2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton today
If Mr Sanders is our nominee, I'll support him whole-heartedly and I'll work to help him win
It was a hard choice, because I like them both, but in the end I had to vote for Ms Clinton:
She's intelligent
She's well-educated
She's experienced
She's got the Rolodex
And it's time we had a woman at the top of our ticket
Yeah, we ran Ms Ferraro for VP in 1984. To old geezers like me, it seems recent enough, but it was actually over 30 years ago. And the median age of the US population is 37. That means over half the people in the country can't even remember that election because they weren't even twinkles in their daddies' eyes yet. It wasn't Ferraro's fault that we lost that election badly. But the outcome of losing was predictable: politicians stampeded to the right
We should have worked to build up the grass-roots. Instead, we had a stampede to the right. Maybe that's one reason we haven't had a woman near the top since then. The Republicans finally put a right-wing lunatic from Alaska near the top a few years ago. And I don't think that helped the cause of women at all: keep that crazy lady from getting anywhere near the Oval Office was a necessary message in 2008, but it certainly didn't help empower women
Well, I think the time has come. Women have had the vote since 18 August 1920. I want a woman in the Oval Office ready to celebrate that centenary. Clinton is an outstanding candidate. I don't agree with her on everything just like I don't agree with anybody on everything. I'm an opinionated guy, and I don't intend to change that: it's what makes me the lovable curmudgeon I am, and I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I were any other way. But I figure Clinton has to look at herself in the mirror too and tries to do right according to her lights
Clinton or Sanders -- I'll support whichever gets the nomination. And you should too. All these purist horse-pucks are always flying all over the whichever way: I can't vote for somebody I disagree with! I can't support the lesser of two evils! We need to send a message to the Democrats that they need to run somebody I like! But if we lose the 2016 election, there's really only one message that going to go out: stampede to the right! That's what happens when we lose to conservative wackos: nobody says, we need to do a better job with grassroots organizing; nope, everybody says, we gotta move to the right cuz that's what voters want! If you can't vote for somebody who might not always agree with you, I guess you could vote for yourself or for your equally-qualified dog, Fido; but nobody's going to look for a message in your vote for Fido, or your failure to vote; all most folk will do is guess the winner has the recipe right and try to copy it
I voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton today: she's intelligent, well-educated, experienced, and has the Rolodex to win. And it's time we ran a woman for President
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ret5hd
(20,499 posts)Is Kissinger under K for Kissinger or M for mass murderer?
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)Elections have consequences: what a nightmare time that was!
Clinton was in law school during part of the Nixon era and also served as congressional staff during the Nixon impeachment investigations
ret5hd
(20,499 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)What a crappy but not unexpected thing to do?
ret5hd
(20,499 posts)from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-reviews-henry-kissingers-world-order/2014/09/04/b280c654-31ea-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html
“Kissinger is a friend, and I relied on his counsel when I served as secretary of state,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in The Washington Post, in a positive review of his book “World Order.”
Any other questions?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)
gabeana
(3,166 posts)moving the goal post
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)was a war criminal, and yet she embraces him none the less.
Excellent point.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)That's so 90s. We've moved on since then.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
NBachers
(17,120 posts)Looks like the H-Haters have wasted no time in jumping on you.
still_one
(92,219 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)I'll be voting against Trump or the Republican Convention brokered nominee this November. That's all anyone needs to know - but thank you for this just the same!
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...that not a single progressive policy or political principle make an appearance in your list of reasons... as they are absent from most pro Clinton postings.
You do get that there's supposed to be a point to getting someone elected BEYOND just getting them elected right?
But if we lose the 2016 election, there's really only one message that going to go out: stampede to the right! That's what happens when we lose to conservative wackos: nobody says, we need to do a better job with grassroots organizing; nope, everybody says, we gotta move to the right cuz that's what voters want!
So you've decided to beat them to the punch by just stampeding to the right to begin with?
If you remember the 90's you might want to try recalling the part where the Clintons INVENTED "move to the right that's what the country wants".
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)They didn't plot him this season since he's not running. But this was 2008 during the primaries:
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Right?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts) truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Well, back in 2008 anyway....
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)See my signature.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)... whether you want to or not. And that's all I really care about. What you think of me doesn't matter and won't affect me at all.
The end result of all of this is that my candidate will be in the White house, and you made dumb ad-hominem comments.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Although I think this is the first time I've heard quoting a person's own words as an ad-hominem attack.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)on the difference between Sanders and Hillary. You Sanders supporters keep claiming you are all about the issues but you aren't. The biggest thread you have created in GD-P is discussing my comments.
That is your legacy as Sanders supporters on DU, and it's one you cannot shake even if you hide this post and all the rest of my posts and other Hillary supporters posts. You are more interested in attacking me and the rest of us and hiding our posts than in any support for Sanders.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts).... without explaining how the Liar is now the best candidate....
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Specifically, the issue of Hillary's constant lies. Lies which you railed against vehemently when she ran against Obama but now pretend don't exist. There is nothing superficial about discussing the monumental integrity gap between the candidates, nor the monumental gap between your former position and your current cheerleading.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)that they don't care about her lies. It is a peculiar position for self-proclaimed Democrats to take, but there it is.
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)It's not a once-every-four-years-I-vote-for-progressive-policies deal
You have to organize people in favor of the policies. They have to talk to people in Congress or in the regulatory agencies. You have to push the issue into the headlines
It's a multi-layered process: you vote to put people in office who might work with you; afterwards you try to work with them to get what you want. If people get into office who won't work with you, you're shizz-outta-luck. If people get into office who might work with you, then you buckle down and start trying to get what you want
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)But instead of doing that and supporting the candidate who actually intends to push for those policies you're supporting Mrs "how far to the right can I go while sneering at progressive policies like Single Payer and still convince Democrats to vote for me".
So... how's that supposed to work exactly?
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)Meanwhile, I've voted for Clinton
From everything I've seen, she's a progressive realist: she will be as progressive as circumstances permit, while still making a valiant effort to accomplish something
This country isn't everything I want it to be: it's a work in progress, and we should try to make whatever progress we can actually make. That isn't always a big boatload of fun, because we seldom sally forth unimpeded
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)From everything I've seen, she's a progressive realist:
If you can define this:
...as "progressive realist" with a straight face you completed your stampede to the right long ago and apparently didn't even notice so it must not have been too traumatic for you.
she will be as progressive as circumstances permit,
See, you have the excuses down already. Because what you just said is functionally identical to declaring that that position way over on the right that Clinton occupies is "what the country wants".
As far as the reality of what circumstances actually permit, check the bottom two lines on the graphic:
Circumstance permit actual progressivism and you're actively fighting against it because you think the country wants to be more right. The grassroots is coming out in droves to fight for it and you're fighting against it while bitching in your OP that nobody says we need to get the grassroots out when progressiveness loses elections. You. The person right this minute arguing for why the actual progressive being supported by the grassroots SHOULD LOSE THIS PRIMARY ELECTION.
Maybe you should pause and reflect.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)but that might make party-insider behavior unpredictable
(2) If Trump is the GOP nominee, I'm not convinced he'll lose the general election: I can't imagine why anybody would vote for him, but I couldn't imagine why anybody would vote for Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Bush (or, say, Ventura/Schwartzenegger) either; and sinceI was wrong about all those, I guess I better take seriously the possibility that Trump could win the general
(3) The graph doesn't persuade me of anything: anybody can put dots on a grid
(4) I would distinguish carefully between "what the country wants" (which is an unknowable smear of contradictory positions) and "what is politically doable": I don't think congressional political posturing represents "what the country wants" but it does affect what bills move in a session
(5) It is not my view that "the country wants to be more right"; in fact, I think an organized grassroots progressive movement would find wide and effective support, though that support could take several years of hard work to develop. But I do hold the view that when my side loses elections, politicians as a group read that loss as "the country wants to be more right"
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...Sanders outperforms Clinton in match-up polling.
(2) If you want to take the possibility Trump could win the GE seriously I refer you back to said matchup polling numbers. Surprise surprise but the candidate that draws massive numbers of independents into the Democratic tent does better.
(3)if you want to argue that placement let's go right now. It is entirely accurate if given even a little bit of objective consideration instead of looking at things from through the blinders of the political frame the GOP has forced on the nation over the years and which you appear to have fallen for.
(4) What is politically doable is shaped by what the country wants. If the country wants to move left then what's stopping them? PEOPLE LIKE YOU stopping the left leaning candidate from getting a shot even when polling says he's favored by more of the general electorate while making excuse after excuse after excuse for why that's the "pragmatic" thing to do even when polling says they can freaking win.
(5)Why are you speaking in hypotheticals? An organized grassroots progressive movement is happening right in front of your damn face. And it IS finding widespread support. And you are FIGHTING AGAINST IT.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)March 10, 2016
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/president-2016/
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Where Sanders on average outperforms Clinton.
And if you have two candidates, one hands down a solid progressive and one not, and the progressive doing even the same on election polling let alone BETTER... then how in the hell is there even a choice to be made there? How can you not see what you're doing here making excuse after excuse after excuse for fighting against the progress you claim to want?
Look, I was for Clinton early on. I'm a realist. Anyone who brought up Warren or Sanders a year ago I scoffed at them because I wanted someone who will actually beat the GOP challenger thank you very much.
But then Sanders polling reached where it did and that reason was vaporized... and there was precisely zero excuses for not supporting the progressive in the race. And you seem dead set on refusing to see the situation clearly because you made up your mind on Clinton and now you're just locked in using reasoning that was rendered moot months ago.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Sander's match up number have gone down here lately.
Right now the Republicans want to build Bernie up not tear him down. I imagine that why the Koch brothers have run commercials on his behalf. I hate to think his match numbers will fall if he wins the nomination and the Re[publican "Swift Boat" specialists spring into action with the Koch brother's money backing them. 
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... are meaningless at this point. The reasons for that have been pointed out time and again here, so I won't repeat them.
As for your statement about "PEOPLE LIKE YOU stopping the left leaning candidate from getting a shot", the only thing "stopping" Bernie in any way are those voters who are coming out to vote for Hillary in greater numbers than those voting for Bernie.
Perhaps you find that fact to be inconvenient - but it is a fact nonetheless.
If more of the electorate favoured BS over HRC, he would have more popular votes and more delegates than she does. HRC's lead wouldn't be what it is, and wouldn't be increasing every time a primary contest is held.
The People ARE speaking; they are making their preference known. The fact that you don't like what the People are saying is your problem, not theirs.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You are I suspect referring to how people often point to someone like Silver saying to ignore matchup polling. But he is not saying matchup polling is innacurate. He is saying that it is so far from the election that so much can change that the polls cannot pick who will win the presidency.
But they still tell us who is stronger NOW
And that is very far from meaningless data. Especially to anyone claiming to be making decisions upon electability.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... for a myriad of reasons, the most obvious of which is the fact that Bernie has not undergone an iota of real scrutiny by the GOP. They have laid off him completely, because they would much rather have to go up against him than go up against Hillary.
But if BS were to become the nominee, the gloves would be off - and they would come at him with every negative attack imaginable - some based on fact, and some fabricated, as the GOP is known to do.
No one has any way of knowing at this point how a beaten-and-bloodied Bernie would fare up against a Republican contender. No one knows how weakened he would be by the onslaught, and no one knows how his own reaction to that onslaught might severely damage his chances of being elected. There are just waaaay too many variables that are completely unknown.
And don't delude yourself into thinking that Bernie's political career and/or his personal life are devoid of any actions, statements, or events that can be used against him. In fact, he is particularly vulnerable because most of his personal life has been, to this point, left unexamined in any great detail.
You seem to be saying - and I stand to be corrected - that the fact that MORE voters want Hillary should be dismissed out-of-hand, because what some highly speculative poll said about Bernie's chances is more important than what Democrats are clearly saying about who they want to represent them in the GE.
Explain that to me, please. Why should Democrats forego their own preference between HRC and BS based on some poll that is highly reliant on pure speculation?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Both will come under attack with everything the GOP has. Which doesn't change that Sanders is in the significantly stronger starting position.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... for DECADES - and she's still standing. They've already thrown everything at her - and she's survived it all.
They've yet to attack Bernie. How do we know what they'll dig up on him and exploit? How do we know how he would react - to his favour or to his ultimate detriment? How do we know what skeletons will be dragged out of the Bernie closet? How do we know how voters will view those skeletons, and what impact their exposure would have on his viability as a candidate for the presidency?
"Sanders is in the significantly stronger starting position."
Yeah, based on a poll taken BEFORE he undergoes the GOP smear treatment, BEFORE his life has been gone over with a fine-toothed comb, BEFORE the attack dogs have been let loose, BEFORE the Republicans have rifled through every aspect of his personal life, BEFORE they have even begun to twist his every statement into something voters would find abhorrent.
And you still haven't answered my question as to why you think HRC supporters - who are in the majority right now - should NOT have a say in who THEY want as their nominee based on some poll that has no basis in reality.
BTW, it is amusing to watch BSers relying on any poll, when so many of them dismissed ALL polls as being inaccurate the minute Bernie's numbers started stagnating last fall. The minute that happened, poll numbers were described as unreliable, easily-manipulated, a product of "corporate math". But now the poll that says BS would beat GOP contenders is sacred scripture, to be taken as infallible.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)We know Clinton's unfavorable are very high.
We know Bernie is possibly the most principled politician in Washington.
We know one of those two will actually try to pursue a progressive agenda and one will ever so pragmatically write it off without a second thought and maintain the status quo.
Given those knowns, if the GOP wants to bring it against Bernie I say let them bring it. Much like he himself I'll put his record up against all comers any day.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)That kind of hyperbole is not going to win any elections.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)If it's the principled part, that's a damn near universally held opinion among anyone who knows who he is.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)you are just proving my point.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)That you see simple facts as an attack on your position might be cause for you to reflect on that position. But that would require a level of self awareness you appear to be actively resistant to.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...is simple acceptance of reality.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)That is your opinion. You throwing a couple opinions together and calling them facts is not only arrogant, it's hyperbolic nonsense. All of this anti-Clinton FUD spreading is embarrassing for a website dedicated to electing Democrats to office.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...and her own damn campaign statements sneeringly dismissing those policies and principles.
Turn a blind eye all you want, some of us pay attention.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Which to anyone who knows your posting history over the years on this forum doesn't come as a shock.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Since there has been no vetting of the people who created the chart you posted, it's worthless.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)So there is NO position left of Bernie Sanders? Bernie Sanders is a 100% rapidly fanatic outright Communist?
Yes or no?
My chart was generated by independent analysis of actual policy. Yours is just made up bullshit. Claiming they are equally valid is MORONIC.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...your #161 demonstrated how mind blowingly stupid your argument is... yes. Game, set, match indeed.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)'Wow' about sums it up. In a not good way.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... but I've already seen/heard them all.
You still haven't answered my question. Do you believe that the fact that HRC is the preferred candidate among Dem voters should be ignored, while we all get behind Bernie because of a poll - and a poll based on sheer speculation, at that?
I don't understand why BS supporters can't seem to grasp the idea that the majority of Democrats are voting for Hillary over Bernie. The "People" are speaking - ya know, those same "People" that Bernie is supposed to be the great champion of.
You can talk all day about HRC's unfavourables, Bernie's "progressive agenda", yadda yadda.
None of that changes the FACT that Hillary is the candidate of choice.
I'm seeing the same arrogance here that I've been seeing for months from BSers, i.e. the notion that because YOU think Bernie is the better candidate, everyone should just defer to your better judgment whether they agree with it or not.
Apparently, the majority of Democrats DON'T agree with your opinion - and I'm not sure why you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that fact.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...the prefered candidate among liberal/progressive voters regardless of party affiliation. They are after all ALL voting in the general. Nobody is winning an election with only registered Democratic votes.
And I support the Democratic Party because I am liberal, not the other way around. So that support is based on them advancing liberal policies. If they were to start actively attacking liberal policies, say by sneeringly deriding them as free this and free that and free everything, that kind of thing calls support for liberalism and progressivism into serious question.
What about you? Are you here to advance a liberal agenda, or do you simply not care what policies are advanced so long as it's someone with seniority membership in your club doing the advancing?
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)So we should concern ourselves with the preferred candidate of liberal/progressive voters regardless of party affiliation.
And just how would we go about doing this? Do you suggest that only identified liberals/progressives should have a say in determining our candidate? Who determines who IS a liberal/progressive – and I’ve seen that argument thousands of times here on DU over who is and who isn’t. Do you suggest that Republicans who identify themselves as such be allowed to vote in Dem primaries – because party affiliation shouldn’t make a difference?
What about those who don’t pass whatever test you envision that determines who is liberal/progressive? Do they have no voice at all in deciding who they want as a candidate? And what about conservative/MOR voters? Are they also to be ignored because they don’t want what you want?
I am assuming that Bernie is the candidate you think we should ALL be “concerning ourselves with” right now. It’s apparent he is not the choice of the majority of Democrats – should that just be ignored? Should those voters be ignored?
We live in a democracy, where all voices are to be heard. What you seem to be suggesting is that only some voices be heard – and through some inexplicable coincidence, the voices to be heard are only those that agree with you.
Bernie is far behind HRC in votes and delegates. So if all the liberals/progressives want him as the nominee, why aren’t they coming out to vote for him in bigger numbers than those voting for Hillary? Are you suggesting that everyone who votes for Hillary is not a liberal/progressive? I’m sure you wouldn’t take that ludicrous position – so that leaves us with the obvious: not ALL liberals/progressives want to see Bernie in the WH.
I think we can agree that on the whole, Democrats are more liberal/progressive than Republicans. So if Bernie can’t get enough of US to support him as a nominee, how do you suppose he’d fare among Republicans? Now, you might want to go with the theory that Independents would make up the shortfall between Dems and GOPers to win BS the presidency – but there is no solid evidence to suggest that they would make up that shortfall to the extent needed to elect him.
Again what you seem to be saying is Democrats should forget their personal preference, and get behind Bernie because (a) a poll based on conjecture says he beats Republican contenders by a wider margin than HRC, and (b) we should just all assume that Indys and liberal/progressive Republicans (and I’m sure they’re legion) will vote for Bernie in the GE.
Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll support who I want to support, vote for the candidate I want, and not be swayed by some ridiculous theory based on pretty much nothing more than assumptions that have zero facts to back them up.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)So we should concern ourselves with the preferred candidate of liberal/progressive voters regardless of party affiliation.
And just how would we go about doing this?
..you have heard of an open primary. Open it up, in they come! Amazing how freaking easy it is.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)I really want Repubs and Indys deciding who MY party's candidate will be.
And how, pray tell, do you determine whether those Repubs and Indys are voting to support the candidate they would vote for in the GE, or are just voting in our primaries to manipulate the system? Do you have some means test in mind - or do you just "trust" everyone?
How many Republicans do you think would vote for BS in an open primary because they plan to vote for him in the GE - as opposed to how many Republicans would vote for BS because they think he's easier to beat in the GE and they want to benefit their own party by seeing him nominated?
I think you're being unspeakably naive.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I'm going to ignore the snark. Because sabotaging repub crossovers are to Democratic primaries like voter ID related election fraud is to the GOP voter. A boogeyman blown all out of proportion to it's actual occurrence or relevance to outcomes.
And as for Independents, they are CRITICAL to general election victory. Ignoring them? THAT is a (prepare to choke on sarcasm) "Great Idea".
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)Apples and oranges; the two do not equate.
As I said, if you think Republicans would not use an open Dem primary system to manipulate outcomes to their advantage, you are apparently unaware of ALL of the voting manipulation the GOP has been known for since the dawn of time. It's what I would call "legendary" at this point in history, so I'm assuming you would be familiar with it.
Do you recall Bush v Gore, Florida, hanging chads, Democratic voters unlawfully purged from the voting rolls by the thousands, Katherine Harris, arbitrary deadlines, last-minute court actions, etc.? And yet you think THESE people would never, ever game the system when it came to voting in an "open primary".
Independents are needed in a GE - but not in a Dem primary. It goes like this: The GOP choose their nominee, the Dems choose theirs. And in the general, the Indys get to vote for one or the other. If they want to have a say in either party's choice of nominee, they should join that party and be heard. Otherwise, stay out of it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)As I said, if you think Republicans would not use an open Dem primary system to manipulate outcomes
19 States already run open primaries.
You were saying? Excuse me, I'll be waiting for your response over here in reality where the GOP ability to effect Dem primary outcomes is fucking DWARFED by the positive impact of involving the Independents you CANNOT WIN AN ELECTION WITHOUT.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)And we have no way of knowing to what extent those states' primaries are impacted by allowing Repubs to participate.
If you have those statistics, I'd like to see them.
Example: I'd like to know how many Republicans voted for a candidate in a Dem primary, and later voted for that same Dem in the GE, if they turned out to be the nominee.
We'll never know, will we? All we can do is look to the GOP's history when it comes to manipulating elections in any way they can, and come to the logical conclusion.
Indys are people who say, "We're not with YOU, and we're not with THEM. We have allegiance to neither of you."
Well, if you don't want to align yourself with either party, you shouldn't have any say in the inner processes of either party, like the primary process.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...you're more concerned with door keeping to keep the riff raff out of your club than attracting the voters that support the policies and principles you are supposedly in favor of to win elections and get those policies and principles implemented.
Which, FYI, is exactly the kind of bullshit that drives those liberal progressive voters away from the party and into Independent status. Which is where a ton of them are heading straight back to if the party flips them off yet again during this primary.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)… you should go back and read this entire exchange between us. Every time I have asked you to explain how your “theories” would work, you change the subject.
What I am left with is this: Only liberal/progressive voters should have a say in who the Dem nominee is – while you have offered no explanation as to how that idea is to be implemented, who determines who is a liberal/progressive worthy to be heard, nor a justification of the obvious unfairness of excluding the voices of those who don’t pass the ‘purity’ test.
You think a poll based on the speculation that BS could beat Republicans by a wider margin than HRC in the general should be accepted as fact, and Democrats should abandon their preference for Hillary and rally behind BS based on a truly meaningless poll.
You think that all Dem primaries should be open to Republicans and Indys because – and THIS is the amazing part – the GOP would never use that opening to vote in a way that would benefit their own agenda, rather than that of Democrats.
Here’s what it comes down to: If BS were ahead right now, you wouldn’t even suggest any of the above. If Bernie had more votes and more delegates and was clearly on his way to the nomination, you’d say that the current system is working just fine. If Bernie were ahead and you thought Indys leaned more towards voting for HRC than BS, your head would explode if someone suggested allowing them to vote in our primaries.
The BSers have consistently complained about how things should be changed – from super-delegates to not “counting” votes in red states – all because such changes might benefit Bernie.
Your guy is losing under the rules and processes that have been in place for decades. HE knew those rules going in, and accepted that they govern the process of electing a nominee. He knew that he would win or lose based on how things are done and not on how he, or his supporters, think they should suddenly be changed in order to give him a better shot at the prize.
When someone suggests that Republicans should have a say in who Democrats choose as their nominee, the utter and complete desperation behind that suggestion is blatantly obvious – not to mention deplorable.
Yes, I want to keep the riff-raff OUT of the Democratic process. Apparently, so do you. The difference here is that I consider the Republicans to be the riff-raff, while you consider the riff-raff to be any Democrats who don’t support Bernie.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)
… you should go back and read this entire exchange between us. Every time I have asked you to explain how your “theories” would work, you change the subject.
That statement was pure bullshit. You asked I answered.
Hold. Open. Primaries.
The. Fucking. End.
I don't care about your paranoid conspiracy theories about GOP plots to infiltrate your precious club en masse. They're a little too fucking busy having their own primaries to be more than a minor annoyance while you get the massively outweighing benefit of drawing in critical Independents
I've told you all this before, which is not changing the fucking subject now is it? It's just telling you something you don't want to hear.
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)The exchange proves that.
You have answered NOTHING.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I was on the debate team in high school and I tend to read exchanges like this one while scoring it as I would if I were a debate judge trying to deep any prejudges out of the scoring. (In classic debate contest a team of two might have to take either side of a proposition when debating the opposing team so a judge cannot let personal feelings about the preposition enter into the judging.
The winner on my score card, by a wide margin, NanceGregg. Winning formula - NanceGregg logically and successfully attacked all of gcomeau's points; gcomeau's propensity to totally disregard one of NanceGregg's main points, obviously because he/she was having trouble countering it. Also weak rebuttals to other major points.
Note: Given the nature of the proposition, gcomeau may havae been at slight disadvantage due to the nature of the proposition.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... the point concerning the fact that one candidate had large leads in both votes and pledged delegates. Though that may be a difficult point to counter; in a real debate you would had to at least do a better job than you did on that subject. In a debate if don't to some extent effectively counter one of your opponents main points, that is a sure recipe for defeat.
It was a fun and lively match up anyway; thanks for the show.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)She made a comment about vote totals within a restricted subset of voters that are not representative of the electorate in the general.
Since we were talking about GE electability I ignored her *completely irrelevant* comment and stayed on topic. GE electability and how to choose the candidate that is superior in that regard.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...to stroll into a discussion and simply declare yourself the judge.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)but so fare you haven't been able to express your opinion very well. 
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...illustrating your judgement on that score was bullshit. So....
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Well, she ran for President once and lost the nomination, and she won a house seat to represent Wall Street, but never faced a real challenge, and the Republicans have never brought their fight to her. As you keep reminding us, they have been building their case since the '90s and she already polls poorly against them and will only go down further.
BTW it's funny to watch Clinton supporters talk about polls because Michigan.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Uglystick
(88 posts)
Fla Dem
(23,691 posts)That was clearly obvious after all the "new, young, progressive" Obama supporters ditched him after only 2 years and were "disappointed" with him because he didn't do, or get accomplished everything they wanted done. But where were they during the mid-terms working for congressional and senate Dem candidates that would work with Obama. They were nowhere. Just like the Bernie supporters will disappear if he is elected president when he doesn't wave his magic wand and accomplish everything in his 1st 2 years.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)and it's always been that way
"Wanna live inna better world, kid? C'mere: I'll teach ya how t'make an axe-head by bangin onna chunk of flint"
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh god there it is again...
Hillary's defeatist "we can only do this"... "stop being optimistic and just go with the same 'ol same 'ol" crap.
Low expectations
Continue to give the Repugs the power and the narrative.
Yes, her's is the last 20th century campaign.
pandr32
(11,588 posts)Good for you for posting out here in the open where multitudes of haters await. I am proud to stand with Hillary--for the reasons you posted and more.
rock
(13,218 posts)And it will be wrong.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)They generate them every election. And no, it really isn't wrong and I'll *happily* discuss any objection you have to it assuming you can come up with any concrete reason for objecting besides "I want Hillary more left... because she just IS!"
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Unless anyone is supposed to believe Sanders is a rabid Communist fanatic for proposing a bit of I creased regulation and single payer health care. Which apparently many on this board seem to want to think.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...an objective professional analysis of the candidates actual policy proposals and your was just you being a deliberately ridiculous clown and placing dots in absurd locations.
THAT says their plotting is better than yours.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that Libertarian philosophy was better than Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals and Progressives.
That's the charting system whose merits you are vigorously defending right now.
Sorry but unless the folks who plotted the points are properly vetted, it means nothing.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)That is simply the full spectrum of actual political philosophies in regards to both economic and social issues. It doesn't say a fucking thing about libertarianism being "better" than anything.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's funny that you didnt know this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
.
.
.
David Nolan first published the current version of the chart in an article named "Classifying and Analyzing Politico-Economic Systems" in the January 1971 issue of The Individualist, the monthly magazine of the Society for Individual Liberty (SIL). In December 1971, he helped to start the group that would become the Libertarian Party.[3]
.
.
.
Since, Nolan realized, most government activity (or government control) occurs in these two major areas, political positions can be defined by how much government control a person or political party favors in these two areas. The extremes are no government at all in either area (anarchism) or total or near-total government control of everything (various forms of totalitarianism). Most political philosophies fall somewhere in between. In broad terms:
.
.
.
Libertarians favor both personal and economic freedom, and oppose most (or all) government intervention in both areas. Like conservatives, libertarians believe that people should be free to make economic choices for themselves. Like liberals, libertarians believe in personal freedom.
.
.
.
Nolan said that one of the impacts of his chart is that when someone views it, it causes an irreversible change: viewers henceforth view the included orientations in two dimensions instead of one.
-------------------------------------------------
The entire purpose of the chart you are defending is to promote Libertariansm.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The fact that once a Libertarian plotted political orientations on social and economic axes does not render every chart that does so for the rest of time no matter who does it Libertarian propaganda captain clueless.
That's like saying because the Nazis invented the Jerrycan anyone who uses one to transport gas is a nazi. It's beyond stupid.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)That's fucking amazing.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)We're surrounded by Nazis!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!!
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)understand.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Uglystick
(88 posts)I believe the 2008 Steve better than the 2016 Steve.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)So what happened? How did she become 'not a liar'. Did she suddenly start to tell the truth? Did she go back and undo all of her previous lies?
Try not to be trite in your response.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Or have you become such a contortionist you can't even acknowledge your own wiring?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Not going to happen.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)And actually you tried to jack the thread with your bullshit chart.
So, she continues to lie and you're okay with it now, or she stopped lying, or.... what exactly?
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)but not this one. This one is poison.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)
Paper Roses
(7,473 posts)Women should be equal in opportunity to be President. We need someone who will break off from the stagnant, partisan, self-serving status quo. Hillary is not the one.
How long will it take for the electorate to recognize that things need to change? I don't expect anything positive from a Hillary presidency. I would have voted for Elizabeth Warren if she chose to run. I do think she would have done good things.
I do feel that Bernie will do much to help straighten out the mess in which we find ourselves. He is my only hope this time around.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)due to her and her spouse's financial "issues". For an extensive background on that, see...
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/when-the-press-vetted-geraldine-ferraro/?_r=0
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)Karma13612
(4,552 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)it takes preparation, team-work, experience, and the understanding you can't always head straight for the ultimate goal
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...of UP.
Or in this case left.
Clinton is marginally RIGHT of Obama. That is only progress if the direction you're trying to make progress in is towards the GOP.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
SamKnause
(13,108 posts)
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)don't say much
SamKnause
(13,108 posts)I am sad that you voted for Hillary.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Other than I want to vote for a woman.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)I'm done discussing what I think the downside of either candidate might be. It was a tough call for me. I found a way to break the tie in my own head. If you disagree with me, go vote a different way. Whoever wins, I wouldn't angrily stomp off: I'll pull up my boots and roll up my sleeves, and get down to the business of trying to win
If you think that's a screed, I guess you're entitled to your opinion, just like everybody else
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)We all have the right to make our own choice.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)But I expect I will be voting for Hill in November.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Struggle4StatusQuo ?
Relaxing4Progress?
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)salinsky
(1,065 posts)^^^^ this ^^^^
oasis
(49,389 posts)deserve such courtesy.
That being said,the contact info on Hillary, and Bill's Rolodex will serve America well.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)the "rigged" system you claim to reject. All the same. Theft is theft.
oasis
(49,389 posts)wouldn't have to worry so much about their lack of run production.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...I definitely understand the need to try and keep the country from lurching any further to the right. That's why, despite my enormous misgivings about Hillary Clinton's character, if my state is in play in November (almost certainly not the case...), I'll vote for her. There's a very good chance multiple SCOTUS appointments are at stake, even in a single term.
Mind you, I think it will be a lost cause: I don't think Hillary has much of a chance in November. But so be it. The country could well become unlivable if all three branches fall to the orcs. And Bernie has already set the stage for a genuine progressive to win, even if it's not this time.
Meanwhile, however, I'll continue fighting for Bernie...and continue decrying what I see as a dishonest, compromised, center-right candidate.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)When we finally put a woman in that office, the number of kids who think that way will double
Most of them won't become President. But a lot more could find their way into statehouses or congress than do now. I don't know the long-term effect. But the short-term effect would likely push the country in a positive direction, because women currently tend to have a more liberal perspective than men
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I deliberately addressed other parts of your post, not really wanting to go into this aspect, but as Jagger says "you can't always get what you want." 
I don't dispute a single thing about the benefits of a woman president in terms of the symbolic import of such a development. My objection is to the "it's time" bit. There's no "it's time," no "it's (insert demographic group here)'s turn." Hillary's lack of a Y chromosome (a trait she and I share) isn't exactly meaningless to me...but as a "tiebreaker," it would be way, way down on the list. Compared to something like economic justice, opposing discretionary wars, or potential SCOTUS appointments, even an important symbolic statement just seems trivial tome.
Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #56)
fun n serious This message was self-deleted by its author.
Uglystick
(88 posts)But capable? Hell no.
She's the one that went cray cray (in your own words).
you're not fun and you're not being serious.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I respect your decision and your reasons, but your solid perspective most of all.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)beaglelover
(3,486 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)I'll be doing the same on Tuesday.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)seekthetruth
(504 posts)Fracking. It's killing our planet, and we have no business supporting someone who profits politically from its endorsement.
Decades from now, if she is the nominee and goes on to win, once parts of NYC, New Orleans, and other coastal cities are under water, people will wished we acted sooner and supported politicians who were against fossil fuels.
She's no longer a Democrat and definitely not a progressive. The only things she'll get done will be minimal and to the detriment of the American people.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)But popular politics typically follows mass behavior
If we can change people's energy use options, we'll be able to change their behavior and then their politics
But as long as most people have to drive, gas prices are going to have effects on policy and on how people vote
Uglystick
(88 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)This Hillary supporter is proud to stand beside you!
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)anyone would vote for Hillary just because she's woman. I don't think Hillary is positioned to have any real impact on anything I care about. There are huge differences between what she stands for and Sanders.
But thanks for putting your thoughts out there.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)"we should have moved to the left, cause that's what the voters wanted."
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)"Oh, gosh! We should have been less conservative!"
It doesn't happen. Maybe it should happen. I think I would be happier if it happened. But it never happens
Pat Riots
(76 posts)is Triangulation.
Hillary is experienced in that sort of thing.
no offense, but it seems that you voted to support someone whose inclinations tend toward exactly what you claim to be voting against. she is NOT the candidate most likely to listen to the grassroots. and NOT one we can depend upon to not lurch to the right when politically convenient.
it is like someone who has a fear of drowning choosing to swim the English Channel....
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Thank you for voting
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)And she has a long history of lies and corruption.
I'd love a woman president too -- but not at the price of getting someone as horrible as HRC.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)And very thankful that is was for Hillary. I think she is going to be a great POTUS.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)not everybody is here for the same reason: there are our friends, there are our foes, there are trolls and various victims of alien abduction ...
i expect we'll muddle through somehow
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)But even so, I have no intention of becoming too accepting of bad behavior.
timlot
(456 posts)I voted for Hillary too, but would also support Bernie if he somehow manages to come back.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)
Fluffs39
(1 post)I sure hope people start to wake up before next Tuesday,and do the same, at least with Hillary, she has worked hard in all her years in Politics. It doesn't matter about race or colour.
Sander is a Socialist Maybe some people should look it up in the dictionary what that exactly means.
Trump will be a danger to America and the World,Just listen to the how he speaks at his rallies.
Vote Democrat and keep America Safe.....
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)This is actually the result of three out of the four possible outcomes of the general elections.
Hillary Clinton is nominated and wins? "Time to move the party towards the center (right)! Let's make a warm purple space! it's a mandate!"
Hillary Clinton is nominated and loses? "It's hte fucking left's fault, let's show them who's boss by kicking htep arty further to the right!"
Bernie Sanders is nominated and loses? "See! That just proves leftist politics can't win! we need to move further to the right!"
Bernie Sanders is nominated and wins? "Well, maybe we can have a little leftism, I guess, maybe..."
if your outlook is based on a desire to achieve progress, to move the party continuously towards more, better, liberal positions, to expand on the accomplishments of the last eight years rather than let them stagnate or retract... then Sanders was your best option.
Well, as I said, you do you. At least you voted!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)That's not to say that she's not a good candidate but one way or another that's what it boils down to.
Uglystick
(88 posts)A vote for Hillary is a vote for Rove, Trump and the Republican Party.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)So is Mr Sanders, and he is not the one who mistakes Nancy Reagan's indifference to AIDS victims with "silent activism".
She's well-educated
She should educate her on the history of the 1980-ies, because evidently she missed the dynamics of the biggest epidemic of the 20th century by a mile.
She's experienced
Experienced in what? Starting coups against democratic governments (Honduras 2009), starting wars that pave the way for ISIS (IWR 2003)? Experience itself is not a qualification. Making the right decisions is.
She's got the Rolodex
I assume that one was not serious.
And it's time we had a woman at the top of our ticket
So the lies, callosity, calculation, polls and focus-groups driven triangulation, Wall Street Ties, war hawk record, gay-hating (DOMA, DADT, praising Nancy) and sell-out of the middle class and the working poor (NAFTA, TPP) don't matter if they come from a pair of ovaries? That double standard is sexist.
I agree that we need a female leader of the Democratic Party. But Clinton is not a leader. She is a follower. And I don't trust what and whom she follows. Not at all.
So while we are waiting for one of the many qualified women in our party to present herself for the top of the ticket, Mr. Sanders will have to do. After all, he has a 40 year record of being on the right side of history, including on women's rights. He may not be perfect, but he's good.
Uglystick
(88 posts)Congratulations on voting against your interest. AGAIN.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)I'm the kind of guy who often pays attention to minor little details like that
YMMV, of course, but I can say with some confidence I'm really pretty sure I didn't vote for Trumpkopf by accident or otherwise
Uglystick
(88 posts)She won't win at all in the GE, guaranteed. She has least trust of the American people.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Eom
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)I get to vote for Bernie Tuesday! Can't wait.
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)monicaangela
(1,508 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)That is sexism.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts) 
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)In fact, thanks to everyone who votes and can explain why they voted as they did.
Ignore any attacks you may receive regarding your vote. Your vote is yours alone to make.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)She is all the things you say, but she will not struggle for progress.
postatomic
(1,771 posts) 
panader0
(25,816 posts)I have long admired your posts and for some reason I thought you were, well, like
your user name....
cwydro
(51,308 posts)I too was attacked here for stating my choice.
It's a shame.
K and r!
Skid Rogue
(711 posts) riversedge
(70,242 posts) Uglystick
(88 posts)Thank you.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)can't wipe that clean with a cloth. for real.
Persondem
(1,936 posts)H2O Man
(73,559 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Going to the polls with my mother!!!
Sunsky
(1,737 posts)Hopefully she'll win Florida.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)truebrit71
(20,805 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)
shadowandblossom
(718 posts)Despite the fashionable attitude to take online, I cannot wait until I get to cast my vote for Secretary Clinton this year. I'm thrilled about it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences.
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]I voted for Bernie on the friday before super-tuesday.
Regardless of who wins, here is hoping they kick Republican ass in November![/font]
struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)The R party is convulsing, perhaps with the help of party insiders who want a brokered convention to install their preferred candidate (Jeb?), but the low-information crowd -- the sort of folk who cast votes for Schwarzeneger as CA governor because they thought that would be "funny" -- seems meanwhile poised to select The Don as standard-bearer, with help from the nativist racist xenophobe fringe
Cruz and Rubio, in comparison, would probably both be easy to disassemble before they're entirely out-of-the-box
I can't really evaluate the relative chances of Clinton and Sanders: I think he sounds better but she has a better grasp what actually up against. Plenty of folk seem to disagree with me on that
Politics is war conducted by other means. The sooner we ready ourselves for the upcoming battles, the better
riversedge
(70,242 posts)She does it so well--already--not waiting for November!!
TWEETS:
Howard Kainer ?@HowardKainer 3h3 hours ago
Republican Nightmares Come True As Hillary Clinton Destroys Trump At CNN Town Hall #ImWithHer and #ShesWithUs @HFA http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/13/republican-nightmares-true-hillary-clinton-destroys-trump-cnn-town-hall.html …
Hillary 4 POTUS ?@HlLLARY 10h10 hours ago
Just a reminder. #ImWithHer
https://twitter.com/HlLLARY/status/709238743178149888
20 retweets 44 likes
Kavin ?@stylistkavin 12h12 hours ago
I've been through so many #DemTownHall and debates, I think I'm getting bored with them. She always does well. He always panders. #ImWithHer
96 retweets 201 likes
oasis
(49,389 posts)
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)And thank you for exercising your constitutional right by voting! As a veteran, it's always nice to be reminded it was worth it.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)struggle4progress
(118,295 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Mary Mac
(323 posts)I voted for her on Friday and then was kicked out of her DU group on Monday. Lol. Hope to go to her rally in Charlotte tonight. There is no middle ground at DU.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)How embarrassing!
Just blurting out who you voted for.
William769
(55,147 posts)And I like your reasoning.
EDIT: I will be voting for Hillary tomorrow in Florida!
