A quick guide to Hillary supporters for Bernie supporters.

[DanTex]

I keep coming across OPs and posts of the form "Hillary supporters think XYZ" and invariably XYZ is something that no Hillary supporter I've ever spoken to thinks. So it seems there is some confusion among Bernie supporters on this topic.

Hillary supporters, of course, are a large and diverse group, so I'm not going to be able to do them justice in a few paragraphs. But I think I paint a much closer picture than the one that is currently in Bernie supporters' minds. Call it a first-order approximation.

So, imagine a person who agrees with you about almost everything, policywise. Income inequality is way out of control. We desperately need universal healthcare. Big money is corrupting elections. The Iraq War was horrible. The rich need to pay more in taxes. Unions need to be strengthened. The criminal justice system is racist and needs major reforms. And so on. You get the idea.

Imagine a person who agrees with you on all that, and also believes that...

Bernie Sanders doesn't have a chance in hell of beating the GOP.

Now, before you object, I'm not asking you to agree with the boldfaced statement. I'm just asking you to imagine someone else, who agrees with you about the things in the last paragraph, but also (unlike you) believes the boldfaced statement.

If you can do that, you will go a long way towards understanding Hillary supporters.

[restorefreedom]

1. i can appreciate that even though i don't understand it. but when head to head polls

showing bernie doing as well,or better than hillary against repubs, without all the email/benghazi/foundation baggage the repubs will trott out, with tons of enthusiastic young voters who will come out for him,

why the bolded statement? i thought you guys were the ones who believed polls?

[DanTex]

3. That's a fair question. And similarly, I can appreciate that Bernie supporters think he is

the more electable candidate even though I don't understand that either. I just wanted to make clear that the main difference between H and B supporters isn't that we want corporations to ravage the world. We see eye to eye on most issues. Some of us, like me, would be just as happy with B in the white house, probably even happier, but just don't think he can get it there.

As to the question, GE polls this far out have very low predictive value. This isn't something I'm just saying as an excuse, it is pretty well supported by data, and from what I've read, is the consensus among people who study polls and elections. So that doesn't mean much. I don't think Bernie will be able to overcome the socialist label, I don't think he would hold up to attacks, and I look around the country and see nobody as liberal as him having won any major election outside of a few blue states.

But that disagreement is not about policy, it's about how I think the American people will vote. I'm sure we have disagreements about policy, but they are not the big thing that separates us. What separates us is our views on electability.

[restorefreedom]

12. happier with bernie but but voting hillary? argh, you're killing me!

the socialist label will only appeal to those who are not going to vote for bernie OR hillary, and most people understand that we already have socialist programs, many that work quite well. and fair or not, hillary will have her own labels to contend with having to do with her past policies and decisions.

as to the polls, fine. toss them out. but look at the available data. bernie has a much greater potential to draw indys and even crossover republicans (think paul supporters, other non interventionists, or right leaners for campaign reform). he has a very enthusiastic youth contingent. he is drawing thousands and thousands at rallies, and perhaps most importantly, he has an army of volunteers and a record setting small money donor base (avg $27). and this is a guy who still has relatively low name rec compared to hillary.

he has a record of consistency and no potential scandals that the repubs can exploit. bernie IS the most electable, perhaps the only electable, candidate for dems.

i rest my case

[DanTex]

13. Yes. Not much happier, basically I think that it would be about the same given GOP opposition.

There's also a plausible argument that Hillary would be a more effective political fighter against the GOP. Which I agree with to an extent, but still, I think Bernie's more liberal views mean that, if I could hand-pick the president, I'd probably go with him over Hillary. But regardless, that's not how it works.

I don't think we're going to resolve our electability dispute. I get your arguments, and you get mine. I think that the socialist label attaches much more easily to someone who claims it than to Hillary. And with Bernie, they're going to way past socialist, to communist, etc. Bernie does have an enthusiastic base of support, there's no doubt about that. But I don't see moderate independents going for him, and crossover Republicans even less.

Still, the point of the OP is that H and B supporters aren't really so far apart when it comes to policy. The big gulf in opinion is when it comes to electability. And that's not an ideological divide, it's a divide in the assessment of the electorate.

[restorefreedom]

29. i wonder what kind of data, if any,

would sway one side or the other on electabiliy. unlikely that we would get such data, but there are good arguments made. its always nice to back them up with numbers when possible.

ah, well, agree to disagree on this one, i guess

[DanTex]

31. Yeah, I don't know. There's no hard data, which is part of the reason why big disagreements persist

[restorefreedom]

33. yup. nt

[Hortensis]

45. Restore, Bernie's good record is next to useless.

You know the way Hillary has been constantly attacked for over two decades, no lie too baseless or nasty to hit her with 10,000 times until it "becomes" the truth?

If Bernie got the nomination, he would be the new "hillary" for the GOP. His clean record would be next to worthless, mined for the most useful items to twist unrecognizably into pretend scandals and calls for investigation.

Even his name, Sanders, will be given a nasty hiss in by conservatives in conversation after conversation -- Sssaanderzz! I know, they manage to do it with "Hillary" even though it has no sibilants (they kind of hiss out the H like it's something loathsome). They'd mean it too, because they'd choose to believe the lies.

Notably, all the stories circulated of Bernie's corruption, wickedness, incompetence, laziness, criminal behavior, stupidity, immorality, etc, etc (you get the idea) would be NEW and INTERESTING. That would be a huge problem. It takes time to refute lies and they never go away completely.

Through the entire summery and fall, massive energy (including literally hundreds of millions of dollars) would be expended trying to beat down every new blaze of right-wing lies, which were obligingly spread by the media to titillate viewer interest. That's how the right operates these money-corrupted days, and its budget to elect a conservative is believed to be close to a billion dollars.

Don't be fooled by how easy Obama had it. Bill Clinton was accused of murder, drug dealing, laziness, vandalism of the White House, decorating the White House Christmas tree with condoms, theft, being a danger to all women through uncontrolled sexual urges, even raping a white woman -- his name was made synonymous with all the black danger cliches. I chuckle now thinking of it because -- they COULDN"T DO THAT with a black candidate. They might have looked racist! All they could manage was the birther thing, poor dears.

Bernie is white -- and a dirty commie traitor who abandoned his wife and infant son in the middle of a New England blizzard to grow illegal drugs in a commune that practiced free love. (Synopsis of Chapter 1, 40 chapters more in the book.)

[restorefreedom]

62. i don't doubt any of what you say

either dem candidate will be hit with lies, truths spun to their narrative, and whatever mud they can manufacture from whole cloth (ie, the new england blizzard fantasy)

but just becsuse they have been it for so long with hillary doesn't insulate her. it makes her just as, or more vulnerable. they have had decades to perfect their craft. and i have no doubt they are saving some juicy tidbits in reserve for a ge. and as you point out, whether those tidbits have any basis in reality will not be relevant.

no matter how we slice it, gonna be a butt ugly year.

[Hortensis]

71. Agree 100% with all of it. Except

maybe new "juicy bits." Every aspect of her life is scrutinized intensively, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn security had more than once found electronics in her bathroom.

[restorefreedom]

73. lol. nt

[Ligyron]

67. Yeah, but in spite of all those crazy charges, Bill Clinton got re-elected anyway.

Most people are a little smarter now, the interwebs cutting through a lot of that BS. Made some folks so inclined even crazier, true, but even the Tea Baggers are starting to ask questions about all that Wall Street Money, elections being bought, and more than a few are beginning to question the lie that all their economic problems are caused by poor people and illegals taking 'murcan jobs, jobs none of them would touch with a ten foot pole anyway.

I'm not sure he'll make it to the general either (but I can hope) yet, the longer he's in the limelight, the more people will hear his message, a message many of them are becoming more open to receiving - a message many have never heard before. Heck most people have never even heard of the guy.

I think he has a shot in spite of all that.

[cali]

2. Lol.

You have a lot of nerve, castigating others for what you do more of.

[NCTraveler]

4. Spot on.

One aspect is really obvious this morning. Someone went a little projection happy this morning.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

5. From my perspective, Hillary doesn't stand a chance against the GOP

Bernie has more appeal to independents and less of the kind of (mostly undeserved) baggage that Clinton has.

[DanTex]

7. Fair enough. That's generally the root of the disagreement between H and B supporters.

We largely want the same things, but we disagree in our assessment of the predilections of the American electorate.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

20. Agreed.

[Betty Karlson]

19. Clinton has negative coattails:

with her on top of the ticket, we are sure to lose the senate and the house - and possibly the White House too. It would be 2014 all over again. We need to go with what works: a candidate who enthouses (young and occasional) voters so we can burry the GOP.

With Sanders on top of the ticket, Louisiana could come into play. That's how much cross-over appeal he has. I'd risk that.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

23. This too.

Winning the White House is paramount to make sure we don't backslide but in order to make any real progress we will need more seats in Congress. Bernie can build enthusiasm the way Obama did in 08 and bring people out to vote Democratic across all seats. Hillary not so much.

[DanTex]

32. Well, elected Dems generally disagree with that. E.g. Pelosi distancing herself and the party

from his tax policy.

Sure, maybe they are wrong, but I don't think you can simply discount the opinions of the actual people who will be running in November as to who would help them out more.

[Betty Karlson]

37. Who would help out the establishment? Hmmm......

[DanTex]

38. They want to get re-elected, yes. Are you saying that Bernie throwing house and senate

seats to the GOP is somehow sticking it to the "establishment."

[Betty Karlson]

39. Hillary will lose house, senate, and maybe retain the White House.

Sanders will have coattails big enough to win the senate, possibly even the House, and certainly the White House. He would put Louisiana in play.

The establishment wants to ignore this, because it would oblige them to abandon the status quo.

[leftynyc]

43. And you think the coattails

of Bernie are going to sweep in Democrats in purple states? Crossover appeal? I see zero evidence of that.

[Betty Karlson]

44. So you have not seen the polls then?

[leftynyc]

48. Yes, I've seen the polls

and until the republicans consider Bernie a serious threat and turn their guns on him, they're meaningless. Are you looking forward to every single anti-democratic party ad to feature a hammer and sickle? I sure as hell am not.

[Betty Karlson]

49. Leftynyc, you need to stop listening to Claire McCaskill.

That woman is so far in the tank for Clinton that she might as well be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[leftynyc]

50. I don't listen to anyone

and get my news from the internet. I don't need anyone to tell me how the republicans plan to fight against Bernie. I've been watching those slugs in action for decades. I think it's naive for anyone to think they're going to make a distinction to their mouthbreathing supporters between socialist and communist. And I sure as hell don't trust Americans to make the distinction either.

[Betty Karlson]

51. Please let there be a debate on what socialism really is: Bernie would burry the GOP red-framing

once and for all. Please let's have that debate. Who annointed the GOP to set the terms of political discourse in this country?

[leftynyc]

54. But there wont be that debate

That's pie in the sky thinking. And the answer to your question is 50% of the American people allow the gop to set those terms.

[Betty Karlson]

60. If that debate won't be, then why hesitate to nominate Sanders?

And the other 50 % of the American people may well allow the Democrats to set the terms of the debate. If only we'd nominate someone who isn't so "moderate" that (s)he sounds like a Republican half the time.

By the way: 30 % of Americans are Democrats, 30 % are Republicans, the other 40 % is either in the middle or to the left of the Democratic Party. So please stop buying into the idea that we must sound like Republicans-lite to be electable. In fact: did you know that Sanders has better appeal among those independents than Clinton? Did you know that we can burry the GOP when we have extra turn-out? Did you know that turn-out will go up when we nominate someone who enthouses young voters and sometime voters?

Did you know that Sanders has the greatest appeal on young voters (70% more than Clinton), and the greatest appeal among sometime voters (he'd put Louisiana in play, for instance), on top of that appeal he has among independents?

This is not pie in the sky thinking. That accusation of pies in the sky has been flung at my generation a few too many times (only to be corrected by moving times a few years later) for it to have any impact on me.

[leftynyc]

63. You see

I don't think there will be extra turnout for Bernie. That was proven by Iowa where almost 80000 people who voted in the caucus in 2008 didn't bother showing up this time. I have also given my opinion on young voters several times - when they get off their asses and vote with any regularity (when it doesn't conflict with their precious schedules), I'll take them more seriously. I don't blame them for supporting the one who promises free college. That he can't accomplish that without either raising taxes or exploding the debt means nothing to them. They think he can wave a magic wand as President and make that happen.

[Betty Karlson]

64. Except that the young voters did get off their hands in Iowa:

the absentees were people turned off by Third Way politics! As soon as Third Way manages to stop pushing Democratic voters away, I'll take them serious again. Until then, I'll stick to what my generation has already figured out: 20th century politics, like the 20th century, are over and done for.

The exploding debt (Republican talking point, btw) is mostly because of military spending (52 % of the budget). Now which candidate is the war-hawk...?

[leftynyc]

66. LOL

So your claim is now that all 80,000 didnt show up to support Bernie to teach Hillary a lesson? Is that really the argument you want to make? I hate to break this to you but your generation is no different than any other generation was at that age. They're idealistic (nothing wrong with that) and think the impossible is possible if they wish it hard enough. I remember being the exact same way.

[Betty Karlson]

68. Have fun with the last 20th century campaign.

[leftynyc]

69. And you continue to think

YOUR generation is something special that has never occurred before. I'll be there to sympathize when reality kicks you in the teeth.

[TCJ70]

6. Hey Dan...

...I know we've gone back and forth a couple times, but thank you for this post. I just have one question: if you agree with Bernie supporters, and by extension Bernie, on all these issues, how do you justify supporting a candidate who doesn't?

Aside from the unions and criminal justice issues, which they seem to agree on, they have pretty big gulfs between them on a lot of issues.

As far as electability goes, I have the same concerns about Clinton. Countless scandals, her policy position history, and general Republican dislike of anything Clinton don't lend themselves to a positive outcome for her in November. There's way less to draw from on Bernie, and even the things that could be used are easily countered.

[DanTex]

9. I don't see at as so black-and-white. My personal politics align more closely with Bernie's

than with Hillary's. Not everywhere, but more often than not. But I don't see Hillary as disagreeing with me (and Bernie), rather I see her agreeing, but not going as far. If we take healthcare, for example, there is no doubt in my mind that Hillary is in favor of universal healthcare, though not single payer. She's in favor of taxing the rich more, raising the minimum wage, etc.

It's certainly true that Bernie is generally more liberal, and also that he has been more consistent. The Iraq War, as an obvious example. But, given the reality of GOP opposition, I don't see a Hillary presidency as much different than a Bernie one in terms of policy outcome.

What's more, even if I did see more of a difference, that would still be trumped by electability concerns, because the GOP in the White House would be a disaster for all of the issues that we agree on.

[TCJ70]

28. Thanks for responding...

...and for the conversation. The main thing we can all agree on is that the GOP has no business making social policy, particularly if Cruz gets their nomination...yikes.

[DanTex]

30. Yes, thanks for the discussion. As far as the GOP, I'm actually rooting for Cruz, because I think

he'd be the easiest to beat. Rubio is the one I'm most worried about.

[Recursion]

10. Huh?

if you agree with Bernie supporters, and by extension Bernie, on all these issues, how do you justify supporting a candidate who doesn't?

He said in the OP he supports Clinton.

Rhetoric aside, you do actually know she agree with those, right?

I mean, seriously, you know that, yeah?

I'm a disappointed O'Malley supporter currently leaning Sanders as the lesser of two evils, but:

Please tell me you at least understand that Clinton also shares those goals?

[TCJ70]

27. That's part of my problem, Recursion...

...I don't know that she shares those goals. She's been so all over the place on everything that what she says today, may be different tomorrow. This isn't a position based on anything other than a review of her policy positions over the years. Guns, drugs, the banking crisis, healthcare reform (that one seems to change daily), etc...

In November, despite everything in my being saying she's the wrong one, I will most likely cast a vote for her should she be the nominee. But it won't be because she's Hillary, it will be because she has a D next to her name. I'm tired of voting for D's...I want to vote for people.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. lol. non-partisan. lol.

[Armstead]

11. Okay that's fine...Now, here's the thing

(speaking for myself only) there is a part of me that agrees with that.

However, there's also a part of me that disagrees.

Ultimately I think either one of them is a gamble. Each has a set of pluses and minuses that IMO are about equal, although different.

Given that, I'd rather see the guy who represents everything I've believed for years on a gut level than the person who represents much of what has annoyed and frustrated me about the Democratic Party.

I think the one consolation is the the GOP's selection are such a group of mean spirited Bozos that they may end up defeating themselves. If any of them actually were to win, it would be an indication our national problems that are much bigger then whether Sanders or Clinton are better.

[eridani]

14. I can understand that, but not why anyone would think that a candidate with no--

--appeal to the 63% would do better.

[Vinca]

15. I appreciate your thoughts, but I don't think Hillary has a chance in hell of beating the GOP.

By November they will have the entire country believing she is 10 seconds away from a prison cell. Apparently it's going to take her defeat in the general to eventually get a REAL progressive elected. In the meantime, we may become the United States of Jesus.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Now imagine someone who thought the same set of rationales made Kerry the "smarter" choice in '04

Who bought into all the beltway conventional wisdom authoritative sounding gibberish about how it would be insane to nominate some peacenik from Vermont with his followers in volvos covered with Grateful Dead stickers.

Who actually believed that Kerry was "more electable", who voted "strategically" in the primary, who believed that the smart thing to do was nominate the war hero who supported the dubious invasion because no one could attack a war hero on his war heroism and moral considerations aside the electorate would never go for someone who didn't support that ill-conceived military action.

Then imagine someone who, four years later, watched the same beltway conventional wisdom poobahs make the same sorts of authoritative predictions about how the American People would NEVER elect a one-term African American senator with a funny sounding name, it would be INSANE to nominate that guy, yadda yadda.

And someone who gradually came to the conclusion that the self-assured gatekeepers of beltway wisdom were and are dangerously out of touch.

Here's the thing, man. I have no doubt that some people honestly believe Hillary is the smarter choice. But a lot of us are supporting Sanders with our heads AND our hearts. The beltway conventional wisdom yubnubs might just be wrong. Not even a little bit, they might be DANGEROUSLY wrong. They may be 180 degrees off about Hillary's "electability" and Sanders' lack thereof.

I know people support Hillary, they have their reasons, believe it or not a lot of us have our reasons for supporting Sanders too, reasons which don't even have to do with deeply buried white supremacy or hating women or words that have the prefix "bro" stuck on them.


I think people -many, particularly demographically older- feel Hillary is the "safe" choice. I think they're wrong, really wrong, as wrong about where the electorate is as Debbie Wasserman Schultz is when she goes to the times and insults millennials while doubling down on putting marijuana users in prison.

The bottom line is, you guys might be right, and we might be right. There is absolutely zero objective evidence to corroborate EITHER position, except like I said, in '04 the "strategic" candidate lost, and in '08 the "you'd be insane to nominate..." guy won big.

[DanTex]

21. Well, in 2008, I firmly believed that Obama was the more electable candidate.

In 2004, I didn't have any primary preference, I just wanted W to lose. And, honestly, if not for electability I wouldn't have much of a primary preference this time -- I'd probably support Bernie -- but what I really care about is not having Rubio/Trump/Cruz.

Yeah, I might be wrong, and you might be right. It's not science, there's no hard evidence. All there is is your assessment of the electorate and mine. You probably look at Hillary's baggage, her negative likability/approval numbers, her being a symbol of the establishment in a "change election", and contrast it to Bernie's more enthusiastic support base, his higher popularity with Dem-leaning independents, etc. I look at the socialism thing, the fact that very few people as liberal as Bernie have won elections outside of a few blue states, his never having faced the GOP attack machine, and what I believe are pretty clear indications that the GOP would rather run against him (though I know this is a point of contention), and come to the opposite conclusion.

Either way, I sure hope that whoever gets the nomination was right about the electability question.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. It is worth noting that Hillary Clinton has never won a national election, either.

The only people who have elected her were the voters of very blue New York.

But, I agree with you. And I respect that you are coming from a place where you genuinely want what is best for this country, as do I.

In a few months we'll be on the same team, either way.

[DanTex]

26. Well, that's true about everyone who wins the presidency.

To the larger point that she's a flawed candidate, totally. I wish we had another Obama. I wish she hadn't done that email thing. I wish she was more charismatic. And so on.

But, yeah, in a few months we'll be on the same team. And hopefully we'll be up against Ted Cruz. And even more hopefully, Donald Trump will decide that the GOP cheated him and run as an independent to spite them.

[Armstead]

22. I would add that Bill Clinton did was running as the Liberal Altrnative to GHW Bush and the GOP

Bill Clinton did not run as a "liberals are bad" corproate centrist. He was the Hope and Change outsider candidate who "will fight for you until the last dog dies."

I can remember how celebratory progressives/liberals were when Bill Clinton won in 92. The country had turned the corner from the Dark Days of Reaganism....Didnlt work out that way, but Clinton won on a message of gambling on Change.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. I saw all four of them- Bill, Hillary, Al and Tipper- at a rally at the Daley Center in Chicago

Oct. '92.

Sunny day with maybe 40k people i think?

It was very inspirational, at the time.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

55. Yes, in 1992 they spoke like liberals. I remember.

But they turned out to be corporate sellouts. Obama has been guilty of a lot of that too, but I realize that Congress rolled over and played dead and refused to work with him.

I'm sick of Democrats that are corporate sellouts.

And their theme song was "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow". Uh-huh.

[frustrated_lefty]

17. And here is why this primary season reminds me of 2004.

The MSM and establishment politicians went to great length to explain how Dean was unelectable. At the same time, they spouted the very same arguments you now hear for Clinton in favor of Kerry. Experience! Gravitas! Electable! A VERY Serious Candidate, NOT some fringe loser! And how did 2004 work out?

After the infamous "Dean Scream" and 24/7 character assassination on the networks, Kerry was the nominee and suffered an embarrassing loss against one of the very worst presidents in the history of the country.

And why did Kerry lose? After all, he had experience, he was a Very Serious Candidate, he was considered electable. Swiftboating played into it for sure, but a large part of the problem was his inability to generate enthusiasm, his inability to give straight and concise answers, and very real questions about his authenticity. That last is NOT intended to say voters thought that Kerry was just saying whatever he had to in order to win. That's Clinton's problem, and in my opinion is worse than what was faced with Kerry. Kerry just waffled, he was so busy parsing his language that he could never quite come out and say in a clear, concise manner, what he stood for. Sort of like Clinton's a moderate, but she's "a progressive who gets things done."

Hearing the very same arguments in 2016 that were tossed around in 2004 doesn't carry a lot of weight. The very same arguments turned out to be bullshit in 2004, resulting in a loss to arguably the single worst president in history in the midst of the Iraq brouhaha. And Clinton is a worse candidate than Kerry in so very many ways. The Clinton's have a habit of playing fast and loose with the rules, which feeds into their perpetual state of scandal. Hillary's a hawk from any reasonable perspective, whereas Kerry could at least claim to have stood up against the Viet Nam conflict. Hillary is indebted to Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Ag, and a list of donors that goes on ad infinitum, whereas Kerry could at least claim he was not for sale. Hillary is so busy doing the Clinton triangulation that you have to question the veracity of anything coming out of her mouth. She voted for the Iraq War, seems to love for-profit prisons, and through Bill she's associated with the welfare reform of the 90s, the three-strikes laws that have screwed so many lives, and trade treaties that have screwed over the working class.

The electability argument won out in 2004. Not this time. A vote for Hillary may as well be a vote for Cruz or Rubio.

[rosesaylavee]

18. I think this is true too.

I have many friends - many good, thoughtful friends - who support Secy. Clinton. We just disagree on the way forward. I look at the polls tho that do pit Sanders against the top group of GOP at this point and he's doing well and winning in double digits in many cases per those polls. I think this primary season will give us a better insight to all that.

My personal reason for supporting Sanders boils down to Climate Change. Secy. Clinton hardly mentions it. She has supported fracking and oil pipelines -- notably the Keystone in her career. I will vote for her in the GE if it comes down to it but with the knowledge that she will make all the climate change work that I do in my volunteer life -- 10-15 hours per week -- all that much harder than it would be with a Sanders presidency, that she will cause us to further delay our quickest response to this looming crisis. My hope is that he can reach across the divide that is separating Dems from Republicans outside the beltway, garner those votes, so he can point to that when elected and say the American people support him in moving forward on Climate Change.

There are other reasons I am not supporting Secy. Clinton at this point but that's the main reason.

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. You know what would be better? A Quick Guide to Hillary Clinton's Stances on the Issues.

But instead... people like you think they tilt the board in Hillary's direction by challenging Bernie Sanders' supporters, his staff members, his online followers, twitter geeks, and the like.

Substance? What was it that lady said oh so many years ago? WHERE'S THE BEEF?

[Fronkonsteen]

35. Why should we believe you?

After the way you and many other very strident Hillary supporters have gleefully attempted to belittle Sanders and bully his supporters using half-truths and outright fabrications, trying to marginalize them and what they stand for, you now claim to agree with Sanders supporters about almost everything? Nice pivot. If you really agreed with Sanders supporters, you'd be supporting Sanders. Sanders has been a steadfast ally of the common people, while Clinton has drifted with the political wind. Given that there's no clear evidence that either candidate is more electable in the GE, Sanders is the rational choice if you truly support progressive policies. So, in essence, you're saying that Hillary supporters are irrational. Got it.

[DanTex]

41. Clinton supporters believe there is clear evidence that she is more electable.

[Fronkonsteen]

46. So it's faith based support

Got it.

[DanTex]

47. Evidence-based. Apparently you look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

This can't be the first time that you've experienced honest disagreement. Or is it?

[Fronkonsteen]

74. Really?

With all the shade being thrown on Sanders and his supporters you expect anyone to believe it comes down to 'honest disagreement'? Good luck with that.

[AgingAmerican]

36. You constantly tell us what Sanders supporters think

Self awareness is a good thing.

[mcar]

40. K&R

[redruddyred]

42. then that person would be wrong

i'm canvassing for bernie, and republicans love him.
hillary, on the other hand, is a divisive figure, almost universally hated.
try again OP.

[thereismore]

52. I understand. We agree on all of the issues.

Except that the bold-faced text should have Hillary Clinton's name in it.

DanTex, I know how you feel. Now you know how I feel.

Edited to add: I have real appreciation for you and your view. My post is not meant to be snarky. It is meant to be truthful about how I see the situation, subjectively of course, but it is impossible to be objective when you have so much at stake.

[DanTex]

59. That's pretty much it, and I don't take it as snarky.

The good thing is that there seems to be a lot of agreement that beating the GOP is of utmost importance. In a few months we'll be on the same team, one way or another, and I sure hope that whichever one of us has the primary go our way ends up being right about electability.

[thereismore]

61. I agree DanTex! Well said. nt

[Gothmog]

53. I like Sanders but I cannot support a candidate who can not win in the general election

I am scared that if Sanders is the nominee, his positions would kill down ballot candidates

[EdwardBernays]

56. What I'll never understand

is how, even if they don't think there's evidence she's corrupt, they can support someone so obviously taking money from lobbyists for big pharma, weapons manufacturers, and foreign countries like Saudi Arabia... how is that ok?

That's supposed to be what we're fighting AGAINST... How many times have I gotten emails from some Dem organisation or another trying to fund raise on the back of the Koch brothers... not any crimes they've committed, but their attempt to influence politics...

and yet when lobbyists try to do it, and fund Dem Presidential campaigns we're supposed to just accept that?

I refuse.

And I'll never understand the ability of Hillary supporters to look past that.

[rock]

57. Correct. The always right Bernie supporters

Like to post stuff about Hillary being always wrong.

[Katashi_itto]

58. Project much?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

65. Your belief is contrafactual.

Polls consistently show Bernie doing better against GOP candidates.

[tblue37]

70. HRC motivates the GOP base much more than she motivates the Dem base. Her high negatives

are to a significant degree a consequence of 25 years of RW character assassination, but they are a big obstacle to GE success.

[Matariki]

72. Here's what I believe about Clinton

I'm not being snarky, this is honestly what is driving my support to Sanders - because as a woman I very very *very* much would like to see a woman in the Presidency.

I don't trust Clinton to actually follow through on most of those things that you mention wanting. I think that she says what is politically expedient in the moment. I base this on her past positions, on where most of her financial support comes from, and on the friends she keeps. I will vote for the person who I believe will at least fight for that list of things you mention.

If Clinton wins the primaries, of course I will vote for her. I'll be happy to see a woman in the White House at long last. But I won't expect her to do anything but maintain the status quo, which unfortunately is firmly moving in the direction of a few people owning everything, an erosion of social security and other safety nets for the middle class, and continued degradation of the environment because of a few people's greed.