Sanders supporters have a point

[iguanaman]

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.

Republicans fear Hillary Clinton more than any other politician and yes they would much rather run against Sanders. He is a push over with his socialist moniker and tax increases on the middle class. Stop kidding yourself.
Republicans Run Ad Against Sanders – Because They Want Him to Win | US News

 

[iguanaman]

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.

I forgot to comment about SC vacancies. Here is what experts are saying..

In the next few years, the Supreme Court may face as many as four vacancies as some of the justices age or enter retirement. That means the outcome of November's elections could be critical in determining the court's future composition.

Nearly half of the court -- four of the nine justices -- has served on it for 20 to 30 years and are either over the age of 80 or approaching it.

How could the next president reshape the Supreme Court? - CBS News

 

[Helix]

the scarier problem is that Clinton is a terrible candidate. that means that Trump, a candidate who is flat out unfit for office, actually has at least a narrow path to victory against her. he cannot be given control of the most powerful that military mankind has ever known. unfortunately, i don't see any likely way for Sanders to win the nomination. the Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by running the candidate with the highest negatives in their field.

 

[Risky Thicket]

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.

YOU didn't read the article in the OP, did you?

 

[Renae]

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.

Actually, Sanders voters are constitutionally, historically illiterate as a general rule. Sanders wants to do away with states rights, fiscal responsibility and flow down the path of many a failed socialist (yes even so called democratic socialist) states. The only reason he's doing so well is that the Dems put the WORST person up they could.

Course, I can't say too much, my chosen party's already gone of the bat**** insane cliff, why not the Dems too?

 

[Surrealistik]

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...

Except it would be abundantly clear that it's not about Trump winning as much as it is about Hillary losing. Equally clear would be the fact that she lost primarily because she didn't win over Bernie's voters, not because she wasn't suitably fascist. Your own people in the Hillary camp already acknowledge the latter and are scared to death of this, so pick one: either they're terrified without cause and you can stop trying to persuade me and other Bernie supporters, or they are and Hillary's most likely reason for failure therefore is precisely her lack of compromise with the progressive left, not being inadequately right wing.

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

That's not hard data in support of the idea that a majority of Republican officials feel he will be an easier opponent, that's a confirmation of the fact that some GOP personalities believe (and wrongly per all the information thus far available) that Sanders would be an easier opponent which was never denied. Even if I assume you're right though (you're not), so what? No one is more wrong more often than the GOP.

I forgot to comment about SC vacancies. Here is what experts are saying..

How could the next president reshape the Supreme Court? - CBS News

Yes, as many as four and as few as none.

 

[Risky Thicket]

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.

Excellent post. I would add that the GOP candidates, including Trump, did not and have not focused campaign advertising opposing Bernie because the establishment Press has been in love with Hillary from day one and - perhaps more importantly - they have all but ignored Sanders since day one. Why spend campaign bucks to oppose and call attention to a guy the Press refuses to recognize? It has been much to the GOP's advantage that the Press has purposely ignored Sanders.

Trump has received an enormous amount of free ink. Hillary has been the Democratic establishment darling all along. As boring, as unimaginative, as bland and as duplicitous as Hillary is, or because of it, the establishment Press has done everything possible to prop her up.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

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."

The only way our presumptuous Nominee will be able to make-it-up-to and win over Sanders and his supporters is by denouncing the violence, condescension, contempt and bullying - politically or otherwise - by her supporters and insiders of Sanders and his supporters, and successfully uniting the party against Trump, at this point, is by making Sanders running-mate. Or at the very least Elizabeth Warren (but that is a heavily risky alternative). Sanders will likewise need to condemn the violence of his supporters (once again), and make it clear that he is doing so, before dropping out to be said running-mate. Either he or Clinton needs to drop out immediately, I don't care which one at this point now that I've acknowledged the harsh reality that Trump could very well be our next President. Surely your mutual disdain for Trump allows you to see that.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

the scarier problem is that Clinton is a terrible candidate. that means that Trump, a candidate who is flat out unfit for office, actually has at least a narrow path to victory against her. he cannot be given control of the most powerful that military mankind has ever known. unfortunately, i don't see any likely way for Sanders to win the nomination. the Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by running the candidate with the highest negatives in their field.

The funny thing about negatives is that they can always improve...

 

[Unitedwestand13]

The only way our presumptuous Nominee will be able to make-it-up-to and win over Sanders and his supporters is by denouncing the violence, condescension, contempt and bullying - politically or otherwise - by her supporters and insiders of Sanders and his supporters, and successfully uniting the party against Trump, at this point, is by making Sanders running-mate. Or at the very least Elizabeth Warren (but that is a heavily risky alternative). Sanders will likewise need to condemn the violence of his supporters (once again), and make it clear that he is doing so, before dropping out to be said running-mate. Either he or Clinton needs to drop out immediately, I don't care which one at this point now that I've acknowledged the harsh reality that Trump could very well be our next President. Surely your mutual disdain for Trump allows you to see that.

Trump has several problems at the moment.

For one thing his campagin is reportedly financially strapped for cash.

Donald Trump's campaign has alerted Senate Republicans that he won't have much money to spend fending off attacks from Hillary Clinton over the next couple months.

The notice came when Paul Manafort, Trump's senior advisor, met with a group of Senate Republican chiefs of staff for lunch last week, sources familiar with the meeting told the Washington Examiner. The admission suggests that Trump will be far more dependent on the GOP brass for money than he has led voters to believe, but it's consistent with his reliance on the Republican National Committee to provide a ground game in battleground states.

"They know that they're not going to have enough money to be on TV in June and probably most of July, until they actually accept the nomination and get RNC funds, so they plan to just use earned media to compete on the airwaves," one GOP source familiar with Manafort's comments told the Examiner.

Trump camp concedes it's low on money | Washington Examiner

Take the source with a grain of salt.

 

[Helix]

The funny thing about negatives is that they can always improve...

let's hope that you're right, at least in Clinton's case.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Trump has several problems at the moment.

For one thing his campagin is reportedly financially strapped for cash.



Trump camp concedes it's low on money | Washington Examiner

Take the source with a grain of salt.

I still wouldn't chance it. If Hillary and Bernie keep going the way they are going the Democratic Party is going to self-destruct.

 

[American]

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

Supreme Court nominees

 

[Anthony60]

They are just two people that want to destroy my country, one way or the other. Doesn't matter which one does it.

 

[Linc]

Supreme Court nominees

Being the chief reason to keep trump out of the WH--along with whatever budget Ryan can get past his Freedom Caucus and rammed through the mcconnell Senate by reconciliation

 

[Anthony60]

Trump has received an enormous amount of free ink. Hillary has been the Democratic establishment darling all along. As boring, as unimaginative, as bland and as duplicitous as Hillary is, or because of it, the establishment Press has done everything possible to prop her up.

She could get indicted, it depends how long they can drag their feet. Then what? What happens Bernie at that point? I bet they drop him off the map.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Most democrats seem to think she better represents their views than Sanders. And calling her a "neoliberal" is retarded. She is nothing at all like a neoliberal.

like 55%. It's hardly overwhelming support for Hillary, especially since Sanders is a deranged old fruitcake who has virtually no machine behind him other then jilted millenials and geriatric flower seniors.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

She could get indicted, it depends how long they can drag their feet. Then what? What happens Bernie at that point? I bet they drop him off the map.

They will nominate Joe Biden and it will be Trump-Gingrich v Biden-Warren.

 

[Linc]

like 55%. It's hardly overwhelming support for Hillary, especially since Sanders is a deranged old fruitcake who has virtually no machine behind him other then jilted millenials and geriatric flower seniors.

You calling Sanders a deranged old fruitcake sounds like something your boy Beck would say .

 

[Wiggen]

You are either misinformed or you refuse to recognize facts.

Well, since I undoubtedly know more than you and since I'm very good at recognizing facts, I'd say you are mistaken. The Left wing of the Democratic Party wants to return to the days of George McGovern, where we nominated a candidate that was so far to the left that he was clobbered by Richard Nixon. On the bright side, however, Sanders does afford you the opportunity to maintain that ideological purity that's so important to the extremists on both sides. After all, what's winning an election compared with that?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You calling Sanders a deranged old fruitcake sounds like something your boy Beck would say .

It is extreme, but the more I listen to him the more I think so. it's clear he's completely separated from reality, he actually thinks he can get socialism to work with congress being a prime example.
He's going to pay for free college in the entire country with a tax on "wall street speculation" (commodities speculation? what the hell is wall street speculation?) he has fewer plans then Trump.

 

[Wiggen]

You calling Sanders a deranged old fruitcake sounds like something your boy Beck would say .

He's asking for labels like that with his performance of late. I just have to keep reminding myself that he is not a Democrat and he has never been a Democrat. He's a Socialist, and if he had any integrity at all, he'd have run as a Socialist.

 

[Linc]

It is extreme, but the more I listen to him the more I think so. it's clear he's completely separated from reality, he actually thinks he can get socialism to work with congress being a prime example.
He's going to pay for free college in the entire country with a tax on "wall street speculation" (commodities speculation? what the hell is wall street speculation?) he has fewer plans then Trump.

He has many ultimate trump cards. Such as who he might caucus with next year in a close Senate .

 

[Linc]

Well, since I undoubtedly know more than you and since I'm very good at recognizing facts, I'd say you are mistaken. The Left wing of the Democratic Party wants to return to the days of George McGovern, where we nominated a candidate that was so far to the left that he was clobbered by Richard Nixon. On the bright side, however, Sanders does afford you the opportunity to maintain that ideological purity that's so important to the extremists on both sides. After all, what's winning an election compared with that?

This divide could remind us of what Kennedy did to Carter .

 

[Wiggen]

This divide could remind us of what Kennedy did to Carter .

Well, I would suggest that whatever was done to Carter was done by Carter, but I get your point. The Sanders people remind me of spoiled children who, having found their Messiah, just won't accept the fact that he won't be the nominee for President. So they have a tantrum. Sometimes this involves throwing chairs and making death threats at those they perceive as their enemies, and other times it's just 'Bernie or Bust'. No matter that a truly dangerous man is the Republican nominee - they're going to teach all of us a lesson. And Sanders bears a huge responsibility for this.