"If we lose them, we never had them."

[hellofromreddit]

I've been seeing this lame excuse again and again to justify discarding new democrats who might leave if Sanders is defeated in the primary.

It's dangerously shortsighted and emblematic of the mediocre and divisive campaign Hillary has been running so far, and she has been flat or trending down for the whole season as a result. How will that bode in the general when republicans are more energized than ever and closed primaries are behind us?

Bernie's weak with black voters, so he and the campaign are clearly working very hard to fix it by meeting with them, discussing issues important to them, and listening to what they've got to say instead of simply writing them off. Remember how Bernie used to be weak among women and Hispanics, but isn't anymore? By contrast, Hillary is weak with independents, crossover voters, and young voters, but the plan up to this point seems to be one that's entirely dismissive of Bernie and his supporters--calling them disloyal, immature, or blindly bigoted in some way. That's a strategy of throwing out the most energized among the voters, and her gap with those voters has only grown.

To be sure, voters refusing to line up behind the other candidate isn't blackmail: voters are going to choose what to do with their own votes as is their right. They aren't trying to steal anything from anyone by simply giving up on the campaign that dismisses them.

While I expect it from republicans who've built much of their power on their ability to shut out and ignore voters they dislike and can't deal with honestly, I'm somewhat surprised to see that kind of attitude from democrats. Aren't democrats supposed to win elections by earning votes and expanding the base?

It might sting when people say the D party is no better than the R party, but the behavior from the Clinton campaign sure does blur that line. Expect some votes to blur accordingly.

[Trenzalore]

1. Divisive campaign Hillary is running?

One candidate spends most of his time talking about the other and inferences on their character and it isn't Clinton.

[DemocracyDirect]

2. You are right.

He exposes her record and she uses others to smear him like crazy.

[Trenzalore]

3. One candidate stood on a stage and called the other unqualified for the Presidency

It wasn't Hillary Clinton.

[timmymoff]

4. So once again Sanders told the truth

[Art_from_Ark]

5. That's rich

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-questions-whether-sanders-is-qualified-to-be-president/

[Trenzalore]

17. When I was a kid my dad taught me to read articles

and not headlines. At no point in that article does Hillary say Bernie Sanders is unqualified to be President.

[Art_from_Ark]

18. After nearly 40 years of being familiar with Hillary,

going back to her Arkansas days, I've learned to read between the lines with her.

"Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton on Wednesday questioned whether her rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), is qualified to be president.

"I think he hadn't done his homework and he'd been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn't really studied or understood," Clinton said in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," just one day after losing the Wisconsin primary to Sanders, "and that does raise a lot of questions."

[Trenzalore]

23. That is a hell of a lot different than standing on a stage

Saying what Sanders said.

[Blue_In_AK]

26. You prefer equivocation

to plain speaking. Got it.

[840high]

78. No it's not.

[Loudestlib]

34. .

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized Senator Barack Obama for the first time yesterday as inexperienced on national security, calling him “irresponsible and frankly naïve” for saying he would be willing to meet without preconditions with leaders of Iran, North Korea and three other nations during his first year as president."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/us/politics/25debate.html?_r=0

[onecaliberal]

38. Are you 5? That's exactly what she says. Her god damn triangulation is why everyone calls her

A liar

[DemocracyDirect]

7. If you are patient enough to watch more than the sound bite.

He qualified his statements in many different ways.

And she and her campaign were implying the same about him multiple times without qualification.

It wasn't a good angle for either side.

[99Forever]

21. She isn't qualified and no amount of faux poutrage changes that.

Amoral, aggressively militaristic, and corrupt are dis-qualifiers.

[snowy owl]

27. Stood on stage and said..."IF Hillary Clinton called me..." "IF" is a big word. Makes a difference

Listen again - people are very poor listeners and the media doesn't freakin' care.

[daleanime]

30. ......

and it's statements like this that helped create her reputation for dishonesty.

[Bettie]

42. And the other spent an interview

refusing to answer the question with anything but weasel words an insinuations.

She could have said "of course he's qualified, but I think I'm a better choice" and the question would have been over and done with, but that wouldn't have gotten what she wanted done done.

[Trenzalore]

43. At no time did she say he was unqualified nt.

[Bettie]

48. Which is why I said used weasel words to

insinuate it.

If she wanted to leave zero doubt of what she was saying she would have answered the question the first time it was asked with a "yes" or a "no". But, she CHOSE, she made a choice to hem and haw and leave zero doubt that though she didn't say "no" her answer was no.

So, why couldn't she have just answered? Because that is who she is.

I used to really admire her. I voted for Bill Clinton twice and spent a great deal of time defending her to my right wing relatives.

That ended with her 2008 campaign where her supporters were so vile and when she used weasel words to insinuate that then-candidate Obama didn't have "American Values" and that he probably wasn't a Christian, and possibly wasn't a citizen.

[Trenzalore]

52. I supported Obama in 2008

Not really offended by that campaign and it was a lot nastier than this one.

[hellofromreddit]

19. Your premise is false, but assuming it's true, candidates should be able to handle some hits

"Decades of vetting, kids gloves in the general, bla bla bla..."

I'm talking about attacks on voters. There appears to be some expectation from the Clinton campaign that the beatings should continue until morale improves among voters.

[Trenzalore]

20. I'm not complaining about the tone of the Sanders campaign

I'm pointing out that Sanders has done more than his fair share of shit flinging yet I don't have to read articles about whether or not Clinton supporters will back Bernie because Clinton supporters aren't making childish threats.

[hellofromreddit]

37. Sanders hasn't been flinging shit at voters, but Clinton and her surrogates have

[Trenzalore]

39. Sanders started his campaign talking about his goals

and he is ending it trashing his opponent.

[hellofromreddit]

44. He's not attacking voters

You can repeat until you turn blue that Sanders is a meanie to Clinton, but that's utterly irrelevant.

What I'm talking about is how the campaigns treat the voters. Clinton's campaign (and many who post here) have made sport of tearing down anyone who supports Sanders.

[Trenzalore]

46. I've only been on here a month

However, I've been accused of some pretty wretched things by Sanders supporters because of who I support. Doesn't make me want to see Trump as President. Maybe I have big boy underroos.

[hellofromreddit]

56. Your argument is sloppy, and the snide comments don't help it

1) You're making a lot of assumptions about how voters are motivated. The ones who won't support Clinton aren't necessarily fans of Trump. Maybe you see those positions as equal, but many voters don't.

2) Yeah, some Sanders supporters are awful people who say awful things. But that's true of all candidates and not what I'm talking about. The Hillary campaign either directly or through surrogates have pushed negative narratives about Sanders' supporters for months now--they're sexist (remember the shouting about guns kerfuffle?), they're racist (bernie bros smears), they're naive (ponies), the young females are simply addled with hormones (that's where the boys are/special place in hell), they're not "real democrats," etc. That's from the top down--not simply random internet assholes.

Deny it all you want--it's still undermining Hillary's campaign.

[revbones]

53. Yeah, cuz we should ignore all the despicable facts about her. nt

[DanTex]

6. Hillary might lose some Bernie or Bust nutjobs from the fringe left,

but they represent a very small fraction of the overall electorate. There are far more moderate independent voters than there are Greens and socialists.

[hellofromreddit]

8. "....and some, I assume, are good people."

Is that what you meant to say?

[hobbit709]

11. And you will never get the independents by dismissing them.

Evidently that is beyond your comprehension.

[DanTex]

12. Very few independents are Bernie or Busters.

[hobbit709]

13. That's not the point and you know it. Dismissing them is the point.

[DanTex]

14. It's my point. Not all independents are the same. If a few whackjobs want to go BoB,

let them go, and focus on moderate independents, who are a much bigger voting bloc.

[hobbit709]

15. focus on moderate independents by dismissing them as young and gullible like your St. Hillary did?

[DanTex]

16. Bernie or Busters are not moderate independents.

[SFnomad]

29. Bending over backwards to please fringe nutjobs that will never be happy isn't necessary n/t

[unapatriciated]

55. I'm not a fringe nut job

nor is my sister, her husband, my daughter her wife, my son, two grandsons their wives, granddaughter and my husband. Yet it is getting harder and harder for us to want to vote for Clinton. I have been a Democrat for more than forty years and do not consider it "bending over backwards" to expect my party to uphold the values that we have stood for since FDR.

So if you think we are not necessary you are sadly mistaken.

[SFnomad]

59. PUMAs thought they were necessary too ... they weren't

You will either vote for Secretary Clinton or you won't. It really doesn't matter what I do or say because you're going to do what you're going to do.

As to dramatic pronouncements like "Yet it is getting harder and harder for us to want to vote for Clinton" ... that's a bunch of crap. Either you realize that a Republican getting elected President will damage this country or you don't. If you realize this and you'll sit on your hands or vote for someone else, you're part of the problem. If you don't realize this than you need to wake up.

[unapatriciated]

62. No the problem is Clinton's

If she continues to dismiss us she will lose. It is her campaign that needs to wake up.

[SFnomad]

63. Yep, the PUMAs said the same thing about Obama as well ... in the end, they were irrelevant

And if you want to be irrelevant too ... just keep doing what you're doing.

Secretary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee by being herself, the fact that she's 2+ million votes ahead of Sanders speaks volumes. She will win the general election as well by being herself. You can either join the fight against the Republicans or you can be left on the sidelines, it's really your choice. And I'm sure you've already made it, your dramatics notwithstanding.

[unapatriciated]

65. The only person that is being dramatic and condescending

is you. You keep talking about the PUMAs, you do realize that they were Clinton supporters.

Bless your heart.

[SFnomad]

67. Yes, I realize the PUMAs were Clinton supporters ...

and I felt the same about them then as I do about the BernieOrBust'ers today.

In the end, the BernieOrBust'ers will be just as irrelevant.

[imagine2015]

33. But Hillary, the former Senator from Wall Street, will get lots of votes from filthy rich people!

[PDittie]

9. Well done

I can find no reasonable explanation for Hillary supporters who have amped up the antagonism toward Berners as her seeming inevitability keeps melting like the Arctic. Absent a premise beyond "politics ain't beanbag", the calculation appears to be that they can replace us "soshulists" with GOP votes escaping from Trump/Cruz.

That is the only thing that makes political sense... even if it reveals the New Democrats for precisely what thy are: Old (as in former moderate) Republicans.

[hobbit709]

10. Dismissing them is a guaranteed method of NOT getting their vote in the GE.

And when she loses the GE you know who will get the blame.

[SFnomad]

32. Yeah, the children whose candidate lost the nomination and decided to take their ball and go home

because no amount of coddling will ever make them happy. They have standards damn it ... and it doesn't matter how much the country gets flushed down the toilet because of it ... they at least can hold their head high and realize they didn't compromise those standards.

[hellofromreddit]

40. Attacking voters is a bad strategy

Attacking them harder is not an improvement.

[SFnomad]

41. The PUMAs in 2008 were bitter sore losers, just like the #BernieOrBust'ers are today

And back in 2008, those PUMAs were saying the exact same thing ... and they weren't the force they thought they were. The majority of them realized what was at stake and they did the right thing. The few that carried out their convictions had no effect on the outcome, Obama became President anyway.

In the end, the BernieOrBust'ers will do what they do. It really doesn't matter what I say and I'm tired of them being extortionists ... "be nice to me or I'll take my vote and go home" ... call the damn waaaambulance.

[hellofromreddit]

45. How is it extortion?

[SFnomad]

50. Haven't you been keeping up?

"Select my candidate or I'm going home"
"Your candidate can't win in the General because we won't vote for her, so you need to vote for Bernie"

Waaa waaa waaaa.

It's time for them to grow up.

[hellofromreddit]

54. Acting like an ass isn't helping your position

How is it extortion if they say they won't vote for the candidate they don't want to vote for? They aren't taking anything away from you or anyone else.

[SFnomad]

58. It's pretty clear no matter how many times I explain it to you, you won't understand n/t

[hellofromreddit]

61. You're up to zero so far

[unapatriciated]

57. What you don't understand is

she is also disenfranchising many long term FDR Dems. To say we are spoiled babies for wanting her to incorporate some of Sanders platforms into hers (if she is our nominee) will not earn our votes.

[SFnomad]

60. Re: she is also disenfranchising many long term FDR Dems

This ought to be good to hear. How is Secretary Clinton herself disenfranchising voters?

for wanting her to incorporate some of Sanders platforms into hers ...

That's what the convention is for, get out there and sell it to the rest of the Democrats that will be there. Nothing is given to you, get off your backsides and work for it.

will not earn our votes.

Somehow I doubt she ever could.

[unapatriciated]

64. You do know that this is just a message board

and you have no idea what I have done or not done. Been very active all my life. I have worked to get many things done..."Fair Claims Practice Act" and removal of pre-existing conditions clause are two things I and others worked hard to establish in California in the early 90's. We didn't see that nation wide until 2009. I did that while working full time and caring for a very ill child.

So telling me to "get off my backside and work for it" is very insulting.

[SFnomad]

66. That's right, this is just a message board

And you can say you've done things and I have no way to know if they're true or not.

I also know I asked you to tell me how Secretary Clinton is disenfranchising "many long term FDR Dems", since you made that claim. And that you ignored it completely. I figured you wouldn't be able to provide anything.

As to me being insulting ... I'm tired of how insulting so many of the Sanders cheerleaders around here have been and I'm to the point where I just don't care anymore.

[unapatriciated]

69. You didn't ask that question

If you had I would have answered, instead you insulted me. If I missed the question I apologize. Here are a few things that in my opinion she is on the wrong side of the issue.

Health Care is a very big issue with me (not the only one). I have fought for universal health care since the early 90's. In 2008 she was for it and used it against Obama. It is something that we can accomplish but no doubt it will take years of work and that means getting out the vote in mid term elections. The insurance cartel does not belong in the business of health care. Their only concerns are profit and it is a shame that we are still using this model.

I'm glad she has changed her stance on NAFTA and other trade bills, but still not sure where she is on fracking. These issues are not pie in the sky nor or they wanting unicorns. These issues concern many of us who are FDR Dems. One thing Sanders and his supporters have accomplished is moving the dialogue towards these issues.

I have not insulted Clinton nor her supporters, yet I have been insulted many times for wanting to "work" for what I know we can accomplish. To not even try is wrong on so many levels.

[SFnomad]

73. I didn't ask that question? ... you might want to re-read reply #60 then.

You still haven't answered how she is "disenfranchising many long term FDR Dems." ... you've just gone off on how she is wrong on certain issues. Health care, NAFTA, fracking, etc. have nothing to do with your statement that she is "disenfranchising many long term FDR Dems." Now it's clear you're willing to smear Clinton and can't back up your smears.

And with that, that's enough of you ... buh-bye.

[unapatriciated]

76. buh-bye ok

but just in case you are still lurking, I will give you the same answer, just change the word "wrong" to supporting those issues. So stating her position on issues is somehow a smear.

again Bless your heart.

[SFnomad]

79. Do you even understand what disenfranchisement is?

It's taking someone's right to vote away. None of what you're babbling on about has anything to do with that.

Bless your little misinformed condescending heart.

[unapatriciated]

85. yes but I'm not using it in reference to voting

I'm using it in reference to power as in we have none. Our voice does not matter, we are not needed.

on edit: I can see how you would have thought different, because I was not clear about it.

[unapatriciated]

88. just so you know we all care deeply about getting a dem in the white house

and I'm sure we will succeed. Here is a little vid that might give you a chuckle

It was made in 2008 and not much has changed on DU since then.

[SFnomad]

92. Not all ... but I'm glad to hear you are.

And yes, the more things change the more they stay the same.

[840high]

81. I've compromised for too

long. Never again.

[Barack_America]

22. They're used to us being "brought to heel".

But not this time. Asking us to vote for Hillary and what she supports is too much.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

25. I hope you're having fun now. Hillary has flatly stated that she will recapture us soon.

There will be unity, or you will be made to suffer.

[Fawke Em]

31. Sadly, if she or any of the Republicans get in the White House, anyone not of

the 1 percent WILL be suffering.

[liberal from boston]

51. Clinton Campaign

Hillary is running out out of patience: Clinton Campaign response after Bernie's Wisconsin win http://vid1168.photobucket.com/albums/r491/sillyjillies1/Hillary%20declares%20war_zpsxmxe4yqa.mp4

[MisterP]

24. Sanders' reaction to opponents is to incorporate them and promote exactly why his ideas are good

Clinton either purges or panders: to her, voters are like employees--if they don't like it, there's the door

[snowy owl]

28. Hillary feels sorry for young people... Condescending. She doesn't deserve their vote.

That's enough to send them home. She needs to change her rhetoric but then that's pandering too.

[dchill]

35. Maybe you never had them. But you needed them.

[bettyellen]

36. "when people say the D party is no better than the R party" I know they are a one issue voter and

write them off as people who don't give a shit about others basic human rights.

[basselope]

70. Being better than absolute crap doesn't make you good.

Just b/c the democrats are "better" than the GOP doesn't mean the long term result will be much better.

[bettyellen]

75. Dems have had to spend 3/4 of their terms trying to undo GOP damage without much support from

"progressive" voters. Obama was hamstrung by others who stay home 3/4 years.

[basselope]

80. Oh stop it.. Obama created his own problem.

The day he sold us out on the public option, he insured voters would not show up.

He COULD have pushed the public option though on reconciliation.. They had the 50 votes necessary to do it. 76% of the public WANTED the public option.

He winds up with a piece of legislation that many democrats had to run AWAY from and, needless to say, they lose in 2010 with low turnout. Why? Because just a few months earlier he showed that he was more interested in the interests of insurance companies and private hospitals, then the PEOPLE.

He further alienated those voters when the bush tax cuts became permanent, when he waffled on Keystone for years, when he supported things like the TPP.

Obama was handed a dream scenario in 2008 and he squandered it and because of that, his support dwindled election to election to election.

[bettyellen]

83. a dream scenario? he didn't have the votes. the GOP worked hard to deny him a majority.

[basselope]

87. Bull doo doo

Obama HAD the votes to get the public option through via reconciliation.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83641-sanders-senate-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-via-reconciliation

They only needed 50. We had 60 votes, but a few blue dogs who kept the public option out of the Senate version, but BECAUSE it was in the house version, we could have forced it in.

But, for SOME REASON, the White House pulled the public option from its plan and didn't push Harry Reid. Why?

There's been speculation http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html Others have claimed there was no secret deal.. but the facts are pretty clear.

They had 50 votes. Would it have pissed off some blue dogs and GOP members? Hell yeah, but 76% of the public wanted. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/obama-boost-new-poll-show_n_217175.html)

So why run away from it when you could have had it? It could have been the rallying cry that got people to turn out in 2010.. but instead Obama wimped out.. it became politics as usual and the voters stayed home.

He didn't have our back, so why should we have his?

Why do you think he lost 10MM votes in 2012??

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. The "not as bad", "lesser of two evils", ploy isn't reliable as it once was. K&R

[asuhornets]

49. Your projection is

remarkable...

[TM99]

68. Really?

Show me three instances where Sanders has dismissed any demographic.

At least three have already been shared in this thread that Clinton did.

So...

[asuhornets]

71. Neither is dismissive to any group

that would be fatal to their campaign.. Bernie Sanders has not been able to build a diverse coalition, and that is his fault. He is not even trying. And it's too late. Hillary has not been dismissive to Bernie supporters, I believe it is the other way around. I also believe the OP is making excuses for Sanders supporters who won't vote for her in November. They never intended on voting for her.

[TM99]

74. Typical response.

So you give your beliefs but not actual evidence.

Clinton has dismissed Millennials, young women, and independents.

Sanders has worked diligently to expand his in roads with AA's and Latino's with great success.

[asuhornets]

84. You know

I responded to in a respectful way. I guess it is not in you to do the same---all because we support different candidates.

[TM99]

86. You gave a typical response.

You made an assertion. When challenged, you stated it was belief instead of evidential. I provided evidence to the contrary.

Now you say I am rude and bow out.

Like I said, very typical.

[geek tragedy]

72. This wasn't persuasive the first 2000 times it was made.

New Democrats don't get to shut everyone else's voice out with my way or the high way threats.

Why should we privilege people who are barely Democrats over our most loyal members, and an oppressed minority to boot?

[hellofromreddit]

82. You'll get an answer once you stop making it apparent that you did not read

[geek tragedy]

89. So your position is that as Hillary Clinton pivots to the general election,

she isn't interested in winning independents?

I don't think we agree on that.

If you want real scorn towards independents, wait till the Republicans deny Trump the nomination.

[hellofromreddit]

90. My position

My position is that the HRC campaign and her surrogates are campaigning negatively against some voters--namely those who support Sanders--and that it's a risky strategy. While the division might be helping her somewhat in the primary races, it will work against her in the general. The standby argument that they've got nowhere else to go simply does not work in this election for the reasons I've already explained. It's not that she isn't interested in winning independents, it's that she's ill-equipped for it and getting worse all the time thanks to this bad strategy.

What you imagine the republican race turning into doesn't change any of that.

[PATRICK]

77. You can't really be weak

if you have the enthusiastic and strong numbered support of your base, almost exclusively regardless what that base is.
The weakness and the reason for this strangled primary season is that not all centrist candidates prefer HRC. The biggest sign of that was the speculative Biden candidacy and some election results and turnout. Turning wings of the party against each other still merely offers cover to that core weakness.

[Eko]

91. Of course.

The ones who come in and say that they are only registering as Democrats and will leave as Sanders looses, we should pander to them. The same ones who say the Democratic party is full of corportatist warmongering neoliberals that are just as bad as the republicans, we should pander to them. The ones that post memes on facebook that are so easy to debunk and even when they agree the meme is false but they "like" it so they keep it up, we should pander to them. The ones that say things like this &quot Clinton is) fond of the practice of leaving brown kids toys to play with via the fun high tech pinatas known as cluster bombs", we should pander to them. The ones that cry that our party, my party, is actively committing voter fraud because they have no idea how things work, we should pander to them. The ones who say "let it bern" and want the Democratic party to come to anarchy if their candidate doesn't win, we should pander to them. One of them I know carries a magic rock in his pocket, I think that is all I need to say about that. Magic rock. Seriously. Who can argue with a freaking magic rock, and that is exactly what it is like trying to talk to a lot of Sanders supporters. Its just like that old saying with a slight twist, I like Sanders, I dont like the majority of his supporters at all. Out of twenty Sanders supporters I know personally, two are not conspiracy lunatics and one of those two is me. Here on DU it seems like a thousand to 3. So no, no most emphatically. I will not pander to conspiracy theorist magic rock temp democrats that cry that my party is a neoliberal warmongering corportatist whore! Freaking magic rock.