Think it proves that the America that Hillary wants to fine tune is rejected half of her own people

[Rilgin]

I think that is ultimately what the Clinton supporters do not really get. This election and the current mood in America is not foremost about the specific anti-establishment candidate. It really is not about Bernie but is a rejection of Hillary. Some of it is based on her actual history and is reasoned but a lot is simply that she is part of an establishment that has allowed America to change from a system that provided at least a good or decent life, a potential future, and short and long term security for its people to a state where we have huge insecurity and huge gaps in wealth and income.

America does not really work for half the people in it. Its not a war zone or a place of anarchy that is totally broken but the economic and political system is currently a failure for half of the people. America does not provide people with security or hope for the future other than as a lottery where a few people are granted enormous wealth and another 30% to 50% a very comfortable life with that number decreasing.

Mostly, I identify it with the increasing size and power of the corporate world which fundamentally provides wealth in a pyramid fashion with a few people making lots at the top spreading some down to a wider base. However, besides the inequalities within each corporate pyramid a second problems is that there are not enough pyramids. There are a lot of these pyramids out there (each industry has a few) but there are not enough of these pyramids for our population and they squeeze out the concept of smaller businesses. Those outside the bottom of the pyramids are basically shut out of the system with no where to go.

This is not fixable by a Hillary who is fundamentally establishment and is part of that corporate world. She may win the primary and may win the GE although that to me is not clear at all given her baggage and the lack of universal support she has in the Democratic Party itself. However, if she does win, she can not fix it because she does not really understand that American capitalism is not fixed by tweaks at this point.

[DanTex]

1. Does it prove that Bernie's revolution was rejected by (slightly over) half of his own people?

Of course not, that would be too consistent!

[grossproffit]

2. Now, now, don't go ruining their 'theory.'

[Dem2]

4. Coins have 2 sides?

hehe, I'm clever - bring on the coin toss theories!

[Rilgin]

6. I agree with you

America does work for half of the people. Obviously including you. You just have a big blind spot about your support for a system that does not work for a lot of others.

I actually do not really think its particularly about Bernie although I agree with his positions. It is a problem with half of our population knowing that Hillary's relationship to a system will not change it to actually make it work for all of us.

However, it is true that America does work for half of the population to varying degrees of working. Are you really comfortable with a system that does not work for half of the people in it.

[anigbrowl]

24. Oh dear

When your position is predicted on other people being blind or ignorant and doesn't consider the possibility that maybe they understand these issues perfectly well but simply disagree with you, then you are likely to suffer disappointments.

[AZ Progressive]

7. Because "Even though my heart is for Bernie my head is for Hillary, because Bernie can't win"

More Democrats would've voted for Bernie if they didn't buy into the idea that Bernie's not electable.

[DanTex]

9. More Democrats would've voted for Hillary if they didn't buy into the idea that Bernie is electable.

[stopbush]

11. Hmm. I've been voting D since 1972.

I will vote for Bernie when and if he provides a realistic plan for funding his policies. At present, the numbers don't add up - not even close.

I happen to believe Bernie is very electable. But electing a politician based on their pie-in-the-sky policies could be really counter-productive to the progressive platform if the actual costs strip the gild from the lily.

[Armstead]

22. A suggestrion -- Set some goals and ideas, and then has out the details over time

THis is not a matter of any candidate, including Bernie, comi9ng into office with a pre-determined set of finished programs and pushuing a button.

It's a matter of setrting goals and working top achieve them.

That does require more specificity than "universal health care."

But Bernie is proposing moving towards a system of public insurance, for example, as an alternative to the stranglehold of private insurance. The funding and terms would be worked out over time, and undoubtedly changes over time.

But we need a roadmap to start with.

[floriduck]

33. Too many people are stuck in the let the politicians work it out.

If one wants change, a vote alone is not enough. You will get what you predict. But if you participate in changing how things are done, real improvement can result. You might be just one person but you are part of a universe who can create change.

That's why I cannot buy the the numbers don't add up argument. IF you really want to make a difference, it is imperative for you to get active. That basically separates the Clinton supporters from the Sanders people. Clinton people are comfortable with what we have today. They will not go out and help the poor, uninsured, incarcerated. It's not laziness, they just have what they want and need.

Sanders people want to begin to change the mix of character in the political landscape, one candidate at a time. It's an investment for improvement. That's why there will be no immediate Medicare for all until we vote the right members on Congress into place.

Change is hard. But it is very, very possible. It just depends on where you want to be.

[stopbush]

41. This is absolute naiveté.

I happen to work in the non-profit sector, where I see lots of people - Ds and Rs - supporting programs that help the poor, the uninsured and the incarcerated. These are people who have been supporting such programs for years, decades, and with their own wallets, not with a bunch of meaningless "enthusiastic" words.

To disparage people who are well off as being uninterested in those who have little is naive and counter productive.

To believe that some Sanders supporter who only got interested in the politics of change in the last 8 months - and whose enthusiasm is fueled in large part by promises of free college, free healthcare and a cornucopia of free stuff for THEM - has the welfare of the disadvantaged more at heart than does your average long-time "comfortable with what they have today" donor to charity is insulting to the people who put their money where their heart is.

You know who gives to charities? Old, stuck-in-ther-ways people.

You know who doesn't give to charities? Young people.

[floriduck]

42. Thanks for proving my point.

The young now start off worse than the 1950s, when I was young. So how would you expect them to contribute to charities other than giving what time they have. The middle aged and above benefitted from better times when income was growing for the middle class. Many of them have the money to donate.

I'm afraid people who have fewer economic challenges have become somewhat apathetic to those who could use the help. So don't talk to me about naïveté. And most of them are Republicans or moderate/centrist Dems.

[blm]

3. That tactic DOES work - Dole used that exact same reasoning in the 90s to oppose Dem policies

even though the country rejected GOP soundly in the 92 election. GOP has been using that tactic ever since to assure NO HONEYMOON period for ANY Dem elected to any office.

Smart thinking, eh?

[ViseGrip]

5. Everywhere the Clintons go, there is greed, cheating and other controversy going on. Who wants

8 years of this bullshit? Not me

[99th_Monkey]

10. +100 nt

[VulgarPoet]

17. +100

[anigbrowl]

26. So say the Republicans anyway

looks like they have found a group of people willing to repeat whatever they put out on the theory that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Just remember, you lie down with dogs, you may rise up with fleas.

[farleftlib]

28. Nor me

I have CFS bigtime. (Clinton Fatigue Syndrome). A neoliberal war hawk is the last thing this country needs right now.

[stopbush]

8. Sigh. And what will you be saying after the results are in from states where Hillary

has clear advantages among minority voters, states she is on track to win? What will you be saying when the advantage she has in super delegates kicks in?

I know - "she cheated."

BTW - Hillary has GREAT support in the Democratic Party. It's among Bernie's supporters that she doesn't have the same level of support. And even that idea is skewed by reading DU. A poll yesterday of Bernie supporters nationwide said they would support Hillary in the GE if Bernie isn't the nominee.

[jeff47]

12. She was on track for a double-digit win in IA.

Sometimes, tracks change.

What will you be saying when the advantage she has in super delegates kicks in?

If superdelegates overrule the popular result, you can say goodbye to the party. The 1968 convention will look like a lovefest.

[stopbush]

14. So what? A win is a win. Hillary won Iowa. Bernie will win NH. Then it gets interesting.

The same people who rail against the punditry being against Bernie and not realizing the support he was building in Iowa turn around and try to use the bad predictions of the punditry against Hillary, as if she was the one putting out the predictions.

You want to have it both ways.

[jeff47]

16. A win is a win only in winner-take-all states.

IA will be splitting its delegates 22-22 or 23-21 depending on what happens with the inevitable recounts and adjustments.

The same people who rail against the punditry being against Bernie and not realizing the support he was building in Iowa turn around and try to use the bad predictions of the punditry against Hillary, as if she was the one putting out the predictions

Could you rephrase this as something coherent?

[stopbush]

18. Sometimes a win is more than a win. Like when you're the first woman to ever win the Iowa Caucuses.

That was a historic win last night. That it was so narrow isn't surprising considering the historic prejudices that are built into our nation's psyche. That it was won by a person who was trounced there by Obama in 2008 is even more amazing.

[jeff47]

31. How about the first Jew to ever win a convention delegate? (nt)

[stopbush]

43. That's true, too, though I wonder what self-admitted non-practicing Jew Bernie Sanders

thinks about it.

I'm sure he's much more stoked that an overt social democrat won delegates than the fact that said SD was Jewish.

[anigbrowl]

27. Last week you predicting crushing defeat

Today you're spinning this as a defeat because she had a more commanding lead early in the campaign, while glosing over the fact that Bernie didn't have as much momentum as his supporters hoped. Bernie did great and I'm happy for him because I like to see a good contest, but he sure has a lot of sore losers in his base.

[jeff47]

30. Ok, quote me predicting crushing defeat.

I'll wait.

[anigbrowl]

34. Nope. I have better things to do than curate your post history. nt

[jeff47]

38. In other words, you were lying about me in order to attack me

'Cause I never predicted crushing defeat.

Stay classy.

[anigbrowl]

39. Think what you like.

We both know different.

[Rilgin]

15. Yes Hillary has some supporters

She was a prohibitive front runner and lost it to an unknown. You are somewhat blind to what causes this. It is not really about Bernie and not even really a total rejection of Hillary.

It is a problem with the direction of America which Hillary and Bush represent. Forget the politics as a horse race. Hillary is a part of an America that does not work for all of the pepole in America. It might work for you but provides a bad present and decreasing future hope for many people including the old who are being fired from jobs and the young who are facing a rigged economy.

Hillary is part of that system and her politics is one of tweaks not changes. It is this part that I do not think Hillary supporters see. If she is elected, the American system may be tweaked to be slightly less punitive to those who are not the outright winners in the system but it will still fail half the population.

[brooklynite]

13. And therefore the social democracy proposed by Sanders is rejected by half as well?

Can I suggest that both sides avoid drawing national trends from the turnout of one State?

[Armstead]

20. May I suggest that you look beyond one particular candidacy and election cycle?

[Rilgin]

21. I am not really claiming a victory for a specific solution

I think you just are being blind to the reason that there is a split in the Democratic Party and for that matter in the Republican Party. I do not actually think its about Bernie particularly although as I have said I have some agreement with both his positions and issues. But frankly, he is not my ideal candidate although he is all that is running.

The reason this election is confusing to pundits and the establishment of both parties is that our economic and political system have been heading in the wrong direction for years. America works really well for those at the top. Decently for those in the next tier and is broken and moving in the wrong direction for anyone who is not a winner or semi winner.

Hillary may hold on to win the primary. She has a lot of advantages and runs using political tactics that win. She has the support of the democratic media and the democratic establishment. In office, she may want to modestly make losing in America less punitive. However, what I think Hillary supporters are blind to the fact that this America that Hillary wants to build on does not work for half of the population. It is the reason that Hillary and Bush did not generate the overwhelming votes that their money and institutional and media support would have predicted for them.

[brooklynite]

23. I absolutely agree there's a split in the Party...that's why we have Primaries.

But with the exception of an Incumbent being re-elected (or an effective Incumbent like a current VP) there will almost always be a 50/50 split between the leading candidates and their governing approaches, and you can just as easily say that half the voters DON'T want radical change. Where I think the problem arises is the unwillingness of some Sanders supporters to acknowledge that Clinton is actually a popular candidate among many Democrats, as is the philosophy of continuing the progress of President Obama.

[Rilgin]

35. This we will disagree with

I have no doubts that Bernie troubles a lot of people who may not be comfortable with the idea of big changes. We do have a divided party. The only difference is that the winners seem to be content with a system that has half of the population losing or even recognize that half the population is in fact losing.

I absolutely disagree with you that Hillary is a popular candidate. She is a political animal with a lot of money and a lot of institutional support. The divisions in the Democratic Party are not skin deep. Hillary as a statewoman would be a good thing and she would be popular in the way that old politicians always have their favorable increase including such miscreants as Bush and Nixon. As a return, besides the fact that it institutionalizes more political dynasties, her running really divides the party. She does not have democratic party support in the same manner then past primary opponents had support. Again, you might not be able to recognize this in your candidate. I can in Bernie that he scares people who may get hurt by change.

[brooklynite]

40. Here's something you need to understand: I don't "like" Hillary Clinton...

...I worked emotional attachments for the candidates I support out of my system years ago, because I learned that my personal hopes and dreams frequently clashed with reality. I support a LOT of candidates (financially) and I do so after cold, dispassionate analysis of the race and their prospects. I believe that Clinton has the competence and focus to be a good President, and I believe she has the political smarts and resources to win against the eventual Republican onslaught. If I thought that Sanders met those criteria, I'd happily switch to him (as I switched from Clinton to Sanders in 2008).

[Armstead]

19. Excellent anaslysuis and I think, unfortunately true

[Darb]

25. I think you mean Iowa Democrats, not America. Get it straight.

That's how the Pubes phrase things. Jssayin'.

Thanks.

[RKP5637]

29. America does not work for millions of people, they know it. And then there are millions that

don't want to admit it or just can't comprehend it, and then those on the take that want no change.

"The Establishment" has F'ed over millions of people in this country for several decades. Just a brief glance at the wealth distribution in this country lets one know how seriously F'ed up America is for millions and millions of people. Now, they are giving notice, "The Establishment" is obsolete and needs to change. They don't want the SOS!

Be it Bernie or whomever, they are fed up with the SOS! This situation needs to be corrected in 2016. One can't suppress millions and millions of people for decades without all hell eventually breaking out. Many of the youth get it, and they don't want to keep voting in "The Establishment" over and over again. They have see the effects! The paradigm needs to change.

[JaneyVee]

32. It was Iowa.

[Maedhros]

36. The Clinton wing of the Party, which is probably includes the majority of office holders,

pursues power for it's own sake with no specific regard to what will be done with that power. This is the motivation behind the triangulation and pro-war posturing. The "power at any cost" philosophy plays well with Party tribalists, who care only for defeating the hated Republican enemy and have little interest in the fallout of such a strategy.

The Sanders wing of the Party demands that political power be used to advance liberal and progressive causes. The throngs of supporters driving the Sanders campaign are unwilling to turn a blind eye to bad policy in the name of counting coup against the Republicans. We want solutions, not just rhetoric. We want to fight Republican policies and not just their candidates.

The Party is poised to make a choice between two futures. I know which one I want to see.

[Ferd Berfel]

37. "fine tuning" a corporatist Oligarchy ain't gonna cut it.

Fine Tuning is a euphemism for Status Quo, Business as usual