becoming an actual presumptive nominee. He looks a little more establishment every day. Regardless though, I'm not voting Trump, and I will probably pull the lever for Shillary. Even though I hate much of what she stands for. Deregulation, free trade, military interventionalism, corporatism, disciple of the oligarchy's money. I will vote for her to stop social conservatism, but I have to compromise on every thing else that's important to me. That's both sad and completely justifies my hatred of her.

4) No offense, but you haven't a clue about what I give a hoot about. You put words in my mouth and then condemn me for them. I think in a single post you have shown most of whats wrong with the typical Shillary supporter. But by all means, keep spouting your nonsense. You might push a few more "Bernie-ites" into voting Trump, third party, or staying home. I'm sure that moment you got to look down on us with paternal condescension and laugh at our "unrealistic" view of the world was worth it.

I know, I know already. You like Trump because he is the perfect "anti-Hillary" candidate. and that says volumes about your judgment. You have no one but yourselves to blame if he wins. And believe me there will be blame. Sanders supporters will be cast out to disappear into the woodwork and sadly they will deserve it. You can't act like spoiled children and get ahead in politics. Some of us know that it is not a game and actions have consequences.
That said I think the spoiled children are a small minority of Bernie supporters and most will listen to Bernie when he says that Hillary is the best choice and if you care about his causes you will vote for her.

 

[shagg]

I know, I know already. You like Trump because he is the perfect "anti-Hillary" candidate. and that says volumes about your judgment. You have no one but yourselves to blame if he wins. And believe me there will be blame. Sanders supporters will be cast out to disappear into the woodwork and sadly they will deserve it. You can't act like spoiled children and get ahead in politics. Some of us know that it is not a game and actions have consequences.

Did you miss the part where I said I'm voting for her anyway?

Just in case you missed it....

Regardless though, I'm not voting Trump, and I will probably pull the lever for Shillary. Even though I hate much of what she stands for. Deregulation, free trade, military interventionalism, corporatism, disciple of the oligarchy's money. I will vote for her to stop social conservatism, but I have to compromise on every thing else that's important to me. That's both sad and completely justifies my hatred of her.

Or are you saying that I'm not wearing enough pieces of flair?

 

[Surrealistik]

LOL There is one pick waiting for him as we speak are you that out of it? I expect he next President will be choosing at least 2 and probably 3 judges.
Stop with all that BS about Bernie's polls. Not one dime has been spent on ads opposing him by Republicans, why do you think that is? Because they want him as the nominee and have all along. They know he will lose once the voters hear his SOCIALIST history and his proposed tax increases for the middle class. You can bet there will be a shift to the right to counter the right wing Congress and right wing President that voters have elected. No one will even want to hear Sanders name again. But you will be happy because.....Hillary.

At least 2 according to what crystal ball? Merrick isn't unlikely to be confirmed as an experienced moderate (at the very least him not being confirmed isn't a guarantee; Republicans would have to go all or nothing and risk someone worse), and there are no guarantees of a 2nd appointment.


Further, some Republicans think Sanders would be a weaker opponent than Hillary; others are rightfully terrified of him; unless you can show me some data in support of this claim, that on the whole, Republicans prefer facing off against Sanders, I'm not buying it. The obvious reason the GOP has devoted most of their resources to opposing her is because she is and has always been the most likely Dem candidate to win the nomination; no one took Sanders seriously until they basically had to, which was a recent development.


Second, Sander's platform is out there, it has been gone over exhaustively for nearly a year, and even with all this time to digest it, he is still heads and shoulders more popular than Hillary and Trump alike among the general electorate. The only weapon in the Republican arsenal against him is cartoonish red scare propaganda which I very much doubt the electorate will buy, especially as attitudes towards the concept of socialism have softened greatly.


Lastly, as stated, if Hillary loses, the DNC would have to be wilfully obtuse, utterly incompetent or straight up mentally deficient to go further right in light of a loss that originated so very clearly and obviously in its failure to pivot left, not right. Though it is as an institution obviously biased in favour of big money and the right wing policy that implies thereof, it also needs to win to remain relevant which will ultimately prove the greater consideration.

 

[iguanaman]

Did you miss the part where I said I'm voting for her anyway?

Just in case you missed it....



Or are you saying that I'm not wearing enough pieces of flair?

Most Bernie supporters will be voting for Hillary and so will Bernie. He has never wanted to be a "spoiler" like Nader was. It is just a small minority who are radicalized and are more interested n blowing things up than any actual progress.

 

[iguanaman]

At least 2 according to what crystal ball? Merrick isn't unlikely to be confirmed as an experienced moderate, and there are no guarantees of a 2nd appointment.


Further, some Republicans think Sanders would be a weaker opponent than Hillary; others are rightfully terrified of him; unless you can show me some data in support of this claim, that on the whole, Republicans prefer facing off against Sanders, I'm not buying it. The obvious reason the GOP has devoted most of their resources to opposing her is because she is and has always been the most likely Dem candidate to win the nomination; no one took Sanders seriously until they basically had to, which was a recent development.


Second, Sander's platform is out there, it has been gone over exhaustively for nearly a year, and even with all this time to digest it, he is still heads and shoulders more popular than Hillary and Trump alike among the general electorate. The only weapon in the Republican arsenal against him is cartoonish red scare propaganda which I very much doubt the electorate will buy, especially as attitudes towards the concept of socialism have softened greatly.


Lastly, as stated, if Hillary loses, the DNC would have to be wilfully obtuse, utterly incompetent or straight up mentally deficient to go further right in light of a loss that originated so very clearly and obviously in its failure to pivot left, not right. Though it is as an institution obviously biased in favour of big money and the right wing policy that implies thereof, it also needs to win to remain relevant which will ultimately prove the greater consideration.

When a right wing candidate wins the losing party does not double down on their mistake by becoming even more out of step with voters. They will regroup around a candidate that is more like the one that won not someone who is less like them. This is basic political logic, not that that is something that appeals to you.
And then there is this...

Republicans have made no secret of the fact that they’d prefer to run against Bernie Sanders in the general election. Whether or not their assumptions are correct is a separate question, but GOP officials, convinced that the senator would be easy to defeat, have gone out of their way to help Sanders in the Democratic race.
It’s what made this New York Times report stand out as noteworthy.
A “super PAC” founded by the former TD Ameritrade executive Joe Ricketts is spending more than $600,000 on a television ad in Iowa lashing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont as “too liberal” in the final days of his close race against Hillary Clinton in the state’s caucuses.
The spot is expected to be backed by $600,000 in spending on television ads, and there will be additional expenditures on radio and digital advertising.
At first blush, the move may seem encouraging to Sanders supporters. After all, if Republicans have gone from defending Sanders to attacking him, maybe it means GOP insiders are getting scared of the Vermont independent?
It’s a nice idea, but that’s not what’s going on here. In fact, far from an attack ad, this commercial, backed by a prominent Republican mega-donor, is the latest evidence of the GOP trying to help Sanders, not hurt him.
Indeed, in this case, it’s hardly even subtle. This commercial touts Sanders’ support for tuition-free college, single-payer health care, and higher taxes on the “super-rich.” It concludes that the senator is “too liberal,” which isn’t much of an insult in an ad directed towards liberal voters in Iowa.
In other words, we’re talking about a Republican mega-donor investing in a faux attack ad to help Sanders win because he sees Sanders as easy to beat in November

Anti-Sanders attack ad isn't quite what it seems to be | MSNBC
And before you say that was Maddow talking...
Republicans Run Ad Against Sanders – Because They Want Him to Win | US News