The DP is destroying itself by embracing the candidate who represents what we are fed up with

[Skwmom]

Don't try to lay the blame at the feet of Bernie Sanders. Have the guts to own it.

He is giving you a lifeline to save this party and to save the Obama legacy and you (the Democratic Establishment) are too stupid to see it.

[Gomez163]

1. Yeah that's why she got 3 million more votes.

[kayakjohnny]

3. Well, you'd think she'd have this all wrapped up nice and tight then.

What's the little snag?

[Gomez163]

7. New Jersey will get the job done. Obama didnt wrap it up until then either.

[kayakjohnny]

12. Oh, ok then. Thanks.

[anigbrowl]

80. Let's face it, she does.

Nobody takes Sanders' prospects seriously at this point outside of his campaign & supporters. Not because of the issues he raises (many of which I agree with) but because it's been obvious for many weeks now that he can't win and yet he hasn't had the smarts to negotiate agreement when he was in a position of relative strength. The wider her lead grows, the less bargaining power he has.

[Gomez163]

10. Bernie won most of the caucuses. If they had been primaries Hillary would be leading by more

Because caucuses are the most undemocratic way to pick a candidate.

[Lord Magus]

43. Look at Nebraska for a stunning example of the difference between caucuses and primaries.

Even though the primary was a totally nonbinding "beauty contest" and all the actual delegates were awarded in the caucus, the May 10th primary had more than double the turnout of the March 5th caucus. In the caucus Sanders won 57.1% to 42.9%. In the primary Clinton won 53.3% to 46.7%.

(That nonbinding primary isn't included in the popular vote count either.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. Wait ... The 3 million vote lead reported is a lie because the numbers not reported aren't included?

Nowsam!

[CajunBlazer]

20. Bernie math - Quit dispalying your lack of logical thinking

If the states that stages caucuses had staged primaries instead, Bernie might be even further behind, not only in votes, but also in states won and delegates won.

You do understand that Sanders did better in caucuses than primaries because his supporters were more enthusiastic. It takes more more enthusiasm for the process to sit through a hour or two caucus than it does to simply go in and cast your ballot.

Had the caucus states staged primaries instead, many more people would have voted for both candidates and Sanders would likely not have won by the same percentages and in some of those state he may not won at all, which would have put him further behind in total votes, states won and delegates won. In caucus states where Sanders would have also won primaries had they be staged, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that he would have by large voting margins.

Bottom line, any attempt to extrapolate caucus wins into primary votes in a proportional manner is ILLOGICAL. You do a disservice to Mr. Spock when you use him as your Avatar image. He would not approve of your illogical thought process.

[CajunBlazer]

71. What?!?!?!

I copied and pasted your statement from above:

"You have some gumption starting out with the gross assumption that had there been no caucuses Sanders would have lost."

In fact what I said was that Bernie generally did much better in caucuses than he did in primaries. That is and undisputed fact. Sanders supporters, most honest Hillary supporters, and professional political analysts all agree that this was because Sanders supporters were more enthusiastic than Hillary supporters. (That is not complementary of Hillary supporters, but it is the truth.) Therefore, it would make perfect sense to an objective person to assume that had caucus states that Sanders won staged primaries instead, Sanders probably would have won by lesser percentages. It also follows that in caucus state where Sanders by narrow margins, had those states staged primaries instead, Sanders might have lost.

Now that is a perfectly logical statement by any measure. If you can't follow it and come to the logical conclusion, your mind is simply not built for logical thinking so nothing I can write has a chance to penetrate.

[CajunBlazer]

75. I'll get back to you right now

Logic is not one of your strong points (not that there is anything wrong with that); that is undeniably clear. You know it, I know it, and probably anyone that is around you knows it. And no deflection or smart ass remark is going to change that.

[puffy socks]

54. It's become painfully obvious

we need to invest more in students learning math skills.

[dchill]

55. More emphasis on critical thinking and ethics would go just as far.

[artyteacher]

70. well said. eom

[lunamagica]

28. Even Sanders agrees with the numbers. He says in his speeches that he received 9 million votes

by his own admission, three million less votes than Hillary's 12.5 million.

And it's not that all the votes in the Caucasus were for sanders. Her numbers would rise too, but neither one would get enough to make a real difference in the vote count

[Lord Magus]

39. Not a lie. You're wrong on several levels.

Some caucuses do publish real popular vote results. Colorado does (72,846 for Sanders, 49,789 for Clinton). Minnesota does (118,135 for Sanders, 73,510 for Clinton). Kansas does (26,450 for Sanders, 12,593 for Clinton). Nebraska does (19,120 for Sanders, 14,340 for Clinton). Idaho does (18,640 for Sanders, 5,065 for Clinton). Utah does (61,333 for Sanders, 15,666 for Clinton). Alaska does (8,447 for Sanders, 2,146 for Clinton). Hawaii does (23,530 for Sanders, 10,125 for Clinton). So do the territorial caucuses, though the numbers are so microscopic as to hardly be worth talking about. The only states that don't give popular vote totals are Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Washington and Wyoming. Between those five states, exactly how many additional votes do you think there were? Almost certainly less than half a million, and that's between both candidates. There certainly aren't enough to change the reality that millions more actual American voters have voted for Clinton than for Sanders.

[pinebox]

51. Tell us, how is Hillary growing the party? We'll wait.

[ThePhilosopher04]

58. That's a lie, she does not have 3 million more votes

[frustrated_lefty]

62. Yes

and we know that about half of the population is too stupid to tie its shoe-strings. Take your 3 million votes and shove them in your confederate pie-hole.

[kayakjohnny]

2. Ta-da!

Post of the day!

[Dem2]

4. Those damn voters they're too stupid huh

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Who's this "we" ?

[FlatBaroque]

30. Me and the OP

[liberal_at_heart]

52. and me.

[griffi94]

6. Not just embracing. Nominating

By hundreds of delegates and millions of votes.

Looks like Democratic voters prefer Hillary.

[StayFrosty]

9. So the Democratic party is destroying itself

By nominating the candidate that has received the most votes, the most delegates and has the most states won?

[workinclasszero]

32. #bernielogic

Crazy ain't it?

[JoePhilly]

41. +1

[LiberalFighter]

86. Every time they turn to try to find another way to support their view.

[haikugal]

11. Maybe that's their intent.

[Actor]

13. Translated, go Trump. That is all I see with these comments.

[Skwmom]

14. That is what I see when I look at the actions of the Democratic Establishment.

[riversedge]

26. Bernie stablishment..............

[BillZBubb]

76. Take a class in basic logic. Then you might see better.

No one is saying go trump. They are saying Hillary is a disaster. Is that really so hard to "see".

[Uncle Joe]

15. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Skwmom.

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. Who is "WE"? ...

Certainly not Democrats ... Or, "minorities" ... Or, Women ... Or ...

[CajunBlazer]

18. Hush

They believe that they (a subset of Sanders supporters) form a majority, not only in the party, but in the country.

We wouldn't want to take their dreams away from them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Sounds like they want to take their country back!

[rbrnmw]

21. They have said as much

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. I should have added, "Too" ...

but I'm more and more thinking, it would have been redundant.

[tblue37]

31. Most of us Sanders supporters are loyal Democrats who don't dislike Hillary,

but who see Sanders as more in the FDR mold and therefore prefer him. We also worry that after being subjected to so many decades of RW smears, Hillary might be too damaged to win, even though her negatives have been driven up by right wing bovine excrement. The vast RW conspiracy is a reality, and they have been smearing her for so long that they really have made her into the best GOTV figure for the GOP. It isn't fair, but it is a concern for many of us.

I also worry that the relentless RW campaign against her has affected her in unfortunate ways. She made a mistake with that server, and I believe that mistake was driven by her instinctively self-protective reflex. I worry that this brilliant woman makes rookie errors when that justifiably paranoid reaction takes over.

Having said that, though, I will avidly support Hillary if she is our nominee, as it seems virtually certain she will be.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

74. As a HRC supporter

I appreciate your fair-minded non-hyperbolic reasonable response.

[tblue37]

82. We really are on the same side--or at least we should be. I get frustrated by the

small but extremely loud contingent on either side who insist on slamming the other candidate in the most vicious terms. We have two excellent people vying to be our nominee--and before O'Malley bowed out, we had three.

The GOP, on the other hand, had 17 candidates, and every one was an embarrassment. Then they ended up with, dog help me, Donald Trump.

We are down to Bernie and Hillary. Either one would make a fine president.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

83. I agree

We all may have our issues but I'm glad we have sane candidates whom actually know stuff and are, you know, rational.

[YouDig]

22. Who's "we"? Some angry white people rioting in Nevada?

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. No ...

Who's "we"? Some angry white people rioting in Nevada?

[Bonobo]

78. If you think backing Hillary is some kind of shout of for a better world for Black folks...

I feel fucking sorry for you cause you are misguided as hell.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. said the fucking white girl/guy ...

(using the language used) ... Don't fucking tell me, or anyone else about bring misguided. Okay?

[Bonobo]

85. I call em like I see em.

The Clinton campaign has got zilch to do with a movement for empowering Black people (except in terms of its marketing rhetoric).

I like baths and I like cats. It doesn't mean I take baths with my cat.

And let's not pretend that you haven't spent the last year or so muddying the waters and making this -laughably- into a black/white thing. Let's be clear -THAT is what I am mocking.

That you pretend that your support for Clinton is in some way an opposition to White supremacy is fucking hilarious. And your doubling down by pretending that the Sanders supporters represents "White Anger" is nothin but a fantasy, a weave of distortions spun from whole thread.

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. LOL ... You call it like you see it ... but you are fucking blind ...

on the topic of what is best/better for Black people ... and stupid, too, since you refuse to accept what (the majority of) Black people are telling you.

That you pretend that your support for Clinton is in some way an opposition to White supremacy is fucking hilarious.

See? ... another example of you being stupid, i.e., refusing to accept what Black people are telling you.

[Bonobo]

89. Dude, I'll tell you something you already know I suspect

You ain't all Black people.

[Art_from_Ark]

34. Who was rioting in Nevada?

You talking about the convention, where there were hundreds of people in attendance, most with their own mini video recorders in hand, yet not one video has surfaced of any riot?

[YouDig]

36. Angry white people were.

[Art_from_Ark]

37. So let's see the proof

You know, like a video actually showing people rioting.

Not just some stupid talking point.

[YouDig]

40. Reported by every major paper. Yes, I know you think they are conspiring against Bernie.

[Art_from_Ark]

44. Reported by every major newspaper on hearsay *without proof*

Usually when there's a riot, there are pictures, videos, you know, the sort of thing that proves that there was indeed a riot.

In this case, though, there is not one shred of actual evidence. Not one. Hundreds of people were in attendance, most with the ability to record a "riot" with their smart phones or other equipment and post it to social media, and yet, not one single video of any riot has surfaced.

[YouDig]

46. Based on eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses are evidence.

[Fumesucker]

61. Eyewitness testimony is remarkably unreliable

The most unreliable evidence of all actually.

[Lord Magus]

45. You're right, it wasn't a riot.

It was just a tantrum.

[amborin]

59. divisive racial politics

[Recursion]

24. "We" is problematic there

I certainly don't like her, but a whole lot of the party does. I can at least recognize that, but a lot of people seemingly can't.

[beachbumbob]

27. An angry old socialist ain't saving any thing.....get over it

[phleshdef]

29. Red baiting and age-ism are awesome...

... for right wingers.

[CajunBlazer]

33. What's with the "red baiting" crap?

Are you per-programed to write that or have you bought into the misconception that every socialist is a communist?

And I consider anyone 74 to be an old fort. I should know.

And if the old boy isn't angry, I would hate to see him when he is angry.

[phleshdef]

38. No of course *I* don't

But people throw the "old socialist" phrase at Bernie specifically with the intent of insinuating that.

[CajunBlazer]

48. He's a fricking socialist

That's what the man claims to be - maybe you don't know the difference between a socialist and a communist, but you an bet that the vast majority people on this board do.

I have heard some Republicans refer to as Sanders a communist sympathizer, but he is certainly not a communist. Though if some miracle he became the party's nominee, you can bet the Republican swift boat squad would quickly superimpose a hammer and cycle on his picture in numerous TV ads.

[phleshdef]

50. I know the fucking difference.

You are missing the point entirely.

[akbacchus_BC]

60. You took Mr. Sanders views for wanting a better living standard for the working

class and the middle class as a socialist, that is not what Mr. Sanders is promoting. He wants a better America for younger people and for the rich not to fleece the poor. You condemn him for that! I am glad that at least one person in America, apart from Bill O'Malley, wants to see poor people and the middle class get some kind of benefit and children who want to access higher education are not saddled with huge fees.

[CajunBlazer]

66. I am not condemning Sanders for anything

You on the other hand are making all kinds of unwarranted assumptions. Here are the facts:

1) Bernie Sanders has claimed to be a socialist his entire political life and I believe him.

2) Wanting a better America for younger people and for the rich not to fleece the poor does not make a person a socialist. Many people including me want the same things and they aren't socialists. Bill O'Malley wants the same things and Bill O'Malley is not a socialist.

3) What makes a person a socialist or not is how they want to achieve their progressive political goals.

4) If you want to know whether Sanders is a socialist, not just because he says he is, but because of his intentions, compare the programs he is promoting to those of socialist countries in Europe. You will find little difference. By the way, go back and look at the programs Bill O'Malley was promoting before he left the race, you will find he was much more moderate than Sanders and he wasn't promoting socialist programs.

5) Why does this matter - if want socialist programs implemented in this country (not that there is anything wrong with that), it doesn't matter. However, if you want to see goals Sanders and so many other people want achieved, it does matter.

Unlike the Scandinavian countries of Europe, this country is center weighted. Sanders would never have been able to implement his socialist programs here. The first reason is simple, the Republicans would have blocked him at every turn. However, it is much more than that.

Note that Sanders could not even win over the majority of voters in Democratic party, by far the most liberal of the two major parties. The simple fact is that Bernie Sanders is much further to the left in the manner in which he seeks to achieve our common goals than a large majority of Democrats, and far further to the left than the vast majority of Americans. Most Americans would have rejected his socialist solutions to our common problems, especially after they fully understood how much the taxes on the middle class increase.

But we don't have to worry about any of that do we - Bernie Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee.

[anotherproletariat]

35. What is he offering? He has not put forth one workable plan for any of his promises.

If he had, things might have turned out vastly different.

[JoePhilly]

42. #Santrum

[randome]

47. Are the voters destroying themselves? Give it a rest, will you? It's tiresome and embarrassing.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[mythology]

49. Let us know how calling people stupid works to make them see things your way

[frustrated_lefty]

63. There's no point.

You idiots are too stupid to even see the ways in which you're stupid.

[akbacchus_BC]

57. Sk, you could have said it a bit differently rater than calling out stupidity. Just saying!

May cause your post to get hidden!

I understand how frustrated you are, but just be careful. You have an important voice on here!

[pansypoo53219]

64. helps when the teevee gnewz only covers hillary or puts their finger on the popular scale.

if you start & the bottom & you are almost tied. there is SOMETHING wrong w/ your top pick.

[uponit7771]

65. Yes, of course... republicans are fed up with progress... of course the "we" would hate the DP

[JCMach1]

67. Correct me if I am wrong, but since when has DU ever been establishment DP...

[brooklynite]

68. And by "we" you mean "you"...

...not the 12 million DEMOCRATS who voted for her.

[Codeine]

69. The voters chose.

It's been closer than anyone anticipated and Sanders kicked a lot more ass than anyone would have credited him for eight months ago, but the voters have spoken. The base turned out for Clinton in greater numbers than for Sanders. Every election has winners and losers, and every primary cycle results in somebody assuming the party has chosen poorly.

That's just the way it works. Get more votes next time. If your candidate is that good then win the delegates and grab the prize.

[2banon]

73. "You can't save a party that refuses to participate in its own rescue"

He is giving you a lifeline to save this party and to save the Obama legacy and you (the Democratic Establishment) are too stupid to see it.

Very well said Skwmom


And to another DU member, who let me grab his sig line to make it my own

[Bonobo]

77. I don't think it could be said any more succinctly than that. +1,000,000 nt

[HooptieWagon]

79. To be fair...

...it does seem like a number of voters are in favor of endless war, more wealth for the 1%, austerity for everyone else, cuts to Education, Healthcare, and Social Security. More govt surveillance, more militarized police, more job-crushing free-trade agreements, more fracking and pollution.
Now, you might think a person in favor of all that is a Republican. You would be correct. However, it does appear a few such believers are feeble-minded and have dottered into the Democratic Party by accident. We should be kind and assist them in finding their way back home.

[BeyondGeography]

81. She has her vulnerabilities, but Bernie was a weak alternative

So she won.

[Maru Kitteh]

87. WE have spoken with our VOTES for HRC.

WE are the party. We show up. We put in the work. We pay attention. We register, and we walk through neighborhoods city to city, state to state, wherever we need to - and register others. And together we vote.

You can't do that shit from Twitter. Reddit isn't real.