Simple solution Skinner, a POLL, should Skinner "Call It"???

[Logical]

233 votes, 7 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, Skinner should "Call it"
	30 (13%)
	No, Skinner should NOT "Call it"
	203 (87%)
	7 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[oldandhappy]

1. I don't know what this means.

[StevieM]

9. The poster is asking if Skinner should declare Hillary the presumptive nominee

and begin the one week countdown for Sanders supporters to rally behind our party's nominee.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. But what does THAT mean, exactly?

>>>begin the one week countdown for Sanders supporters to rally behind our party's nominee.>>>>

[StevieM]

24. The one week countdown refers to a period that begins right after

the party has a presumptive nominee.

The other side has one week left to bash the winner before the board is expected to unite in support of our party's candidate for president.

Here is what I wrote in response to the other reply to my post:

First of all, the poster asked if Skinner should call it. Regardless of what other posters say, Skinner is not going to do that while the primary season is not ongoing. He didn't eight years ago and he won't today.

Second, it is not a loyalty oath. It simply means that once Hillary becomes the presumptive nominee her critics on the board will have one week to tone the Hillary-bashing down. Because at that point the mission of the board will become to elect her as the next president of the United States.

Sanders supporters will still have the right to sing his praises and to advocate for the policy direction that they want for America. They just won't be allowed to put up excessively anti-Hillary posts.

Those were also the rules eight years ago when Obama secured the nomination.

[greymouse]

45. It means a large number of people will leave or be thrown off DU.

[Andy823]

94. Not really

If a person an not control their bashing and trashing, yes they would have that problem. However those who can post by the rules won't have that problem.

The trolls, and shit stirrers would be the ones that need to go since their only agenda is to trash the nominee, and the whole Democratic party.

[kstewart33]

106. greymouse, it doesn't look like you were here in 2008.

No one who abides by DU policy is going to be thrown off of DU.

The policy is to unite behind the Democratic nominee. That's one reason that this place is called Democratic Underground.

[TransitJohn]

118. It means DU Hillary supporters are looking for the purge to happen and get the

site how they want it, with a unified message in support of Hillary.

[Smarmie Doofus]

122. But they seem to comprise about a 1/4 of the board?

They're going to purge the other 3/4?

With logic like that I don't hold out a whole lot of hope for them in the general.

[John Poet]

123. More like about 1/10th.

Most of the DU polls have only shown about 10% support for Hillary, here.

[GoneFishin]

129. And who knows how many remaining after the $1 million runs out.

[leveymg]

153. It means that 17% of DU wants to purge the remaining 83%. Good luck with that one . . . nt

[StevieM]

157. There isn't going to be a purge. It simply means that one week after we have

a presumptive nominee the mission of the board will be to elect him or her as president.

That doesn't mean that Sanders supporter have to sing Hillary's praises or leave. But excessively anti-Hillary posts will not be allowed. It won't be acceptable to say that she should lose or that she is unfit for the job.

These are the same rules that were applied eight years ago when Barack Obama won.

And once the election is over the Hillary-bashing can start again, regardless of whether or not she wins the presidency.

[philosslayer]

149. It means party unity

It means no more vicious criticism of Secretary Clinton. And it means removing those who do.

[Smarmie Doofus]

156. That's pretty vague. Intentionally so?

What exactly distinguishes "vicious criticism" from "criticism"?

And who exactly makes that judgement?

[philosslayer]

158. This is the Democratic Underground

We are here to elect people from the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Therefore, one questions why those who would criticize her would even be here. Constructive criticism... maybe. But i've seen very little if any of that.

[Smarmie Doofus]

159. I asked three relatively simple questions.

You failed to address any of the three. ( BTW: Is that a "criticism" or a "vicious criticism"?)

[Matt_R]

162. ok I'll play

Vicious criticism = Hillary will bomb foreigners that are non-white.

Criticism = Hillary will bomb foreigners.

[oldandhappy]

12. Really ?

So this is a loyalty oath? The primary season is still in operation. I have not yet voted. One week? Or I am vaporized? I have enjoyed DU but I can see that my days are numbered. Our local Dem club is working hard to replace Issa and Hunter. I will work on that. Bye.

[StevieM]

20. You are misunderstanding what I am saying.

First of all, the poster asked if Skinner should call it. Regardless of what other posters say, Skinner is not going to do that while the primary season is not ongoing. He didn't eight years ago and he won't today.

Second, it is not a loyalty oath. It simply means that once Hillary becomes the presumptive nominee her critics on the board will have one week to tone the Hillary-bashing down. Because at that point the mission of the board will become to elect her as the next president of the United States.

Sanders supporters will still have the right to sing his praises and to advocate for the policy direction that they want for America. They just won't be allowed to put up excessively anti-Hillary posts.

Those were also the rules eight years ago when Obama secured the nomination.

[oldandhappy]

23. OK Makes sense.

[PatrynXX]

26. with 10 states yet to vote that would be against everything DU stands for

so thats a severe NO.

[StevieM]

34. I agree. Skinner shouldn't--and won't--"call it" until the voting is over.

Hillary is expected to have a majority of pledged delegates, as well as a majority of all delegates, when super delegate commitments are included, on June 7. At that point she will be the presumptive nominee, if the situation does indeed play out that way.

Until that happens the race is still on-going and the debate on DU should also be on-going. But once we know who our candidate is the mission of the board will become to elect him or her to the presidency.

[RoccoR5955]

79. I do not have to rally behind a candidate that I do not believe in

I can simply be quiet about the presidential election, and not vote for that candidate, while promoting down ticket candidates that do have more liberal views than the corporate candidate.

[kstewart33]

107. You bet.

None of what you want to do is against DU rules. DU does not dictate how people vote.

[snot]

2. And, fwiw, after a GREAT many Bernie supporters have been driven out of DU.

[PatrynXX]

29. well hard to scare me away

must be my OCD or Depression can't decided ..

second down ticket I'm for Democrats well actual Liberal Democrats. But it shouldn't be called until the states are voted. Second not everyone is gonna be bullied into supporting a candidate. So I'll probably refrain from using the site for awhile. Somehow. don't know how but maybe read a big book and do some major cleaning or something I have no idea. June is a ways from now.

[Unicorn]

59. yes but as an alternative - commondreams.org will take you

I fled Huff Post a week ago for here. I'm now considering fleeing here for Commondreams.org.

Just saying, it's a liberal board where neocons get eaten. I've started over there as of today in a search for an actual progressive board that appears not to be taken over by neocons. Forget huff post - the establishment made it a neocon pro-hillary site.

A few things I like about Democratic Underground is that the majority are Bernie supporters and you can put the neocons on ignore. However, there appear to be too many to get to ignore - I prefer to not hear from them and their support of the tpp, super pacs, war, banksters who have been fined billions for fraud, etc., etc.

[RKP5637]

78. Have you checked this out? jackpineradicals.org n/t

http://jackpineradicals.org

[snot]

144. I'm there.

[RKP5637]

146. I'll be coming over too, just haven't done it yet. n/t

[Unicorn]

154. I've posted there a few times, I was pointed it out, I think the day I got here.

Yes, it is also a good site.

[kstewart33]

108. You decide.

You make the call about whether you must leave DU.

You decide whether to obey the rules on this website or not. It's entirely up to you.

[Gore1FL]

126. It's not so much following the rules

But following the rules as they are unevenly enforced.

Therein lies the problem.

[ucrdem]

3. Won't make the least difference one way or another.

And you know what? It's going to be okay. Hillary will win, she'll do a great job, and 85% of the intertubes will hate on her for 8 straight years.

[Chan790]

4. Two out of three seems likely.

I'd wager money she goes down as one of the worst US Presidents.

[cloudythescribbler]

7. seems a bit premature nt

[StevieM]

14. I find it hard to believe that Hillary will be a worse president than

Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush or Richard Nixon.

I can't imagine that she will be worse than Calvin Coolidge or Herbet Hoover.

And it seems unlikely that she will be worse than Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan or Andrew Johnson.

To be fair, I was also very hostile when Barack Obama won the nomination eight years ago. But I grew to like him a lot and now I think he has been a really good president. Who knows...Hillary might surprise you.

Of course, any Democratic president will be limited by a Republican congress. That's why we need to work really hard to elect a Democratic congress regardless of who our nominee is.

[think]

27. Hopefuly she'd suck less than W. That's a very low bar...

[MADem]

31. At least Hillary is getting off her ass and raising money for downticket Dems.

She's doing everything she can to limit that Republican Congress, and doing it while she's running her own campaign.

[Scootaloo]

41. Is she?

In theory each of these big ol' checks is a maxed donation to the campaign, plus a maxed donation to the DNC, plus a maxed donation to each of the fifty state parties. But it's all on one check, and it's all going into one account, which is controlled by one campaign. That is, it is the Clinton campaign deciding when, where, how, and to whom to apportion all these funds.

I don't suppose Tim Canova is getting any financial support fro mthe clinton Victory Fund? if he is, could you show me?

[MADem]

60. No, it isn't. The bulk of the dough raised at those shindigs go to the PARTY, not the headliner.

It's not "controlled by once campaign," either. It goes to the DNC for distribution to primary winners, and the person raising the money--either Clinton or Sanders (if he would ever honor his promise to turn up at an event--guess he figures it's easier to Cry Victim and demand that his supporters send him twenty seven more bucks) takes their cut off the top.

Since the money doesn't go to PRIMARY candidates, the answer to your last bitter question is NO. Thanks for letting us know you don't understand the process, though--saves me time and effort.

If he wins his primary, he'll get some money. But given that he's done the "Go Negative" thing, too, and is acting more like George Allen than anyone else in his approach to campaigning, it's unlikely that he'll beat his opponent.

[Scootaloo]

62. Who oversees distribution?

[MADem]

63. The Party. The headliner gets a cut, the headliner does not control the cash at all. nt

[Scootaloo]

64. So is NPR just full of shit, then?

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000

[MADem]

66. You weren't talking about the HVF--you were talking about the DNC agreed-upon fundraisers.

Nice attempt to flip, change the subject, and play gotcha, though. Thanks for showing those true colors, so we all know.

Super PACS are a different animal than the DNC fundraisers--which are detailed in that link but are distinct from them.

From YOUR link:

DNC LIMITS

In addition to donating to specific candidates, a donor can give up to $66,800 per election cycle to the Democratic National Committee.

As your very own link notes, the STATE parties (which affiliate with the HVF) are a different animal entirely:

STATE PARTY COMMITTEES

Beyond the candidate and the DNC, a donor can give up to $20,000 per election cycle to the party committees in states that have agreed to sign on to the Hillary Victory Fund. With 32 eligible states and Puerto Rico, the state party committee limits total $660,000.

By maxing out each of these limits, a single donor can effectively contribute $732,200 per election cycle — that’s 135 times the individual candidate limit.

Nice game of apples and oranges you're playing--and NPR did not say what you insinuated at all. You should read your own sources and stop trying to change the subject.

There's no difference between this effort and HILLPAC which HRC created when she was in the Senate. You remember HILLPAC, don't you? Bernie sure does--he took money from it at least twice.

[Scootaloo]

119. It looks as though I were confusing two separate things, then

Thanks.

Though the article I link is talking about bundled donations. That maxed donations to the candidate, national party, and all fifty state parties are put together on a single check, and given to a single fund.

[Carolina]

48. Corporate money

for DINOs like herself... ain't that grande

On the bright side, though, one such DINO -- Kathleen Matthews aka Mrs. Tweety -- lost tonight

[MADem]

58. For winners of the primary contests, so they can compete in the general election.

Not sure how you think Dems get elected but it's not with wishing and hoping or love and pale moonlight. Someone needs to raise the money to make them competitive against entrenched incumbents. If they had the name, fame and game, they'd do it themselves--but they don't have that reach. This is why national Dems who care about the party do this kind of thing.

So the "vomit" emoji is just an uninformed observation.

[Carolina]

61. So let me remind you of

something. The year was 2006 and there was a primary contest in CT between Joe Liebermann, who helped the Clintons create the DLC, and Ned Lamont, the progressive. Lamont won! So Sore Loserman ran in the general as an independent and won the Senate race with help from Bill and Hill.

LIEberman/Loserman showed his true DINO colors as did Zell Miller who had once given a nominating speech for Bill in 1992. All DINOs. The Clintons are no better, they just have people bought, paid for (as they are) and snookered.

Corporate money for corporate DINOs

[StevieM]

115. Nope. When Lamont won the primary the Clintons switched their support to him.

Barack Obama did the same thing. He supported Lieberman in the primary, and then switched to Lamont for the GE.

The Clintons did not support Lieberman against Lamont after Lamont had won the nomination. That is a conspiracy theory with no foundation in reality.

[RKP5637]

84. I like Bernie, voted for him, but I agree with you on Hillary. The US could

do far far worse IMO than Hillary. We also must get a democratic congress, otherwise, this endless perpetual gridlock and domestic argument between D's and R's will go on and on, and it's bringing the country down. It will be interesting to see who her VP pick is. That might calm things down a bit. Relative to the poll, nothing should be done by Skinner until the primaries are over.

[PatrynXX]

33. Well if she ignores the Convention in July maybe

but she's too much like someone else who had 8 yrs just recently in the other decade. anywho see if I can sleep. Shouldn't be a problem some people seem to think Bernie supporters are in denial. We weren't supposed to get this far we intended to send a message. Well seems some people haven't heard it all (10 more states (and some other areas that don't count when GE is in play.)

Maybe she'll surprise me. If she makes it to January I find her odds about as good as Bernie's odds of winning the Primary. uphill climb. Historically she'll be going against the odds. As much as I wanted Keisha Castle Hughes to win for Whale Rider as Best Actress it didn't happen. and I knew it was against the odds. But this is a bit different. But people shouldn't be forced to vote against their beliefs. I always liked how DU was for free speech. But lately we are all scared to post. Well I live in the USA and I shouldn't be afraid to post so I'll post . Albeit with a caveat not to go into bloviate mode like claiming 40 states love Hillary. That'll be the biggest piece of BS I'll hear or read all night and maybe year. If I was a jerk I would have reported that but I didn't. Because I don't like playing the part of a jerk. True I can be a stubborn ass but I'm told I get that from Dad and he's Tea Party yikes....

[artislife]

36. I don't see her getting elected once let alone twice. nt

[Chan790]

39. She doesn't need to win for the internet to hate her for even one day...let alone 8 years.

I, for one, when she loses have no intention of letting up on her or her supporters until they apologize for her candidacy ever occurring in the first place.

President Kasich will be the fault of Hillary and her supporters...and they should never be forgiven for it.

[Hiraeth]

88. Kasich? talk about the road less travelled. How will he machete out his path to victory?

[Chan790]

91. No idea.

But with one candidate left on the Republican side that stomps the presumptive Democratic nominee, I have utter belief that Reince Priebus will find a way to make that candidate their nominee.

They're establishment Republicans; they will do whatever dirty tricks they need to, to win out over both Trump and Hillary.

[Hiraeth]

92. gotta admit - shit just got really interesting. in a hopeless sorta way but, interesting nonetheless

all bets are OFF.

[StevieM]

121. Let me explain how your theory will play out in real life.

First, John Kasich somehow gets the Republican nomination.

Second, Hillary loses to Kasich.

Now let's fast forward to the year 2020. Elizabeth Warren is the nominee. We are all working really hard to get her elected. You do your part by going to the local county Democratic party HQ, or perhaps the co-ordinated campaign, and offering to volunteer.

While out canvassing some of the people you are with mention how hard they worked for Hillary four years ago, and how devastated they were when she lost. You probe further to see if they tried to make the best of her nomination or if they actively worked to choose her over Bernie. In over half the cases it was the latter.

You are disgusted with these people and don't try to hide. You berate them throughout the day, demanding that they apologize for their shameful behavior. When they refuse, you continually target them with your angry lectures. Even the pleas of your fellow former Sanders supporters to stop fall on deaf ears.

This happens again the next day. And then again the day after that.

By the fourth day you will be gone. The party would take the unusual step of turning a volunteer away. Because you were affecting other people's ability to be constructive, which therefore made you obstructive.

This is the path you are on (assuming you are even correct in predicting Hillary's defeat). You are heading down a road in which four years from now you are kicked out of party headquarters and not allowed to assist Elizabeth Warren's campaign in getting her elected.

[Chan790]

148. Oh Stevie.

It won't take 4 years. You'll apologize for nominating Clinton by 2018.

It'll be like the shame some of us feel here in CT having worked for Malloy's campaigns for Governor.

I believe you'll feel the same way about Clinton before it's all over.

[StevieM]

150. Well, back in 2008 I was also told that I should be ashamed. I responded that supporting

Hillary Clinton's campaign for president was the proudest experience of my life.

And here I am supporting her again in 2016, this time apparently on the verge of watching her receive the nomination.

Seriously, we don't win every campaign. I think we'll win this one, but I could be wrong, of course. Either way, I am never ashamed of how I voted, regardless of whether or not we win. I cannot begin to imagine the circumstances under which I apologized for my vote. Although I certainly do hate that I cast a ballot for Joe Lieberman to be VP in 2000. But it was the only way to elect Al Gore.

Maybe it will be the other way around. Maybe Hillary will win. Maybe you will give Hillary a chance if she is elected. Maybe you will be relieved that she got to appoint two new Justices, along with a confirmation of Merrick Garland in a lame duck session of congress that otherwise wouldn't have happened. And maybe she will turn out to be a better president than you think she will.

[Chan790]

155. Funny you say that.

Not that I disagree...but the most-immediate disappointment for me of Gore's loss was not getting rid of Lieberman as my Senator.

I was mad about Bush beating Gore too...but I was really upset that I was still stuck with Joe when I truly thought I was rid of him. I mean what did a VP do really at that time...Biden and Cheney have made an actual job with responsibilities out of it (Biden because he's too talented to not utilize and Cheney because Bush isn't capable of walking and eating at the same time, let alone anything requiring mental capabilities)...but at the time it was really the job of the chief funeral attendee and not much more.

[greymouse]

46. yes, one of the worst

Endless wars, still half the federal budget wasted on "defense," banking run amok, no help for the poor, "compromise" on abortion rights and Social Security cuts, some stinking pipeline through some helpless area of he country, fracking, vast sums of taxpayer money sent to that moral sinkhole Israel, the list goes on.

[Logical]

8. That is a terrible pic of Hillary! There are much better ones. Nt

[Scootaloo]

42. Oof, agree!

I have seen some.. .really odd avatar pics of clinton recently. Kind of makes me wonder of pro-hillary DU'ers are getting trolled by "their own" or what.

[ucrdem]

71. Sometimes a Great Notion

is a novel by Ken Kesey about a logging family in Oregon that had a paperback cover that this picture for some reason reminds me of. It was a long time ago and I can't find it on the net or I'd post it. Anyway that's the story. If you've got a better pic in mind by all means share it.

[Scootaloo]

5. He called it the day he placed Clinton supporters above the TOS.

[Ned_Devine]

10. True

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. 👆 this

[nolawarlock]

19. You mean the day he ...

... allowed all the people back who had been banished by abuse of a broken alert system?

[Scootaloo]

35. No, I mean the day he decided trolls should be free to troll on DU.

There are three main reaosns someone gets a post hidden on DU.

#1: You acted like an asshole, and got penalized
#2: You acted like an asshole, and got penalized
#3: You acted like an asshole, and got penalized

If there were such rampant, overt abuse of the system, as is often claimed, then with the proportions being as they are on DU, I'd have expected to see, well, absolutely no Hillary supporters posting. Seriously, by Skinner's measure, 80% of DU supports Bernie. So if all these nefarious BernieBros were going to alert-hunt Hilary supporters into the ground, it would have happened.

It didn't.

No, some very prolific trolls who support clinton got alerted on successfully enough that they caught a time-out period. The vast majority of Clinton supporters - including the bulk of very prolific posters - saw no such penalization because, as annoying as htey might be, they actually managed to not be assholes.

And now we look back at all these gentle lambs, these long-suffering martyrs, and we see that their transparency lists are lugging around 15+ hides, the overwhelming bulk of which are absolutely deserved, and perhaps were it not primary season, would have earned admin bans - And it's worth noting that there ARE Bernie supporters who HAVE been banned for less than some of this crap.

People got time-outs because they violated the community standards enough times to earn one. It's how it works. it's how it's always worked. Maybe if they could post without being assholes, like so many of their fellows triumphantly accomplished, they wouldn't get hides.

[nolawarlock]

43. Well I disagree.

One of my posts said that we shouldn't be posting Fox news links. The person I was commenting to said I was questioning her reputation which I was most certainly not. Someone other than that person reported it and said I was questioning a long-time DUer and I got hid. Even the original person I was responding to said she didn't think it was hide-worthy and she was the one I was criticizing.

There was nothing hide-worthy about most of those posts and I have personally witnessed numerous other things that were hidden unfairly as well.

You are also contradicting yourself because you said that there is basically only one reason (ok, three reasons that are all the same) and that it was someone acting like an asshole. However, you go on to say that "the overwhelming bulk of [hides] are absolutely deserved." I'm sure you realize that an overwhelming bulk implies that even you think there are some that are not part of that "overwhelming bulk" or you would simply have said that all of those hides are absolutely deserved.

The fact is, this system is completely abused and I definitely think that's why Skinner let everyone back and made the big post that he did about overhauling the jury system. Do I think he should have let everyone back? Probably not. However, it's been clear to me in the mere six weeks I've been here that none of the admins really have time to attend to this site so he probably made the best choice he could given the time he has to work with.

[Scootaloo]

50. I once got a hide for telling a person who was literally supporting Adolf Hitler to GTFO.

The alerter thought I was "being rude." to a guy who was - I stress - literally making a case for Hitler being a great guy. in the Israel / Palestine forum, of all places.

Any mechanism that relies on human beings making judgement on a text-based medium is going to rack up false positives. it's not a flawless marvel of engineering. And no, it's not a contradiction. The reality is that the three main reasons you get a post hidden is because you're being a jerkbutt.

I would know, I've been that jerkbutt my share of times.

There are some people who try to game the system - Interestingly there was an Hillary Clinton Group post near the beginning of the primary season that attempted to detail just how one could "stack" a jury. I think anyone who's been on a DU Jury has seen examples of these attempts. Funny thing is that they almost never succeed. Alert-stalking is pretty visible to the juries, and when you combine that with the transcendental reality that at least 60% of jurists are ALWAYS going to vote to leave with "that's just, like, his OPINION man!" as their comment anyway...

If the intent of the Arkham Release was to improve the quality of DU, well, it failed. BADLY. This place is actually worse than Discussionist in most ways, these days, and I see it as a direct consequence of this decision

[nolawarlock]

54. Well ...

I was a "jerkbutt" to use your term, one out of the six of those times.

I never implied that I think only Bernie supporters would try to game the system. I think any passionate supporter of a candidate or cause might be willing to forgo their principles and do it, but the fact remains that the composition of this site makes it easier for Bernie people to silence Hillary supporters than the other way around. My guess is that this is why Skinner made the choice he did.

[Scootaloo]

56. Except, as noted, it didn't happen

And the standing evidence is that all these poor, bleeding people up on their crosses... all seem to have climbed up there and hammered their own nails in. Really, you don't get to point at these people with fifteen hides consisting entirely of blatant violations and say "oh those poor persecuted dears." The fact that they are free to continue spewing all that stuff ought to be getting that reaction from you, for the people they're harassing.

[opiate69]

133. Plus a brazillion.

Spot fucking on.

[Logical]

137. Broken? Only if your a rude hill supporter. Ny

[nolawarlock]

138. Nah.

It's pretty broken.

[HooptieWagon]

6. If Skinner 'calls it', ...

...and an indictment comes prior to the convention, he's wearing egg all over his face. Despite the screeching of the juveniles, there is no harm in being patient and waiting until the convention delegates cast their votes.

[longship]

15. For Christ sakes! Stop ringing that cockamamie bell!

[oldandhappy]

16. The clinton team is talking about unity.

This is not a unity move. So DU prefers to just dispense with anyone who has not been supporting clinton? Kind of funny. So much for democracy.

[quantumjunkie]

17. Why does this Skinner thing have the name of an X-File character?

Is it a bot or something? Where does it live?

[PyaarRevolution]

18. I'm going to defend Skinner here.

Is he a trained DOG to come at your beck and call?! Leave the poor man ALONE.

If I were him and I was getting harassed by Hillary supporters, even if it looked like it was a foregone conclusion, I would keep it up just to SPITE you.

[Logical]

21. I am a Bernie supporter! Nt

[PyaarRevolution]

22. Sorry it's not you.

I just feel like the man has lately been harassed by Hillary supporters.

[Logical]

25. You are correct! Nt

[Binkie The Clown]

30. EVERYBODY has lately been harrased by Hillary supporters. n/t

[Scootaloo]

38. Well, you know the saying, if you give an inch...

[desmiller]

28. I don't care if he Tweets it. I'll remain resolute.

[highprincipleswork]

32. Why are you so afraid of Bernie's continued candidacy? Of letting all the Democrats have their say?

Hillary supporters are really fooling themselves if they think that their numbers alone are going to win a general elections.

Why not let everyone have their say?

Why not build a tent that is big enough for everybody?

[artislife]

37. We had to register for that tent back in October.

heh

[highprincipleswork]

44. I truly pray that the smallmindedness on both sides, but in this case on the Hillary side, ceases.

Because you are not going to win in November with Hillary supporters alone. You are going to need other people, and those who are supporting Bernie or who lean Bernie, whether or not they are Democrats, Independents, or Republicans are our very best shot.

The rules for registration, valid or fair or wise or not, have been set. (By the way you can register in CA till May 23, so your October "fact" is just wrong.)

But what does this have to do with whether or not Bernie should stay in the race? With whether or not people supporting him should still get their say?

I would suggest that Hillary supporters get used to the strong possibility that Bernie is in this until the convention. I also suggest they wise up and adopt the Bernie supporters as fellow Democrats and include them and even their popular positions in the Democratic Party. Many of them have been Democrats at least as long as you have, and hold their values of what it means to be a Democrat just as dear.

Let's quit with the snark and the dismissive attitude. There's something to be learned here. There's something to be embrace and incorporated. Let's try to act wisely and like adults. Let's try to win this thing together.

[artislife]

47. I am a lifelong Dem who is almost completely out the door now

I am a Bernie supporter because he is against the rigged system. I have lost faith in this party, in my own dino senators and the system.

I made the joke because it was Democratic Party approved for the voters of NY to make the switch back in October. This just reeks.

[highprincipleswork]

51. Sorry for the misinformation. Kudos to lifelong Dem and Bernie supporter. I agree that the

system reeks, and the Party has been dismal.

As a side note, I really did enjoy Hillary's speech tonight. It is hoping against hope to think that what she says is for real, and I'm in it for Bernie all the way through California (where he does have a chance to do significantly well).

it is hard for a Progressive to find representation these days, particularly if they care about economic issues. I don't know why this is the case, but it just is. A lot of it is in coalition building, but this time the social issues and other optics drew a lot of people to Hillary that I would have thought would go the other way.

Listening to Hillary tonight, I am reminded of some of what makes her formidable and could make her great. I would recommend a listen. If supporters from both sides could get what she has to say tonight enacted, I would think we'd both be satisfied.

All best.

[RKP5637]

86. It's probably Hillary vs. Trump. I do think she is going to have a hard time

against Trump as he makes use of all of the baggage she carries no matter how much she says. TPTB in the D party had best realize they need everyone they can muster up to win in 2016. If the R's get the WH and congress, plus like 3 SCOTUS nominations this country is going to be a horror show for years/decades. I like Bernie, but in the big picture I can see where we're headed if the R's control the country.

[Logical]

89. So true! Nt

[Rex]

40. What or whom is he calling?

Is it long distance or a local call?

[RepubliCON-Watch]

49. I think international. They have great rates right now. nt

[Contrary1]

52. Skinner has a bigger risk in this...let him decide on his own. n/t

[procon]

55. Your poll is scewed toward the group with the most members.

It's a pointless waist of time.

[qdouble]

57. true...theres a ton of pro bernie-anti dem trolls here

[qdouble]

65. There are 4 troll pro-bernie accounts for every 1 genuine pro-Hillary account

so it will be hard for such a majority to manifest. Anti-Hillary is anti-Dem. The repubs have silently taken over DU.

[Art_from_Ark]

80. Do you have any hard data to back that up

or are you just pulling that "statistic" out of a dark, stinky place?

That is a rhetorical question, by the way.

[riderinthestorm]

139. qdouble, DU member for 5 weeks knows everything @ DU, Art

Geez, I can't believe you're not just buying their shite outright...

[blackspade]

134. Really?

"Anti-Hillary is anti-Dem"

Peddle that made-up bullshit elsewhere.

[Peace Patriot]

67. I'm a Californian AND I HAVEN'T VOTED YET!

As a long time DU'er and a long time (50+) year loyal Democratic Party voter and supporter, I want discussion to continue on the issues that divide Sanders and Clinton as candidates and Sanders and Clinton supporters, and furthermore MILLIONS of people HAVEN'T VOTED YET out here in the West.

I am sick of this discrimination against the voters in the biggest state in the nation, and against one of the most Democratic states in the nation!

I am fucking sick of NOT having a say in the Democratic Party primary, and of being told that it's "all over" before we get to vote. Sick and disgusted with the Democratic Party leadership that arranges things this way, and sick and disgusted by the Clinton supporters here at DU, who have been vile and nasty towards Sanders supporters here and have been drooling to shut us up for many months now!

This discussion is not over and THIS PRIMARY IS NOT OVER!

And this talk of suppressing my views and my vote--and those of thousands of others--here at DU is going to drive a wedge into this forum, and into the Democratic Party, that will never be healed!

[Raine]

68. I'm a Californian too and in total agreement with you. I'm sick and tired of us

never having a say, most of the time there aren't even any candidates left but one ... the insiders choice, not ours!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

72. Yeah, if the primaries would start in CA, NY, FL, TX on the first day,

then a lot of money would be saved because it would be over.

And the nomination would be won by the known name and big money. Unknowns would have no time to get known. Hillary would not be in this race, because she'd be ending her second term as president.

Barack Who? Bernie Who?

As it is, CA still stands as the decider, the big hammer at the end of this gauntlet. But, they've had plenty of time to get to know the candidates, so they're more likely to choose with more facts at hand.

How would you change the system?

[Bluenorthwest]

98. Uh, in 2008 CA voted on Super Tuesday, early in the cycle and CA voted for Hillary. Barack won

the nomination anyway.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

109. 2008 was strange. Hillary got most of the votes, but lost on delegates.

In MI, I voted "none of the above" because John Edwards wasn't allowed on the ticket. And Michigan's delegates weren't going to be seated anyway because MI had its primary too early.

MI primary was before John Edwards became "that John Edwards".

I hope CA's vote is relevant this year.

[jack_krass]

125. +1

[Sherman A1]

69. Frankly

I could care less. I will not engage in bashing of any candidate, be they Democrat or GOP or Green or other. One can be critical of a person or their positions with never having to post a negative thing about them.

[Joob]

70. If it's a question, I don't want to be here

The End.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

73. Does DWS post under the name "Skinner"?

If not, then Skinner should wait until the Party calls it, then he can call it.

Otherwise, he could fall into a "Dewey Wins" headline trap.

[Gore1FL]

127. DWS probably goes by the handle "RepublicanInDisguise" if she is honest in her self-naming.

But why would she pick that one thing to be honest about?

[baldguy]

74. Continuing the charade of the Sanders Campaign at this point just helps Republicans.

Of course, that's been the objective all along for some Sanders supporters.

[JoePhilly]

75. Bernie needs to stay in until the last primary is over.

It will take that long for his most disgruntled supporters to realize that he lost.

The level of teeth gnashing this morning suggests that they already know it intellectually now, but just can't accept it yet.

They'll need a month more for it to sink in.

[Bad Dog]

76. Skinner shouldn't call anything until the party does.

Leicester are only 1 win away from being League champions, but until they win, or Tottenham lose, nobody will be calling them anything other than contenders.

[Buzz Clik]

77. Looks like a couple hundred DUers aren't done insulting HRC just yet.

[NanceGreggs]

141. And that is exactly the point.

If Skinner "called it" right now, he would not prevent BSers from continuing to support Bernie in the upcoming primary contests, encouraging people to vote for him in the remaining states, discussing his ideas, singing his praises all over the board.

The only thing they would be prevented from doing is bashing Hillary. And for a LOT of people here, there would be no point in posting at all if they couldn't do that.

Of course, Skinner won't "call it". The site is 85% BSers, and he won't run the risk of losing that many people. So instead, DU will just continue as an anti-HRC/anti-Dem site - the same way it was allowed to be an anti-Obama/anti-Dem site for years.

[Buzz Clik]

142. +1

I hear you, Nance.

[airplaneman]

161. Your post was alerted

Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Wed Apr 27, 2016, 07:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

And that is exactly the point.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1852004

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

A nasty personal attack on Skinner.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 27, 2016, 07:25 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: oh boo hoo, Nancy. The injustice !
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post is certainly obnoxious but not hide-worthy.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see this as a personal attack.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a discussion not an alert offense. Try ignore if you do not like the opinion.
I find this totally acceptable in our discussion in a political forum.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Bobbie Jo]

81. LOL!

Yeah, that should settle it.

[Dustlawyer]

82. Whether Bernie could somehow pull it off, or not, he is in it to build our movement!

Try to understand that. Hillary will do her "incrementalism" and Bernie will help build the movement. He is not going away, but not out to sabotage her chance to beat the Republican. Hillary went to June in case Obama was assassinated. Why not Bernie stay in in case Hillary is indicted? That way we have a backup plan. That's what Hillary would do if the situation was reversed!

[AirmensMom]

83. That would be the Hillary way ...

Disenfranchise more voters. Lets give everyone a chance to vote!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. No. He should let the board descend further into chaos and internecine warfare over a settled manner

No. He should let the board descend further into chaos and internecine warfare over a settled manner.


SARCASM

[Logical]

90. The board is fine, groups of people who thinks thier candidate is best. Nt

[Vinca]

87. Who cares? I doubt whether or not "it's called" will be an earth-shaking event.

Can't wait for the general. Status Quo vs. Nut.

[LanternWaste]

93. To what specific* end?

To what specific* end?


*Specific: having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite

[LWolf]

95. Not unless the party has

coronated Skinner the party "decider."

[NCTraveler]

96. What Skinner does is up to Skinner.

I would like to see those flat out promoting Fox News, Judicial watch, Washington Free Beacon, and republican candidates removed.

Skinner would need to make no new rules to do that.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. Problem with that, Hillary keeps promoting Republicans:

"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s and because of both president and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy. It penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too."

And her entire cohort stood proudly with her offering full or tacit approval to her polishing of the Reagan image while smearing LGBT as she did. What she claimed Ron and Nancy did, they did not do. LGBT activists did that.

[NCTraveler]

100. 1) Clinton is not a member here.

2) Awful comments by Clinton.
3) Both of our candidates have said things they shouldn't have.


"A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused."
"A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously."

Bernie Sanders in his thirties. Not a youthful indiscretion as is attempted to be sold by some.

Not sure what this has to do with membership at du or support for right wing publications. I was very vocal in my opposition to Clintons comments. You know that as you have been a part of those conversations.

[Amimnoch]

97. voting no.

As long as both candidates are actively campaigning, and neither has clinched the nomination it would be an injustice to Bernie supporters. I know if the roles were reversed, I'd be furious about being silenced.. possibly even enough to not support Bernie in the GE if I was silenced before it was a done deal.

In 2008 we ran it to the end, I was good with that. In 2016, if the Sanders campaign wants to run it to the end, that's his campaign's choice to make. DU shouldn't go into all out GE mode until it is over or the Senator elects to suspend his campaign.

[haikugal]

101. Unrec. You should delete this post.

[peace13]

102. From here on out Skinner should dump anyone asking him to call it.

He has said on multiple times what his decision is. This kind of thing is divisive and a waste of time.

[Trust Buster]

103. Dear Skinner, the poll results clearly show why you should call it.

Thus far, 50 say call it and 241 say don't call it. It's that disproportionate spread in favor of the losing candidate that has bred a jury system that has been very unfair. The 241 "don't call it's" are the best evidence that you really need to call it already.

[Logical]

136. Quit whining! Hides dont matter! Nt

[B Calm]

147. Are you dizzy from all that spinning?

[Scootaloo]

160. Oh lord

Do you guys ever stop to catch your breath after typing stuff like this?

[rock]

104. I say no

If he does, we won't have anyone to kick around any more. With Sanders on board, it's almost like we have some competition. And of course, if Skinner calls it, I won't be able to be snarky at the BSers.

[Turin_C3PO]

112. That's an ugly sentiment.

[rock]

120. I'm an ugly guy

[Turin_C3PO]

128. Lol.

[rock]

130. OK, I'm not as mean as I look

Welcome to DU.

[Turin_C3PO]

131. Thanks!

I was here years back and racked up about 1000 posts but I forgot my username so had to start all over.

[Segami]

105. kick

[treestar]

110. At what point in 2008 did he do so?

[musicblind]

143. I think it was after the last of the primaries had their vote but before the convention n/t

[Turin_C3PO]

111. Not until the primaries are over. (nt)

[aikoaiko]

113. Its still Bernie Underground

[Dem2]

114. 85-15 again

whodathunk?

I didn't vote, but I see no reason to call it. Entertainment value would go way down.

[NorthCarolina]

116. It's his choice to make. Once he does this place will probably be a ghost town. nt

[TransitJohn]

117. If he does, he'll lose a lot of money

Traffic will go down and it'll hit him in the pocketbook. Look for things to stay as they are for the time being.

[Gore1FL]

124. I didn't know Skinner had this power.

If I would have known that I would have asked him to call Florida for Gore in 2000.

[B Calm]

132. Looks like the NO's have it!

[Logical]

135. 85% skinner! Nt

[earthshine]

140. People asking Skinner to "call it" are fascists.

How dare you tell others what to do!

[B Calm]

145. It's a right-wing authoritarian point of view.

[Gomez163]

151. Call it, friendo.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

152. Call it, maybe.

Ahhh....2012.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

163. 2nd stage grief: "bargaining"

so that hundreds of hard-core Sandernistas can spam a biased "poll" to try to perpetuate their denial of reality on DU, IMO.

[Logical]

166. Lol, i dont think you know what that word means! Hill fans love whining! Nt

[Warren DeMontague]

164. Call it and immediately turn the time outs back on for those with active transparency pages

I could live with that.

[senz]

165. No, because we're not finished.

[stevenleser]

167. Call it Friendo

[Logical]

168. Not a fan of you but this is funny. Nt