2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary supporters will be Bernie supporters after the primary
"According to organizers, more than 150,000 people have RSVP’d for house parties Wednesday [this] evening to listen to a simulcast from the Democratic presidential candidate and coordinate their volunteer efforts. And what Sanders lacks in funds—he raised about $15.2 million this quarter, while Hillary Clinton raked in more than three times that figure—he may make up in true believers with experience in grassroots organizing. This is not a fluke..."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/29/bernie-sanders-builds-a-people-s-army.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Primaries are about getting delegates, since Hillary is ahead in many states and will be getting the delegates and will be the DNC nominee.
Now on the other hand the Bernie supporters will be supporting Hillary in the general election.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
peacebird
(14,195 posts)HFRN
(1,469 posts)
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)HFRN
(1,469 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)invite all you want ... i'm not going.
Bernie is fine, he can do just fine as Senator. I'll support his efforts there....but his supporters are just not my cup of tea.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I think Hillary Clinton's supporters are not my cup of coffee, tea, milk, beer, whatever.
I don't have to vote for the corporate loving woman who plans to sell me down the road economically. I live in a red state. I can go Green. Won't matter and I don't have to give in.
J_J_
(1,213 posts)I'm with you 
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I want no part of that, I've seen enough.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)the same things as Hillary.
The question is whether Bernie supporters will become Hillary supporters after she gets the nomination. The only people I've seen threaten to throw the election to the GOP if their candidate doesn't get the nomination are Bernistas.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 29, 2015, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)
Hillary is pretty silent on this issue, Bernie says their name. He stands with the people. She sides with the oligarchs, just like dutiful republican politicians. Hillary supporters need tom open their eyes and recognize this difference
Young people are enthused by Bernie's ideas' They recognize the threats to their lives and livelihood posed by the oligarchy that funds Hillary and control older forms of main stream media, television, newspaper, radio. They understand and have the same progressive ideas as most Americans and se these ideas thwarted by the oligarchy. Us older progressive activists tell them that things were better in the past when we had stronger unions,more democracy, and less wars and were implementing the first fights against destruction of our with the clean air and water acts etc.. We older activists welcome them into the fold, and try to educate them further with an introduction to Martin Zinn's works, Cesar Chavez organizing methods, the works of W.E. B. DuBois like Black Reconstruction, Noam Chomsky. We also are glad to impart our knowledge of grass roots organizing learned and refined over decades of work. We will smooth the way for these millenial canvassers and help them define and refine messages. We will mentor and and march with hem despite arthritic legs, chemo treatments, and other disadvantages of age and sickness. We will be symbols of the grandparents they want and will channel and boost their enthusiasm and minimize their fears with our stories of past success and overcoming obstacles.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Why not run a positive, uplifting campaign, without smearing Hillary?
cocainecowboy
(45 posts)You see facts and call it smear. What else can we tell you as facts? She is on the 1% side. That's a fact.
brooklynite
(94,592 posts)I was told THAT was a "smear"
cocainecowboy
(45 posts)"hard time winning" is not a fact...
And he will win - the polls prove it - it is showing the same exact trend that Obama had back in '08. The more Clinton is exposed, the less people will be solidly for her..
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There is plenty of evidence: polls, fundraising, the fact that 52% of Americans wouldn't even consider voting for a socialist, etc.
"Hillary sides with the oligarchs" is basically a meaningless smear. And whatever meaning it has is obviously false. Her policy positions are progressive across the board, she is most popular with liberals and least popular with conservatives, etc.
cocainecowboy
(45 posts)That is a FACT. Sanders can and will win.
Have a wonderful day!
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)of the 10% vs. the 1%.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Justified by throwing a few alms at the bottom 10 or 20% depending on how convenient it is to do so and if it profits the important folks.
70 or 80 percent of us can fuck off it seems, vote for us, eat your damn peas, donate til it hurts, embrace the suck, and shut the fuck up.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)BainsBane
(53,035 posts)and a whole bunch of others. His supporters actually skew wealthier than Clinton's.
oasis
(49,389 posts)
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I would absolutely love to feel comfortable about supporting Hillary. She has a lot of great qualities, and on many issues I agree with her.
But unfortunately she is a big part of the bigger problem. The GOP did not wreck the prospects for the majority of the population alone. They had plenty of assistance from the "centrists" like Hillary over the years.
Hillary is just too locked into the oligarchy. She can't cut the ties that bind her to Wall St. and Corporate Monopolies. Nor does she want to, because their worldview is her worldview.
That's not a "smear." It's the unfortunate truth.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)is just actual non[sense. So I will be very clear why I believe that you and I both should believe in Hillary's support of the oligarchs.
First off is a listing of her primary donors which either are the oligarchs or those who work most directly for them. Notably many of these have benefitted from government bailouts even as they caused great damage for the people.
Second her positions of support for the TPP, opposition to Glass-Steagull re-instatement, continued support of NAFTA, weakness of her environmental platform, lack of real recognition oof the Need to overturn Citizens United, and past and current support of the Keystone Pipeline all coincide with the financial benefit of the oligarchs or 1 percent or the corporatists, or the billionaires or whatever words you would prefer I use. So it certainly looks like she is already working for the oligarchs.
So I have explained why as I believe as I do, would you be willing to explain what is the basis for your characterization of my words regarding her support of oligarchy as non-sense? I am a believer that in talking to people you should connect the dots. I do not hold with cognitive dissonance wherever it exists in either the republican or democratic party/
I thank you for the opportunity to elaborate my position more clearly. I also recognize that some may see my answers as combative. but I believe a push toward democracy and away from oligarchy is worth fighting for and I know we cannot move from oligarchy if our candidate is afraid or unwilling to say their name.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)inspirational call to action for Bernie. I think this might be why his poll numbers are so low, why he hasn't been able to reach constituencies other than white liberals. Because, despite the fact that his campaign is based on a positive progressive message, his supporters seem motivated by hatred.
Beyond that, the idea that Hillary "sides with oligarchs" is false on pretty much all fronts. The "primary donors" meme has been debunked over and over again: if by "oligarchs" you mean people who work in the financial industry, they account for 3.4% of her donations. See here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=12458
Her economic policies have won praises from leading progressive economists, the likes of Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz. She has also come out with a powerful environmental plan to combat global warming. Contrary to your assertion, she has made clear that she thinks Citizens United is horrible, and will appoint justices who will overturn it. And so on.
Sure, there are policy areas where you or anyone are going to disagree with her, for good reasons or bad. Same goes with Bernie, by the way. His vote to give legal immunity to the gun industry is an example. But taken as a whole, both are strong progressives, both are running good and positive campaigns, but unfortunately Bernie's supporters can't seem to resist the Hillary bashing.
LeFleur1
(1,197 posts)When a person is President of all the people some will disagree because all of the people don't agree on anything.
Could someone list Bernie's actual plans? I know what he doesn't like, but what does he intend to do about the things he feels are bad for the country? He wants college to be free. So would teachers work for free? How would that come about? What is his economic plan exactly? Most of us know what is wrong, but what will the new President do about it all? I'd like to see his tentative plans. If there is a website that lists his beginning plans, please post it.
Thank you.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)One only needs to look at who she cow-tows to and gets money from to see that.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Remind me who's the recent convert to populism ?
Pretty sure it was Hillary parroting Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and they are not coy at all about stating that.
senz
(11,945 posts)In 2007-8 she made a lot of enemies for herself among Obama supporters and other liberal/progressives, and her behavior in the ensuing eight years has done little or nothing to improve many people's impressions of her. Many of us find her entirely unpalatable as a presidential candidate.
Bernie, otoh, is an honest statesman of high integrity who is running in support of a clear and carefully thought-out agenda that supports ordinary working-class Americans. Bernie passionately believes in something greater than his own power, status and ego. He's not running for the glory of Being President. He doesn't think it's "his turn," because it's not about "him." Bernie has not only been talking the talk but humbly walking the walk for 40+ years. That makes him very, very believable. He is the Real Deal.
Hillary does not appear to be running from a primary desire to help the American people. It is hard to know where she stands on the issues. Her supporters, entirely sincere people, seem to be motivated by a deep, personal connection to Hillary herself. So if she loses the nomination, I could easily see them grieving on a real and deeply personal level, and their disappointment could quite possibly cloud their political judgment. Just as they hated Obama for a long time, they will likely hate whoever beats her to the nomination.
On the other hand, Bernie's supporters are much like Bernie himself in that we share his basic beliefs and focus on the issues. We may love this guy for the fine person he obviously is, but we're backing him because we know where he stands. Before Bernie threw his hat in the ring, I was hoping and praying that Elizabeth Warren would run -- because I share her world view and agree with her on the issues.
You see? If not Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie. If not Bernie, then Elizabeth Warren. Because it's about the the American people, not the candidate. How many Hillary supporters could so easily switch their allegiance to another candidate based on the candidate's stand on the issues?
I think these factors could explain the difference in how some Hillary supporters and some Bernie supporters might react to which one gets the nomination.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)because seriously, that is what they are not only advocating but justifying. One Bernie supporter went to far as to state that it may be a good idea for a Republican to get into office to teach the Dems a lesson.
senz
(11,945 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)Why would Bernie supporters want Clinton supporters if she's as bad as some people say.I'm a Clinton supporter and I'm not felling this Sanders stuff
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)Whomever he/she is. Just like we did in 2008.
senz
(11,945 posts)If Bernie does win the nomination, I hope that at least some of Hillary's supporters can care as much about the well-being of the American people as they do about their idol. Am pretty sure most of Bernie's supporters can do it if Hill gets the nomination.
As for reactions to disappointment, have you forgotten the high dudgeon evinced by PUMAs against Barack Obama, a resentment that lasted at least throughout the first months of his presidency?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I haven't seen any Hillary supporters insist that they won't vote in the GE unless she gets the nomination. But I've seen plenty of Bernie supporters say they won't vote for Hillary if she wins the primary. Which is mind-bogglingly stupid.
I do remember the PUMA thing. That was stupid also, and it reminds me a lot of the virulently anti-Hillary Bernie supporters this time around. To Hillary's credit, she came out and strongly supported Obama in the GE. Hopefully Bernie will do the same, and that will help bring around some of his more mentally unstable supporters.
senz
(11,945 posts)It may have been expanded since then, and they did ask for feedback. But here's what they sent:
Income and wealth inequality: In the United States today we have the most unequal wealth and income distribution of any major country on earth -- worse than at any time since the 1920s. This is an economy that must be changed in fundamental ways.
Jobs and income: In my view, we need a massive federal jobs program which puts millions of our people back to work. We must end our disastrous trade policies. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. And we have to fight for pay equity for women.
Campaign finance reform: As a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, American democracy is being undermined by the ability of the Koch brothers and other billionaire families. These wealthy contributors can literally buy politicians and elections by spending hundreds of millions of dollars in support of the candidates of their choice. We need to overturn Citizens United and move toward public funding of elections so that all candidates can run for office without being beholden to the wealthy and powerful.
Climate change: Climate change is real, caused by human activity and already devastating our nation and planet. The United States must lead the world in combating climate change and transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainability.
College affordability: Every person in this country who has the desire and ability should be able to get all the education they need regardless of the income of their family. This is not a radical idea. In Germany, Scandinavia and many other countries, higher education is either free or very inexpensive. We must do the same.
Health care: Shamefully, the United States remains the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people. The United States must move toward a Medicare-for-all single-payer system. Health care is a right, not a privilege.
Poverty: The United States has more people living in poverty than at almost any time in the modern history of our country. I believe that in a democratic, civilized society none of our people should be hungry or living in desperation. We need to expand Social Security, not cut it. We need to increase funding for nutrition programs, not cut them.
Tax reform: We need real tax reform which makes the rich and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes. We need a tax system which is fair and progressive. Children should not go hungry in this country while profitable corporations and the wealthy avoid their tax responsibilities by stashing their money in the Cayman Islands.
And these are just some of the issues that we will be dealing with.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)just like pall bearers at a funeral!
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)And ran a better campaign than Hillary. I am a Hillary supporter but I felt the same way in 08 when Obama won fair and square. I will have no problem supporting Bernie if he is the nominee. A Democrat shouldn't even have to affirm that.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)As long as all of us, Bernie supporters included, keep that in mind, we will be good.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)daybranch
(1,309 posts)don't wake up the Hillary people who ignore this and try to shut up any real discussion of policy differences.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Do you favor joining the rest of the civilized world and having truly universal healthcare.
Do you favor having Corporations who pay their executives obscenely huge salaries at least fork of $15 an hour for their employees?
Do you favor taming the huge Monopoly Banks that atre holding our economy (and whole way of life) hostage to their unbridled greed?
just wonderin'
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's all not only wishful thinking, it's deceptive to think that anything besides compromise legislation will be able to be passed.
I'd prefer Sanders not lie and claim he is going to do this stuff.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We won't even make things slightly better by continually starting from a point of total defeatism about the possibilities for meaningful change.
(And what candidate doesn't say "I will do this..."? That's basic political campaigning.)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That has been and will continue to enable the GOP to control what Federal legislation gets passed through January of 2023 at least and probably until January of 2025 and that is if we are lucky enough to take back enough state legislatures going into 2020 so that we can un-gerrymander enough House districts.
Ignoring that reality will not help anything. The DNC got caught with it's pants down in 2010 and didn't realize what the GOP was up to and we are stuck with this for the next 8-10 years at least.
On Edit: This OP and the article it talks about explains the problem: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7021222
Here is the killer part:
"Of 435 districts in the Republican-controlled House, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates only 90 as competitive, meaning those seats have a partisan rating that falls within five points of the national average. The rating measures how each district votes relative to how the country as a whole voted in the most recent presidential election.
The number of competitive districts at its lowest since Cook first started the partisanship rating in the 1998 election cycle."
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It doesn't matter whether there is divided government, or the times when the Democrats hold all the levers or the GOP holds the levers.
There is ALWAYS the justification of centrist Democrats: "Oh we can't do anything liberal of substance because those mean old Republicans have too much influence."
Or else the Corporate Crony Democrats are dismissive and tell us that they know what's best for us (and what they think is best is usually a variation of GOP Corporate Conservatism).
Meanwhile the GOP and their Wealthy backers don't give a shit who is in control. They pound away and either obstruct successfully (when in the minority) or ram through awful policies (when in the majority).
As a result, in the big picture, the GOP are the initiators, and the Democrats are passive observers. And the country gets pushed further and further to the right and into the morass of subservience to an unaccountable oligarchy.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)short term solution.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's basic tactics and strategy.
It's kinda like baseball.
The GOP doesn't care about the odds and the reasons why they can't get what they want. They always swing for the fences. Sometimes they make a home run, sometimes they get on base and sometimes they strike out. But they always try to score.
The Democrats continually bunt, or don't even bother swinging because it's not a perfect pitch.
(Or in some cases, they deliberately throw the game.)
As a result the forces of Greed and Unaccountable Power keep winning the game, regardless of who the spectators are rooting for.
Or to put it another way: We never offer voters a real choice or make a clear case. The GOP does. The GOP lies, but they lie so well. And therefore e keep getting into these numerical pickles. But rather than use that to justify continued fatalistic passivity (and corruption) we ought to be learning some lessons about basic can-do optimism.
randome
(34,845 posts)But politicians rarely stick their necks out. They never want to be seen as being on the losing side. And continually batting their heads against a brick wall might actually help the opposition.
But I don't disagree with your basis premise.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)plan and that is exactly what would happen.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"We going to go through the motions of an election, but don't bother participating -- and don't even bother following it -- because those mean old Republicans won't let us do anything, even if we happen to win."
That's a fabulous message. Just fabulous.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)That's a tired old cliche that is used to dismiss anyone who criticize the entrenched status quo.
I haven't the time to debate the nature of reality, except to say that no one has a monopoly on understanding reality. It's a matte of HOW one perceives reality and what needs to be one. Mileage may vary.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)All this time money and effort is being spent to try to overcome the strong candidate that we have and for pretty close to zero benefit.
Even worse, because of the way he is being portrayed, expectations are being raised sky high. Assume for a moment he gets the nomination and then wins.
How is it going to be when none of his legislation passes the GOP House? I'll tell you, people are going to be upset at him and at what he promised because he couldnt deliver. They are going to expect him to work with the congress he has and he is not going to be able to do it, because no one would be able to get progressive legislation through the Boehner controlled GOP house.
In the best case and reality based scenario you can come up with for Bernie, you are setting him up for failure.
That's the reality.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Maybe I'll wake up and find that there is a Democratic President, 100 percent Democratic Congress, absolutely no Republicans anywhere in sight -- and that the Democratic party is more loyal to The People than The Oligarchs.
Then maybe we can start to take baby steps to make "reality" a little bit better.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Thanks for the advice, but I don't need your condescending lectures on how to deal with reality.
LeftOfWest
(482 posts)Facts, reality.
Got the condescending lectures part correct and down as well.
Thank you! Classy and right on!
RichVRichV
(885 posts)It's obviously not the whole problem since Republicans also control the senate.
But instead of looking at the fact that Republicans control congress, let's look at why they control congress and the states to allow gerrymandering in the first place.
Since the 80's the Republicans have had Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. We've had Clinton and Obama. Obviously we've had the better presidents. Blue states do better than red states in every metric. Our core beliefs are much better than theirs and proven to work.
Yet somehow in spite of all that, in spite of coming out of the disaster of Bush Jr, the Republicans are gaining ground all over the country. The tea party in particular - the worst of the Republicans - are gaining faster than anyone. Why is that?
The answer is simple. They, especially the tea party, have strong convictions and will fight to their dieing breath for them. No matter how poor their ideas and beliefs are people follow them because they're not being given a strong alternative.
The Democratic party has become the party of compromise and triangulation. We try to keep our small slice of the pie instead of fighting for more. We have no voice to counter theirs.
We're not going to win back the states and counter gerrymandering by staying status quo. It hasn't worked for us to this point. There's no proof that doing so will change that. People are not going to be inspired to choose Democrat by a president who ducks reporters for fear that truthfully answering questions is going to lose votes.
You talk about having to compromise because of gerrymandering, without looking at how to reverse gerrymandering. Because in your view of how things should be there is no path to do so.
Whether you believe in him or not, Bernie brings a strong populous message that can counter the Republican's message. Whether you like his ideas or not, they're not pie in the sky ideas. They're ideas that have been proven to work through out the world. They're where this country was headed before trickle down weaseled its way in.
Bernie can fire up the base, as proven by his rallies. He can reach across the isle and draw independents and Republican voters to our side as he has proven in Vermont. He can even draw in people who are disenfranchised because they see no difference in the parties, as has been shown in numerous posts here on DU.
Bernie offers us a real chance to overturn gerrymandering and retake our government by transforming our party into one that serves the people, one that can gain ground in all 50 states.
We have 4 1/2 years to figure this out before the 2020 elections that decide the congressional maps. Fortunately for us that election is a presidential election, which means higher turnout. That favor us. We can build to it with a candidate who brings a strong populous message, or we can hope for better results with the status quo.
As has been said many times this isn't just about Bernie. Getting him elected isn't the end game for us. It's just the first step in transforming our country into something better than it is.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Who will bring more progressive voters to the general election? We can get in more real democrats in the local elections, too
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)and "HELL NO!" to the third. But, as you can see, he ducked the question.
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)And am fully confident that won't be an issue for those that care about the country.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)whoever wins, in the end, we will ALL support them.
apnu
(8,758 posts)You got it on the first try. Bravo!
Stellar
(5,644 posts)we all know we will support our party to keep a bagger out of the Whitehouse, even if we have to hold our nose to do it.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and wish him well. I hope that Sec. Clinton is the nominee.
riversedge
(70,242 posts)in solidarity
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)However, the primary process has a very long time to go and no one has shown me how Sanders will be viable in a general election campaign where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the GOP nominee will be spending another billion dollars.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)And will continue to send him money ... I've redirected money from the Dems and I'm giving that to Bernie as well ...
If we want to have a candidate that isn't a puppet of the moneyed interests, WE will have to foot the bill ...
I think the Bernie Sanders campaign will rewrite the history books on presidential elections ...
liberal N proud
(60,335 posts)We would hope that whoever wins the primary is fully supported by all in the Presidential Elections.
randome
(34,845 posts)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)If he wins the primary, he'll have my vote but that's about it.
Some of his supporters have all but zapped any enthusiasm I may have had about supporting his campaign. Some things you just can't un-see or un-do.
I've always been a Bernie supporter, he's an awesome Senator. If he wins the primary I'll vote for him in the general. The end.
I'm leaning Hillary, but looking seriously at O'Malley at this point. So, yeah....
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I'm with you there.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Hopefully this will give him the influence to get more accomplished. It could be really positive for progressives.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)
Arkana
(24,347 posts)And then I will go home and drink myself into a stupor, knowing that Scott Walker/Jeb Bush/Marco fucking Rubio will be the 45th President of the United States.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)or
***same***
gawd it's depressing what may happen if Bernie wins the Primary
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)although of course I would prefer your scenario.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)You ain't seen NOTHING yet.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Then again, you never fail to surprise with your long standing anti-Hillary remarks.
Only a small number of Hillary supporters did not vote for Obama.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)There was an entire thread of Hillary supporters who declared in June 2007 they "couldn't vote for him" (Obama). Some (emilyb comes to mind) openly posted they wrote in Hillary's name in 2008.
Mine is not an anti-Hillary post; in fact, it is more accurately an accounting of anti-Obama posts from June 2007 from some current and other former DU'ers. It did happen, it is real and most people that were here then remember it. Pretending it didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't happen nor that it won't happen again.
madokie
(51,076 posts)that Hillary supporters will support Bernie when he wins the nomination. I seen it with Obama and no reason to think the same won't be the case with Sanders. IMHO
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Maybe that's why many of them
keep repeating that "Bernie can't win"?
madokie
(51,076 posts)ODS. If you get my drift.
It was here at the DU. I know the smell of bullshit and I get a whiff of it here pretty regularly. Used to be more so than now because some of them are hell bent on telling me that Hillary is it and that Bernie or anyone else has no chance. I've seen this hiway and been on it before and it didn't lead to where they're telling me it's heading now, back then nor is it now.
People are fed up with the way things are going right now and as I see it Hillary is more of the same. Can't even answer some questions when asked because it appears her answers might piss off some of the money people who are pouring money into her campaign as I type.
No, deliver me from the bullshit, I never liked the smell of it in the first place.
Peace
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Hillary does?
If not....they were never really Democrats to begin with...its that simple.
still_one
(92,217 posts)civil to Hillary supporters, since there is no doubt in my mind whoever wins the primary, the winning candidate will need the other candidates supporters to win
Folks should keep that in mind when they proclaim they will not vote for a particular candidate if that candidate wins the primary in the general election
rock
(13,218 posts)is a shade short of the 50,000,000+ required to win the election. Why yes, I believe I do.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)Which is all that any other candidate has been able to draw so far to any event. It's all relative, no where near enough to win a general, but still a lot better than the rest.
The numbers he's drawing doesn't show that he's going to win, but it does show he creates a lot of enthusiasm.
He has the enthusiasm of his supporters on his side.
kenn3d
(486 posts)As Star Members and DUers with many thousands of posts, it might be presumed that you are all proud Democrats and maybe always have been (no matter what?). I think a lot of Bernie's supporters may not have always been Democrats, or Republicans, or even voters since many of you entered your first posts here. [And I don't take that lightly... I'm new to DU and have respect for the prolonged and dedicated involvement of members here.]
In fact though, some of us who support Sen. Sanders have struggled to discern any effective difference in voting Democrat vs voting Republican vs voting at all... and we're simply not convinced that Hillary Clinton isn't just a part of the big oligarchic machine which has stolen our democracy.
Bernie isn't everybody's perfect candidate and we're bound to struggle for his any chance to win the primary or the presidency. But for me he's simply the best chance for my vote to matter... in the long run. I see a true ground swell in this nation and I hope that if and when he's nominated, all Democrats and many Republicans and Independents as well will support him.
I suspect that a lot of DUers will still be proud Democrats then... no matter what. Even if they ended up voting for Bernie. And perhaps somewhen down the road, they'll be even prouder that they did.
peace,
Kenn
Beacool
(30,250 posts)I will support the Democratic nominee, even if I thought that we would lose the GE, I still would support him. No way would I not try to avoid a Republican becoming president. The country can't afford it.
Response to kenn3d (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Wut? 
peacebird
(14,195 posts)To get him Elected!
Hillary, the corporate/ Wall $treet bank$ter loving 1%er, not my choice.
