Demonization of Sanders Supporters as a Substitute for Criticism of the Candidate

[Bonobo]

I think it far past time that we take a look at a phenomena that is happening in the Primary race, namely the widespread attacks on and demonization of Sanders supporters. It is coming from several directions, some of which I will try to summarize below, but one thing that doesn't change no matter what the criticism is:
In lieu of criticizing Sanders himself which SHOULD be what is happening as part of a healthy dialog on issues, we are seeing attacks on Sanders supporters as a way of attacking Sanders by inference.

So what kind of attacks have we seen on Sanders supporters? I will try to list some, but perhaps you can help by adding to this list.

- Sanders supporters are 10% percenters who are only interested in struggling against the 1% percenters.
- Sanders supporters are rainbow pony worshippers looking for a savior.
- Sanders supporters are all white (and pretty much racist)
- Sanders supporters are conspiracy theorists.
- Sanders supporters want to tear down the Democratic Party.
- Sanders supporters are misogynists.
- Sanders supporters contain Tea Party style Libertarians.
- Sanders supporters are gun nuts
- Sanders supporters are Volvo-driving, granola-eaters

I'm sure you can think of more, but it really isn't the point and I won't be drawn into the typical "Please provide quotes or else" thing. I have been here on DU too long to be dragged down by that insincere crap. The POINT is that aiming ANY criticism at Sanders' supporters instead of the candidate himself is FUCKED UP and rather a sleazy way to approach things.

[99th_Monkey]

1. You forgot "Bernie supporters are closet Libertarians" nt

[Bonobo]

3. No, I got that one. nt

[99th_Monkey]

6. ok, mine was worded differently , but yes. you got it. nt

[billhicks76]

23. Yeah...Ron Paul supporters lol

Clintonites sound more desperate and threatened every day. The libertarian label is icing on the cake. That's what all the NSA and military contractor profiles would say on here a couple years ago.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I learned many new things today. Like, Buzzfeed has a "News" division! (Who knew?)

Also I learned that Bernie Sanders supporters are gross old white guys who like the... get this.. Grateful Dead.



EEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!

I mean, EWWWW! THAT IS TOTAL DAD MUSIC. SOOOO LAME, AM I RIGHT? OH. MY. GOD.

[Zorra]

64. Gossip has it that Sanders supporters of all ages and colors particularly like

"Think this through with me,
let me know your mind,
Wo, oh, what I want to know,
Is are you kind?

Come hear Uncle Bernie's Band by the riverside,
Got some things to talk about, here beside the rising tide."

Ain't no time to hate, barely time to wait,
Wo, oh, what I want to know, where does the time go?

I live in a silver mine and I call it Beggar's Tomb;
I got me a violin and I beg you call the tune,
anybody's choice, I can hear your voice.
Wo, oh, what I want to know, how does the song go?

Come hear Uncle Bernie's Band by the riverside,
Got some things to talk about, here beside the rising tide."

[Warren DeMontague]

65. ...

[Ed Suspicious]

85. One of my favorites.

[Aerows]

144. I've been threatened with hides

because I just became a host and I don't even know what is acceptable to post anymore.

[TheBlackAdder]

129. Progressive Socialists are really closeted Selfish Ayn Rand-John Birch Society Libertarians? ZOMG!

.


Sounds like someone is talking out of their butts!

Not you 99, but the people who would think that!


.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Yep.

When your attacks on the candidate fail, go after his supporters.

Over and over again and until it sticks.

It's positively Rovian.

[Aerows]

98. It's going to be

a damn long haul through the primaries. :sigh:

[beam me up scottie]

99. It's already cost us some good Duers.

I see many breaks in my future.

Don't want to wind up another casualty.

[sabrina 1]

178. Stick to the issues and you will see how those pushing these vile memes react. Mostly I sure wish

people would just stay out of their threads. Can't say that enough. Imagine posting an OP you hoped would start a huge fight, and nobody came? How disappointing would it be to watch it sink like a rock while those you had hoped to lure into your 'trap' were instead busy posting positive OPS about their candidate, flooding the forum with GOOD NEWS pushing your sad little effort right off the page.

It's really not hard. I look at two things when I decide what to read. The title of the OP and who wrote it.

It's so easy to just go to the next OP once it is clear what I will find should I click the link. Depending on how false the title is re my candidate, I then write my own OP without bothering with the falsehood, just presenting FACTS so that my OP isn't clogged with talking points.

But sadly people feel compelled to respond to such posts and as long as they do, they will continue to get attention they do not deserve.

[jfern]

4. Hillary supporters seem to not like supporting the issues

Here's my take on all of those

> Sanders supporters are 10% percenters who are only interested in struggling against the 1% percenters.
Well obviously some are, but most of his support is from the lower 90%. He has a lot of support among young people who are having trouble finding good jobs. And he's running against the billionaires

> Sanders supporters are rainbow pony worshippers looking for a savior.
Sanders isn't a savior, we need a better Congress too. And Sanders isn't off in lala land. The Veterans Bill he sponsored last year got signed into law despite a Republican House.

> Sanders supporters are all white (and pretty much racist)
When you're a politician from Vermont with low name recognition who starts off by campaigning in Iowa and NH, of course most of your supporters are going to be white. As his support grows, the white percentage is dropping.

> Sanders supporters are conspiracy theorists.
Some have been, but plenty of other people can be too.

> Sanders supporters want to tear down the Democratic Party.
The Democratic party is doing that fine without Sanders

> Sanders supporters are misogynists.
Why the heck would they support someone who calls for equal pay for women, then?

> Sanders supporters contain Tea Party style Libertarians.
I doubt too many.

> Sanders supporters are gun nuts
Gun nuts would rather someone who doesn't have an F or maybe a D- from the NRA.

> Sanders supporters are Volvo-driving, granola-eaters
Some are, but most aren't.

[Bonobo]

7. My main point, though, is that whether true or not, those attacks

are an unfair way to engage in political discussion.

Guilt by association is never right.

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. Get Thee to the Greatest Page. n/t

[RichVRichV]

8. It's the same thing day after day.

Attack Bernie supporters as surrogates for attacking Bernie directly, then when any of us take the bait and step in to defend ourselves that becomes proof of what they're attacking.


This site should be about discussing the issues affecting us, not trying to bait each other with "gotchas" to use against one another.

[JackInGreen]

40. Gods I loathe that tactic and it's practitioners

And wish I could post some "BAIT!" pics anytime I see
"bernie supporters, you quit beating your wife this instant"
"But I dont"
"See?!they denied it so OBVIOUSLY it's exactly what they do."
"What did you prove?"
"That you're a subconscious wife beater."

It's fucking maddening.

[sibelian]

110. Yes, but it's also ludicrously transparent

It's not like the rest of us can't see through it as clear as glass. They keep doing it, though, no matter how many times they're called on it.

[kenfrequed]

180. Too many of us take the bait

Myself included. Personally I wish there was just a 'bait list' that I could ignore.

[MisterP]

88. when anyone "defend[s] ourselves that becomes proof of what they're attacking" <<<<<<THIS

it's a neatly Orwellian trick they've long perfected since it gives all the "hand" to the accuser: you're trapped into either 1. apologizing for "making it about the insult," or 2. pointing out that the standard is impossible to meet and rejecting it altogether

[SoapBox]

9. I do know what we aren't...

And that is suck ups to Billionaires and Banksters.

And I LOVE that!

[captainarizona]

10. sanders supporters are intolerant

I was blocked from sanders group for saying he needs to appeal to minority voters!

[Bubzer]

13. hillary supporters are intolerant

I was blocked from hillary group for saying something mild. I wasn't even given a warning before hand... which, you'd think a new site member would have gotten. There's lots of intolerance going around.

[A Simple Game]

72. I was blocked for saying some of the posters on the Hillary group were

rabidly anti-Hillary in '08, one of the hosts said he knew that and blocked me after agreeing with me.

I didn't mention any names and was not disrespectful, I think they just knew from other forums that I was very much pro-Bernie.

[HFRN]

77. we are learning a lot about HRC supporteres nt

[Bubzer]

100. It would seem we're learning alot about the Hillary page moderators too.

[Amimnoch]

116. ROFLMAO!!! REALLY? Hillary supporters are the ones that are intolerant??

Perfectly okay on Bernie Underground to call hillary everything from "Jeb Bush in Heels" (reported, but accepted by Jury 5 out of 5). "corporation owned and paid for" (reported and 5 out of 5 keep it), Hell, I doubt there's anything at all Bernies.. supporters.. can't get away with saying about here.

But, make the mistake of insinuating that Bernie's supporters are.. well hell.. I can't even say it, as I'll probably get another hide.. but suffice it to say it is not NEARLY as bad as "corporate owned and paid for, or Jeb Bush in Heels".

If you're actually interested in seeing what the high offense was, you can check out my history for yourself.

But to say that Hillary supporters are the ones that are intolerant??? ROFLMAO.

[Bubzer]

133. Well, my reply was partly intended to be ironic... There's a lot of intolerance to go around.

There are plenty on the hillary page that are intolerant. The same goes for the Bernie page. Tempers flare a lot when being emotionally invested in a candidate. Doesn't make any of us bad people... just sometimes some of us don't use the best judgment in dealing with fellow community members.

Sometimes we even pretend our own shit don't stink cause someone else's is worse.
Bad trap to fall in, that. Get into that one and it becomes a slippery slope to justifying all kinds of meanness.

[senz]

134. Dissing the candidate is not the same as dissing the candidate's supporters.

You equated the two in your comment. Saying unflattering things about a candidate is part of assessing the pros and cons of the candidate, which we all must do before we decide whom we will vote for.

Saying unflattering things about the candidate's supporters is personal insult.

Can you understand the difference?

[artislife]

149. Yes

[senz]

135. Same here, Bubzer. Blocked for trying to be thoughtful and sincere.

Turns out they cannot brook any comments that are mixed positive/negative about their candidate. It's all or nothing for them. And lordy -- are they prickly...

[Buns_of_Fire]

21. I imagine you'd get much the same treatment from the Hillary group.

Both groups are pretty much "safe havens" for the True Believers of each camp, and never is to be heard a discouraging word. And that's okay; both sides deserve a space where they can speak and not be beset upon by the nattering nabobs of negativism. It's also the reason I won't darken the doorsteps of EITHER group. It saves all concerned a little wear and tear.

Heck, why tick off only half of DU when you can hang out here and tick off EVERYBODY at one point or another? This, my friend, is maximizing your leverage (or whatever the term is in the current bullcrap corpro-speak).

[Ed Suspicious]

87. All partisans are intolerant.

[arlington.mass]

107. How?

Do you have specific ways that Sanders needs to "appeal" to minority voters?

Not crafting laws to throw as many of them as possible in jail through the "war on drugs" seems like a start.

Not stigmatizing them and increasing the economic burden on many of them through "welfare reform" seems like a start.

Which candidate fully supported these measures, and were in fact passed by her husband?

[sibelian]

112. Are minority voters imbecilic, then?

Do they need to be "appealed" to?

Do they believe themselves unaffected by mainstream politics?

[Vincardog]

11. Don't forget White Liberal Rascists

[840high]

94. That one really got my goat.

[tblue]

12. I am not one thing on that list (except I do eat granola with my Cheerios)

Whenever anyone generalizes about people, they're gonna catch flack and shut down dialog. We've got serious issues we all need to work together to address. We really don't have time to spend tearing each other down. I am for Bernie but I refuse to complain about Hillary or her supporters. They're entitled to exist, thrive, and try to win the election. More power to 'em.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. You forgot, "Sanders supporters are rude.".....

Oh wait,....that's meta.

Never mind.

[mak3cats]

19. You forgot, "Sanders supporters are middle-aged, overweight, near-sighted."...

Oh, wait.....that's me.

Never mind.

[underthematrix]

15. i happen to like Bernie but

I really can't stand Bernie's supporters. Bernie is not my first or second choice candidate but I would vote for him if I had to. But unlike Bernie supporters, I would not badmouth him once he became President because I know Presidenting is harder than shit.

[Bonobo]

16. That was a much better demonstration of my OP than I did, thanks! nt

[MrMickeysMom]

79. !!!

[beam me up scottie]

17. That's a GREAT addition to the list!

The sincere with a straight face "I like Bernie but his supporters suck." post.

I really enjoy the "I did support Bernie but his misogynistic/racist/Volvo driving supporters made me switch to progressive-lite Hillary" ops too.

Well done, very convincing!

[senz]

140. YES. Anyone who threatens to switch based on dislike of supporters

is either manipulative or just not very smart. I could not believe it when someone tried that tactic on me.

btw, made my first gin & tonics for self & friend today. Two oz. gin (Tanqueray?), 5 oz. tonic water (little bottle, kind of fancy), fresh lime & ice cubes. Drank it sitting outside in ~ 80-85 degree shade. Very cold & refreshing, but wow is that stuff strong. Friend liked it fine, will prob. cut down to 1 oz. gin for self. Also figured out why I've avoided hard liquor all these years. Thanks so much for the suggestion, bmus.

[Live and Learn]

24. Painting with a broad brush aren't you?

Some might call it stereotyping.

I have some problems with some of the posts some Hillary supporters post on here but I certainly wouldn't just say I can't stand Hillary supporters.

[underthematrix]

30. Sorry but that's the way I feel. And I'm a BIDEN supporter, HRC

is my second choice

[Live and Learn]

33. Do you have any real policy issue differences with Bernie? nt

[underthematrix]

34. i don't have policy differences with Bernie, although

my primary goal is immigration reform that leads to full citizenship in 90 days or less. Presidenting is about leadership, coalition building, temperment, stamina, and ability to stay the course. Bernie doesn't have the soft skills I want in a President.

[Qutzupalotl]

56. A leader would draw thousands of supporters to hear his positive vision.

Bernie was a long-distance runner, so stamina is not an issue. As for staying the course, he's been fighting the good fight for decades, always with a clear definition of what is right and wrong in our country. He shares my values and will stand up for what we need.

[Live and Learn]

71. Really? Which soft skill is he missing?

I see him as the forefront on all of those skills. His coalition may be a bit different that some others since his will include the people.

[frylock]

75. must be slang for folding money

[senz]

141. Excellent.

[underthematrix]

184. executive leadership

[840high]

95. That's ok.

[senz]

136. I'm a Bernie supporter and I don't badmouth President Obama.

Totally agree w/you that it's harder than shit.

[artislife]

148. Same here, just replace it with H.

NOT AT ALL.

[delrem]

18. Looks to me like HRC plans on swift-boating the entire progressive left.

Simply eliminating it - driving it out.
Showing such extreme contempt that there's no going back.

I think it's reached that no-turning-back point.

I've never seen such a dirty "campaign" and I can't imagine anyone who's a target of it, anyone on the progressive left, ever voting for her after this. I mean, not ever. It SO opens the eyes to how far right these "centrists" are - week after week being targeted by racist swift-boating hate directed generally at the progressive left and any individuals who dare to stand up to it.

I pity my progressive US American cousins, if HRC does win the GE and there's 8 YEARS of this kind of hatred of the progressive left, coupled now with action to destroy all that the progressive left stands for, from the highest placesin BOTH the Democratic and Republican parties. To say nothing of the damage that will be done to the US and to the world from the escalating wars, the escalating economic irresponsibility and rapine.

Uhuh. I'd not vote for that. I'd work with all my heart against that. If the swift-boating/ratfucking wins out and HRC wins the primary that way, which looks very likely considering the immense $$$ behind it, considering the professionalism, experience and scope that unlimited $$$ can buy, then I'd set my eye on 2020. I'd vote only for progressives and *against* so-called "centrist" Dems and Republicans. I'd work to build a third party.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

20. Carlin used to say elections are just for show and "the owners" always get what they want.

[OnyxCollie]

118. WHAT?!?

Are you telling me American Idol is FAKED?

"Democratic mass parties are bureaucratically organized under the leadership of party officials, professional party and trade union secretaries, etc.... Of course, one must remember that the term 'democratization' can be misleading. The demos itself, in the sense of an inarticulate mass, never 'governs' larger associations; rather it is governed, and its existence only changes the way in which the executive leaders are selected and the measure of influence which the demos, or better, which social circles from its midst are able to exert upon the content and the direction of administration activities by supplementing what is called 'public opinion.' 'Democratization,' in the sense here intended, does not necessarily mean an increasingly active share of the governed in the authority of the social structure. This may be the result of democratization, but it is not necessarily the case.... The most decisive thing here- and indeed it is rather exclusively so- is the leveling of the governed in opposition to the ruling and bureaucratically articulated groups, which in turn may occupy a quite autocratic position, both in fact and form." -Max Weber

[jfern]

32. Her husband was pretty terrible

DADT, DOMA, NAFTA, DMCA, Mickey Mouse copyright act, repeal of Glass Steagal, welfare reform, telecommunications deregulation, stricter prison sentences. And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's plenty that I forgot.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. DADT and DOMA were both compromises crafted to sooth straight people who were fearful and bigoted

And while we had to ditch them later they were improvements upon the available alternatives. Prior to DADT, you do understand that they 'asked' meaning they investigated to seek out LGBT persons in the military and when asked, all were required to 'tell' about themselves and about others. So it was constant witch hunt and discharge.
I mean, I see people on DU who adore Paul Wellstone as a progressive. He voted for DOMA. Biden, voted for DOMA. It goes on and on and on. Straight people supported DOMA, straights on the left supported it. Deal with that.
In 1992, Clinton defeated Republicans who were calling for relocation camps for people with HIV, a Constitutional Amendment against marriage equality and the aggressive removal of 'gays from the military'. Bill Clinton's administration almost instantly double the budgets going to AIDS research and patient services after 12 years of vicious criminal neglect by Reagan and Bush. There were 30,000 dead Americans before Reagan even mentioned it, 30,000 and people like Liz Warren and Jim Webb voted for him again in the midst of that, then voted for Bush to continue it.

You just don't seem to grasp the context and the stakes and the history.

[jfern]

73. Why did Clinton need to compromise on DADT?

It was an executive order. He didn't need to compromise. He was just so scared of showing actual leadership.

[JDPriestly]

120. The point is, of course, that Bernie Sanders was right on all these issues in the first place.

Hillary and Bill "compromised"?

But in fact, they never expressed any wish to have equal rights for LGBT people, so it wasn't really a compromise. They were either just wrong on these issues or they lied about what they thought. Hillary says she "evolved" on LGBT issues, so I guess the story is that they were wrong about equal marriage rights for LGBTs.

The point is that Bernie knew what was right and stood up for it from the beginning when other people were wrong about it or did not have the courage to stand up for LGBT people.

[raindaddy]

90. I guess they figure the clown car is so awful , they don't need the liberal vote.

to win the general election.

Probably also a reaction to the numbers of Bernie supporters on social media..
Hillary can't compete on the issues, and she also lacks Bernie's fire. But she has tons of money, and money can buy just about anything including a bunch of nasty ass op-eds.

[MisterP]

105. why do you think they encouraged everyone to watch the Pub debates?

unless of course DWS is thinking of endorsing Jeb

[raindaddy]

115. The real question is.... this should be a time when Democrats should be showcasing

traditional Democratic party populist ideology. Comparing themselves to the off the rail clown car... Why are they limiting their debates and waiting until October?

[MisterP]

119. that's the current party's dilemma: they've run on "we're not them (but don't cite us on that,

we might want to pass everything they want while threatening that they'll take over if we don't vote for us)" and "where else do you have to go?" they say "I'll tell you my policy when you vote me in" because they think they can

they spent 2001-6 telling us to vote in the primaries, then torpedoed any challenger--even the ones behind the Republican, or even endorsing Lieberman over the Dem! by then we realized they got the same amount of donations whether they won or lost; they kept us going with a Dem majority, then a President, then the promise of a supermajority (of course when Brown won they were RELIEVED since now the pressure was off to pass stuff)

we got a President with a populist campaign who then pissed it away into phone banking and scab teaching, even setting up a "veal pen" to keep us commoners from dirtying the floor: if we were allowed to keep our work money, keep money out of politics, and/or have half the health or education we're paying for, then their gravy train would stop (the DLC started late 80s to make sure the party had a dependable source of money--and that means neoliberal economics to keep the Saban and yuppie types happy)

but with a populist candidate with pull having to battle the DNC tooth and nail, all they have left to protect themselves are ranks of self-appointed hall monitors and racial accusations (from the candidate responsible for Lampedusa and the Aguan? really?)

[raindaddy]

131. Well said.. We're witnessing a 72 year old Socialist having to fight the leaders of of the ......

Democratic party for the soul of a party we've watched sell out to the plutocrats .

Will the Democrats end up filling the moderate gap the Republicans left when they voted out all of their moderates? Or will they embrace the tradition of the pro labor populist party willing to stand up to the fraudulent Wall Street banks, global corporations and create the economic revolution that just might save the middle class?

[Uncle Joe]

22. Fear trumps reason, reason trumps faith and faith trumps fear.

Thanks for the thread, Bonobo.

[a2liberal]

25. It's because there's not much to truthfully criticize about the candidate

without admitting that you have right-wing positions. Electability is the one thing they had and that keeps getting proven wrong. And smears against the candidate are much easier to disprove... smears against an amorphous blob of supporters not so much, because you can always point to an odd outlier.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Well said.

Nailed it.

[AtomicKitten]

26. Recommended.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. 1) Throw Shit At Wall.

2) See If It Sticks.

3) Repeat.

[frylock]

63. They throw their shit, then complain when it's bagged up and set aflame on their porch..

they stomp on the shitbag, getting shit over everything, and piss and moan about how the Sanders supporters are just mean and awful.

[BeanMusical]

102. Lol, well said.

[beam me up scottie]

104. ^^^THIS^^^

[cali]

31. yes. thanks for writing this.

[quickesst]

35. Y'all finally admit...

...your shortcomings, and the deserved criticism, then turn around and blame it on Bernie! That's just sad.

[Maedhros]

57. Huh?

What does that even mean?

[quickesst]

59. Don't worry...

...about it. Point is, too many of Bernie's supporters think they are being targeted to slam Bernie. Not the case at all. They are being targeted because what many espouse to be Bernie's views that are not. They are opinions of what they wish were Bernie's views were. Bernie is a good guy. It's some of his supporters support(?)that shines a negative light on him. DU wouldn't be what it is right now if they followed his lead instead of trying to lead him.

[Maedhros]

61. Yeah. Right.

/ignore.

[quickesst]

62. "/ignore"...

[JDPriestly]

122. Could you please provide some examples of Bernie supporters espousing views hat are not

Bernie's?

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

[quickesst]

167. Just....

...the nasty attitudes toward Clinton and her supporters. Same complaints as Bernies supporters have. Not political necessarily. Doesn't matter to me anymore. I finally realized how pointless it is to be wasting my time on a message board. Kind of like arguing about religion. Nobody wins, hard feelings, and, as I've stated, pointless.

[GoneFishin]

36. Because they have nothing on Bernie's policies.

[Gothmog]

37. One of the Sanders supporters told me that I was a bad parent

Evidently being a father of two daughters who were supporting HRC made me a bad parent. Both girls are very concern about things like the SCOTUS and are very well informed Democrats.

Look, it is not a sin and does not make one a bad Democrat or third way person for someone to support HRC over Sanders. Some of the attacks against members of this board have left many with a bad taste.

I will support the Democratic nominee. I am supporting HRC now because to date no one has convinced me that Sanders is a viable general election candidate in a race where the Koch Brothers will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. This not the first time that I have posted this request and I have yet to see a good answer.

[Bonobo]

38. That's nothing!

One of those Sander's supporters turned me into a newt!

...But I got better.

[Gothmog]

68. I am glad that you recovered

I personally do not blame Sanders for the bad behavior of his supporters. I find such behavior to be wrong and such behavior explains why Sanders is not winning new supporters outside a very narrow base. The comment from the Sanders supporter was dumb and showed me that it was not likely that Sanders could really build a network of volunteers to overcome his lack of fundraising.

I am basing my support right now on the fact that I simply do not think that Sanders is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. Money matters in today's elections and I refuse to ignore this fact.

[RichVRichV]

82. And if hillary has trouble with a candidate who spends almost nothing

getting his message out and refuses to attack her, what does that say about her chances in the generals?

[Gothmog]

106. According to Nate Silver, Hillary Clinton is 85% to be the nominee

Sanders is doing well with a very narrow base of supporters but has not caught on with the other elements of the Democratic base he will need to be the nominee. Even if the Clinton campaign suffers a meltdown, it is doubtful that Sanders would be the nominee in that Biden could jump in and get the nomination. Biden is getting far more press coverage for just thinking about running than Sanders is and that tells me that Sanders is not going to be the nominee.

[RichVRichV]

108. Funny, all that tells me is that the corporate media is trying to create the news

instead of reporting it.

And the current polls don't have her at 85%. That's where she started at and Bernie has been making up substantial ground. To the point he's starting to pull even in early primary states where he has gained the most attention.


The more people hear Bernie the more people like him. That's why the corporate media gives him as little attention as they can get away with, to the point of firing pundits who don't agree with their message.

[joshcryer]

147. So dismissive.

That poster wrote a heartfelt comment about their family and that's your response?

[Bonobo]

150. It was not "about their family", Josh.

It was about an anonymous Sanders supporting supposedly saying they are a "bad parent".

First of all, I am not at all certain such an event occurred.

Second of all, if it did, it certainly means nothing that should be taken seriously.

Last of all, it was not a post "about there family" as it had NO details at all about anything happening in their family. It was entirely about a "Sanders supporter being mean".

What was I supposed to say? I am not his mommy. I see no family problems, and the only thing "heartfelt" was a "heartfelt" hurt by an anonymous internet poster being a meanie-weenie. If he or she is a grownup, they need to grown up a bit more.

So save your lectures for when they are appropriate.

[joshcryer]

151. There are other people at the other end of the keyboard.

This shit is why I don't fucking participate anymore. Fucking stupid bullshit.

[Bonobo]

157. Making a Monty Python reference (did you miss it?) is not exactly cruelty, Josh.

Are you having a bad day?

[joshcryer]

159. I don't see what's not "grown up..."

...about being annoyed when someone calls you a bad parent because your kids support another candidate. Or when you make a reasonable, if misguided observation about elections.

I don't know the Monty Python reference.

But I do know when people result to insults I judge them as having a weak character and it becomes difficult to take them seriously.

[Bonobo]

161. Yeah, well that's your problem.

You don't know the reference to Monty Python and the Holy Grail and while I hate to judge people, that alone tells me you and I might not get along.

But more so, you have mistakenly assumed that I insulted someone. If so, please show me the insult because somewhere along the line, my cute reference to Monty Python transformed into "dismissive" which then took a super pill and mutated into an "insult".

I think you're having a bad day. Cheer up.

[joshcryer]

163. Oh, was it the newt reference?

Yeah, definitely stand by it being dismissive.

I'm sure you thought it was a thoughtful commentary on the state of affairs within certain groups.

The inference that someone was thin skinned and not a grown up was the insult.

[Bonobo]

165. I don't think I said to the poster that they were not grown up.

That was a reply to you. And much like your "twerps" comment, not directed at anyone directly.

But we're really going around and around.

And you know what? It's funny and ironic that here you are telling me to be nice and disagreeing with my essential thesis that the imbalance of attacks on Sanders supporters VS. criticism of Hillary is itself a really shitty and hurtful 'en masse' thing going on...

So , umm, what's your deal? You don't want me to make an inference that someone is thin skinned but you're like all cool about all this SHIT going on about White, racist, elitist, libertarian, venom-spewing misogynistic Hillary haters...

[Maedhros]

58. You've seen many good answers.

You just won't admit it, because that would weaken your argument.

[Gothmog]

66. I have yet to see an explanation that does not involve the Democratic Blue Wall being magic

The explanations that I have seen have been very very weak and are based on the Democratic Blue Wall being magical or on the concept that money does not matter in politics. The Democratic Blue Wall is not magic and money does matter in politics.

[JDPriestly]

124. What is your question?

Are you asking about Citizens United?

[Gothmog]

125. No, I am asking how Sanders will be viable in a general election campaign

Sanders does not appear to be viable in a contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the likely GOP nominee will be able to raise another billion dollars. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac, The super pacs associated with Clinton raised $24 million and so Clinton raised $70 this quarter.

[JDPriestly]

138. Bernie is not just refusing superpac money.

He is running a very clean campaign. You don't need as much money if you stay away from negative ads altogether.

Let's see how it goes.

The superpac system gives the oligarchs control over our country, stranglehold control. It's a choice that each of us has to make.

This election is probably our last chance for a long, long time to get the graft and corruption out of our political system.

Failure will have dire results. Could well be, as I see it, that our country would be broken up into smaller parts by fighting oligarchs.

Because that is where an entrenched oligarchy will take us -- to civil war as the different oligarchs fight with each other. That's the history of many areas of the world.

We stay together because we have what we believe are meaningful elections every 2-4 years. That is like a valve that lets out pressure.

We are getting to dynasty supported by an oligarchy faster than I would have expected. We have two dynasties trying to face off against each other for 2016: the Clintons and then Bushes. I don't know what Jeb's chances are of getting the nomination, much less Clinton's. But this is a very dangerous sign for what remains off our democracy.

[Gothmog]

173. Again, this is a variation of the theme that money does not matter in politics

In the real world, money matters in politics. Sanders would not be viable in a national election where the Kochs are spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. If Sanders does not have adequate financing, he will be buried by negative ads. Attacks ads do work and Sanders is vulnerable to be painted out of the mainstream just as Nixon painted McGovern as being out of the mainstream

The only way to change things is to win and for a Democratic President to appoint new justices to the SCOTUS who will vote against Citizens United. If the GOP wins in 2016, then a GOP president will pick three or four SCOTUS justices who will control the SCOTUS for next generation. Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and O'Malley are all committed to selecting SCOTUS justices who are opposed to the Citizens United and keeping control of the POTUS is the only way to change things

I am not comfortable with relying of the concept that money does not matter in politics fantasy. Again, I have asked this same question as to how Sanders will be viable in the general election and I have yet to receive an answer that I am comfortable with

[Maedhros]

142. And your advice is that we should let money win the Democratic Primary as well.

Not advice I can follow.

[Bonobo]

145. Nor I. nt

[Gothmog]

172. So you are okay with three Alito clones being added to the SCOTUS

[joshcryer]

152. If Sanders gets the nod he's not going to say no to money.

And the campaign is going to be $2-5 billion. So let's not get carried away here and act as if Sanders is going to fall on some liberal sword and refuse big campaign money if he gets the nod. That is utterly preposterous.

I disagree with that poster in that I think any Democratic nominee is going to be able to pull in that kind of money, and it's going to suck to have to do it, but that's how it is. Obama got that kind of money, too, but he was able to make it look like he didn't get the big bucks.

[Gothmog]

171. Only if you care about winning

If you are willing to give the election to the Kochs and let a GOP president pick three or four SCOTUS justices then Sanders plan is great

No one likes dark money or Citizens United. However nothing will change unless a Democrat is in the White House on January 20, 2017.

[Maedhros]

174. Electing Hillary is a hollow victory.

Sure, there's a 'D' instead of an 'R' next to the President's name, but what do we really win?

Hillary will continue the belligerent foreign policy championed by Bush and Obama. More kids will be shipped off to fight and die for corporate profits in some pointless third-world conflict. Social Security will be "strengthened" by cutting benefits. Regulations on Wall Street will continue to evaporate. Unions will continue to get kicked in the face. Wealth will continue to bleed from the working and middle classes and will continue to accumulate at the top. Fracking will continue, the Keystone XL pipeline will go through, whistle blowers will continue to be prosecuted, the NSA will continue to spy on citizens...

There's a reason why Hillary has all that money - because the corporations that gave it to her consider her a good investment. A vote for Hillary is a vote for corporate interests.

Sanders will win if Democrats show some courage and simply vote for the candidate who champions the issues Democrats claim to support. Hillary will win if Democrats continue to be timid and fearful.

[Gothmog]

175. So in your view, it is better to lose and let the GOP control the SCOTUS???

Sanders has less than a 15% chance of being the Democratic nominee according to Nate Silver. Even if there was a massive implosion or scandal with the Clinton camaign, Biden would step in and be the nominee. Sanders is not a viable general election candidate. I keep asking for someone to show me how Sanders would be a viable general election candidate and your posts is admission that Sanders is not viable but it is better to lose control of the White House and the SCOTUS than let Hillary Clinton or another Democrat other than Sanders be elected

As for it being a loss if Hillary Clinton wins, I live in Texas where we are living with the effects of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act due to Alito and Roberts. The next POTUS will likely pick three or four nominees to the SCOTUS and I do not want to see the GOP get to select clones of Roberts and Alito who will control the court for the next generation. I am not willing to see Roe v. Wade overturned without a fight or watch the right to privacy gutted.

Here are the ages of the SCOTUS now http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/perry-identifies-the-top-issue-the-2016-race

?itok=RU4tfAN1

BTW, Clinton has promised to only appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote to overturn Citizens United. That is an important issue to me

[Maedhros]

179. I vehemently oppose those Democrats who, acting from fear, will accept a terrible candidate

(Clinton) simply because they refuse to step up to the challenge of electing a fantastic candidate (Sanders). It shows me that all their talk about liberal and progressive values is just that: empty talk. When it comes to doing the hard work to elect a President that will actually take action on those values, they cringe and go with (in their minds) the easy solution - just let Citizen United select the President, because putting an actual progressive in the White House is too hard.

Suppose we follow that craven logic: for the election cycles in 2016, 2020, 2024 and 2028, we elect the corporate-approved, big-money, lesser-of-two-evils, liberal-in-rhetoric-only candidate, what kind of Democratic Party will we have in 2034? How will it be distinguishable in any way from the Republican Party we have now? This approach guarantees the failure of our Democracy in the long run, in exchange for the short-term panacea of "not as bad."

We need to play to win, instead of "not to lose." We have a candidate in Sanders that stands for everything - let me repeat, everything - that Democrats claim to want. Yet a big chunk of those same Democrats lack the courage of their convictions to the degree that they will throw away their core values in order to kick the can down the road a bit by letting Hillary buy the nomination.

[Gothmog]

182. I live in the real world where electability is important

I keep asking again and again the simple question which is to show me how Sanders is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate will be spending another billion dollars. I have yet to receive an answer that does not rely on magical thinking. Your response is that it does not matter if we win so long as no one is the Democratic nominee other than Sanders does not work for me.

We are the primary process and everyone is free to support the candidate of their choice. So far Sanders appeals to a very narrow segment of the party and is not making any headway with key groups who the Democrats need to turnout if they want to win. Right now, I am supporting a candidate who can win and will not be supporting a candidate who is not viable in the general election.

In addition, the candidate who I am supporting has been endorsed by most of the Democratic members of Congress who know her best. Your candidate has no endorsements from any of his fellow members of Congress. I am supporting a candidate who has a proven track records and resume as compared to a candidate who has not past any major legislation. I am sorry but for me, the decision is not that close

Again, this is the primary process and you are free to use you won criterion for selecting a candidate to support. Just do not demonize or claim that I am a member of the Democratic party who is covered by your post

vehemently oppose those Democrats who, acting from fear, will accept a terrible candidate

As for hard work, I live in Texas and I have been working my butt off to turn this state blue. Just because I disagree with your choice of candidate does not mean that I and others are not working hard.

Finally, your prediction is based on the Democrats not winning in 2016. If Hillary Clinton is POTUS, she will be selecting SCOTUS nominees who will vote to overturn Citizens United and that is the only way that we will break this cycle.

[Maedhros]

183. I live in the real world as well.

My post was predicated on the lesser-of-two-evils Democrats winning all those elections, each time pulling the Party farther and farther Right and placing more and more of the Party under corporate control.

Sanders has made opposition to Citizen's United a litmus test for his SCOTUS appointments. I for one don't trust Hillary to do so, because as you very clearly point out, money is her only real advantage. Why would she do anything to undermine that?

[Gothmog]

185. Do you really believe this?

The Democrats can only hope to keep the financial race close in this post Citizens United world. Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat current running that can compete against the GOP dark money machine and it is to her advantage to shut this down.

The premise of your post is simply wrong. I hate to break it you but it is very very unlikely that Sanders will be the nominee in that Sanders has little or no support outside of a very narrow segment of the party.

Again, this is the primary process and I will support the candidate who I think is most qualified and who is most viable. If you want to win support for Sanders, figure out how he is viable in a general election contest. None of your fellow Sanders supporters have provided me with an explanation that makes sense

[Maedhros]

186. "Sanders has little or no support outside of a very narrow segment of the party."

This is yet to be seen.

However, if you are correct, it vindicates my decision to leave the Party. If Sanders has such little appeal to the Democratic Party, as you suggest, then the Party is full of hypocrites. Sanders embodies everything - and Clinton so very little - that so-called Democratic "liberals" and "progressives" claim to support. That such a candidate would not gather much stronger support seems strange.

I would submit in response that you are propagating a false narrative, and that Sanders has much broader support than you suggest. Polls can be manipulated, but the huge crowds that Sanders is bringing in don't lie.

[SixString]

39. DU Rec.

[underthematrix]

42. Here's an article about Bernie Supporters

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/22/ironic-hijacking-bernie-sanders-campaign-elitist-white-progressives.html

[Bonobo]

43. What's really amazing is how these horrible Sander's people manage to avoid personal attacks

on Hillary supporters and instead focus on the political views of the candidates! It's horrible!

[underthematrix]

44. I wouldn't call Bernie supporters horrible because that's

sort of meaningless but the article is instructive as to why he hasn't gotten a lot of POC support. Bernie is not the problem but he does own the problem.

[Bonobo]

45. The beauty of this thread is that it is happening right in front of our eyes. Proof of the OP.

You will see this kicked and kicked and kicked.

[Zorra]

93. What is even more beautiful is that the smears are helping destroy Clinton's campaign right in

front of our eyes.

[DanTex]

46. This is because Sanders is a great person, but many of his supporters are unhinged Hillary-bashers.

[Bonobo]

47. In all honesty, Dan, you have disappointed me.

And I'm afraid my opinion of you has been made up with that post.

Because you miss the point AND you are being disingenuous.

Naturally there are "unhinged" on both sides. The issue is do we focus on the politicians or their supporters.

You have cast your vote.

Oh, I know. You don't care about my opinion. That's fine. But I am letting you know that I am pretty sure I am not the only one judging you by YOUR venom.

Please note, btw, how much venom I have spewed at Hillary supporters. The answer? None.

[DanTex]

48. Find me the Clinton supporters here who have threatened to sit out the GE if the

primary doesn't go their way, and then talk to me about "unhinged" supporters on both sides.

Find me something comparable to Bernie supporters gleefully cheering on the email with hunt.

The fact is, most Hillary supporters like Bernie, but simply like Hillary more, or else don't think Bernie can with against the GOP. Bernie supporters, at least those on DU, for the most part hate Hillary, for reasons that can't possibly be justified based on policy.

[Bonobo]

51. Nothing that you say justifies broad attacks on people instead of a focus on the candidates. nt

[DanTex]

52. Well, your OP was an attack on Clinton supporters, who among other things, you called "sleazy".

I'm going to comment on whatever I find worthy of commenting on. In this case, the disconnect between Bernie, who likes and respects Hillary, and his supporters, many of whom can't stand her, is worthy of comment.

[TheFarS1de]

83. Funny ...

You always find a reason for offense whenever the word Sanders is mentioned . Your allegiance to a party and not the ideals are readily apparent .

[sibelian]

111. To be perfectly frank, DanTex, a substantial chunk of Hillary supporters on this site

remind me of the Republican wormtongues that infested the media in the aftermath of 9/11. I think "sleazy" is a rather mild term for them.

Given the revolting attempts to reduce support for Sanders by posting thoroughly irrelevant remarks about his supporters is beneath contempt and I no longer have any patience with people who bloviate on in this fashion, either they have something to say about Sanders or they don't and it's becoming increasingly obvous that they don't.

[bettyellen]

187. It's different when the OP does it! Lol. Actually it's not.

[JDPriestly]

126. I'm the Bernie supporter who will not vote for Hillary if he is nominated.

I cannot in good conscience do that because based on her votes and on her husband's record, I do not think she has good judgment.

I might not have made the decision not to vote for her if I lived in a state in which my vote was needed to get a Democrat to win. But I live in California. This is a Blue State through and through although we have had some Republican governors. Not only is our state blue, not only do we always vote Democratic or virtually always, but our votes are counted last and don't count for much.

Besides, I say that if Hillary has not won by the time California's votes are counted, she can't win anyway.

But my conscience does not permit me to vote for her. Her vote for the Iraq War Resolution, her stance on LGBT marriage, involvement with the TPP which I totally oppose, her refusal to say her mind on the XL pipeline and her and Bill's decisions and stances on numerous other ISSUES trouble me very greatly.

My decision is based on her stances on the ISSUES. I am sure she is a nice lady. She has good stances on women's and children's issues.

But I cannot vote for a person whose stances on the issues are so different from my own. I don't need to, so I won't.

I hope you understand this.

[delrem]

154. If your conscience does not permit you to vote for a person,

that should not be conditioned on the qualification that in your circumstances your vote doesn't matter (so it's supposedly "OK&quot

The US can't understand the idea that there might be an alternative to a two party D vs R system, where $$$ controls all. This is so even though perhaps the majority of US citizens understand, at some level, that their bivalent political system is rigged by an oligarchy that controls every aspect of it.

So you have a country where James Carville and Mary Matilin are a power couple in both the '08 and '16' elections, and the Bush and Clinton families are long term friends and political partners. And this is considered unremarkable. This is the same situation as occurred in Columbia after the coup (see the wiki page summary) - yet in the USA it's been so normal for so long that most people don't even know there was a coup.

[me b zola]

49. K&R

[LWolf]

50. Thank you. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. My favorite is apparently I am a white supremacist

Or just a mid range racist.

And I don't even support Sanders. Perish the thought if I did

Open antisemitism is coming

[rhett o rick]

54. Attacking Sanders' supporters is a diversion from discussing issues.

When was the last time you saw a Clinton supporter actually discussing an issue. Ask them about fracking, XL Pipeline, Iraq War, free college tuition, raising the SS cap, drone killing innocent people, NSA spying, or any issue.

[JDPriestly]

127. You are so right.

They never talk about the issues.

I posted about how Bernie could pay for college, and I got some skeptical, doubtful, fearful responses like --- it can't be done. Vermont couldn't do it. Never mind that several states are close to covering everyone. Oregon is close, not quite there, but close for one. Never mind that every European country does it.

What I notice is that the Hillary supporters don't normally argue about the rightness or wrongness of Bernie's stances on the issues.

It's always more -- well, that can't be done because . . . . And of course, Bernie has answered that argument by saying he is asking not just to get elected but to have a political revolution which would mean a Congress that would make the changes needed.

Another argument is, well, I like Bernie, but he can't be elected because . . . . the polls. He keeps climbing steadily in the polls, and if all the Hillary supporters who admit they like his positions on issues but just won't vote for him because . . . . the polls, backed him, he would climb even faster in the polls and soon enough overtake Hillary's lead.

Then there is the argument that he can't win in the general election because the Republicans will spend a lot of money. That is a really sick argument because what it really means is that we will never be able to have a democracy funded by the people, that we are stuck with the oligarchs deciding with their money, their, what amounts to, bribes, the direction of the country.

So far i haven't heard any arguments about the issues. Hillary supporters often say they support Bernie's stances on the issues.

That's why they resort to bashing Bernie's supporters. They are torn between following their hearts and their social morality and voting for and supporting Bernie or their fear, fear of actually doing something different and voting for a candidate they really want to be president, a candidate with whom they agree on the major issues.

The Hillary supporters are suffering from inner conflict -- whether to do the expedient, popular thing and support Hillary -- or whether to do the courageous, morally and politically wisest thing and support Bernie.

It's tough to have a conflict like that to deal with.

I decided for courage and moral and political wisdom.

So did Bernie -- long ago.

Feel the Bern.

[hifiguy]

191. Well, when your candidate takes no substantive policy positions

whatsoever, and has to pre-clear every world she says in public with her owners at Goldman Sachs, things slow down a bit. Give HRH a break. All that polling, focus-grouping and turd-polishing takes a long time.

[JDPriestly]

193. Interesting that she polls high in Iowa.

Iowa is 33rd in broadband connections.

http://broadbandnow.com/Iowa

That is of course, 33 out of 50. Not really great.

New Hampshire is 25th.
\http://broadbandnow.com/New-Hampshire

Here is a map for the US indicating broadband availability.

It would be interesting to compare some other states.

Vermont 49th.

http://broadbandnow.com/Vermont

But Vermonters know Bernie from way back.

Texas is 46th

http://broadbandnow.com/Texas

Mississippi is 41st.

http://broadbandnow.com/Mississippi




Nebraska is 34th

http://broadbandnow.com/Nebraska


Colorado 32nd.

http://broadbandnow.com/Colorado


South Carolina is 30th

http://broadbandnow.com/South-Carolina


Pennsylvania is 19th.

http://broadbandnow.com/Pennsylvania

California is 11th

http://broadbandnow.com/California

According to the 2013, analysis by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) an international organization designed to stimulate world trade, the US now ranks 16th (down from 14th in 2010) for wired broadband penetration behind Korea, Canada, and New Zealand.[1]

http://broadbandnow.com/report/2013-broadband-penetration/

Here is the chart

http://broadbandnow.com/report/2013-broadband-penetration/

We are failing when it comes to broadband availability. Korea has more broadband than we do. A mountainous country, Switzerland, has more broadband than we do. (It has the most broadband.)

The mainstream media is pretty closed to Bernie, really, so the lack of broadband in certain states is a problem.

[hifiguy]

195. South Korea is supposedly the most wired/interconnected country on the planet.

It was a big govermental priority, as was the worldwide export of SK pop culture.

I just read a funny, very interesting book called "The Birth of Korean Cool" by Euny Hong. SK's economic rise to prominence in the last two decades was virtually all a result of what used to be called "industrial policy" including shipping SK teevee programs and K-pop all over the world, often financed by the SK government. Psy was the first example that the US saw on a mass scale, but it's been happening all over the rest of the world for a decade-plus.

[Babel_17]

55. Well, on the internet the Sanders campaign is leading in mind share

Some resenting that ascendancy resort to tactics that are all too typical of the internet. It really does boil down to that, imo. Vince Foster's suicide, President Obama's childhood, Sanders being a civil rights advocate, all are grist for the big lie treatment on the internet.

Now even columnists write about him in a manner possibly suited to the comments section of a Yahoo article, but not up to the standards of journalism.

Start with a premise, make up "facts" to suit it.

Meh, I figure, so this is what terror smells like in its electronic form. The pretend umbrage is actually funny on one level. That the fake umbrage is over serious issues is just sad though. And the level of hypocrisy is appalling. But we're way past the turning point prior to which the Sanders campaign had to struggle to get its message heard on the internet. The best strategy now is to just note the more prominent lies and ignore the rest of that sort of clamor.

At this point it's mostly about distraction. Other prominent candidates don't have the message and momentum to match that of the Sanders campaign and that lack is publicly hurting them in a big way. The embarrassment of it is galling as the Sanders campaign is a true David to most other prominent campaigns Goliath.

They can't change that any time soon no matter how hard they try to spin their current position, so they have to distract people from the Sanders campaign impressive successes.

Fear regarding having Senator Sanders as our candidate, and then President.
Uncertainty as to what Sanders stands for.
Doubt as to what this campaign and eventual election are all about.

FUD is what is being spread and it's most certainly a sign of a flawed opposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

You just can't lend credibility to those spreading it. There are lots of ways to fend it off, but conceding credibility to those spreading FUD is not one of them.

They've already lost this battle and can now only provide a nuisance value. They couldn't spoke the wheels of the Sanders campaign as it was just getting started. Now that it has momentum it has too many people supporting the campaign for the BS flung at it to become unmanageable. They blew the opportunity to marginalize this campaign, and oh how that Berns.

[RobertEarl]

69. Fight the FUD

No fear about Bernie as candidate or president. If he is the candidate then he will be elected president because everyone on DU and every Democrat will vote for him. And so will most independent voters.

There is no uncertainty about what Sanders stands for. His history proceeds him and while he is not perfect he is the most perfect politician this country has ever witnessed. It would actually be cool if anyone can point out another such candidate as being more perfect than Bernie.

There is no doubt that having Bernie as president will make this country better. He stands for equality and fairness. He is for peace and health care for all.

On none of these points can his opposition overcome him and prove better. But I look forward to anyone trying to find someone better than Bernie..

[aikoaiko]

60. Its true; Bernie supporters are being attacked for defending their candidate & comparing him to HRC

HRC will do the same if they lose the lead in the primaries or if things get close in the general. Some comments may even be over the lines of decorum.

We know this because we saw it in 2007.

[sabrina 1]

67. I just take it all as a sign of desperation that the people are deciding who they want now

rather than allowing Corporate powers to decide for them.

All their money isn't helping to stop the surge of support for a candidate that the people feel is finally talking TO and ABOUT them, not AT them, not demanding 'loyalty' rather than earning it.

So let them keep on being negative, let them keep on NOT talking about issues, all we have to do is ignore them and keep on talking about what the people want to talk about.

It's working so far, and just think, no Corporate money has been spent at all to just tell the truth.

[lunatica]

70. As a Sanders supporter I don't give a shit what others think of me

Truly. I also don't Hate Hillary or Hillary supporters. I reserve all that "passion" for Republicans. I think they're incomplete human beings, or unevolved, or uneducated and proud of it.

[MrMickeysMom]

80. I'm with you, lunatica...

I've tried to be honest about calling it like it is, but if that gets people that irritated, they should remind themselves that attacking the person is a false argument in itself.

[840high]

97. You are right. I don't even hate

republicans - I view them as my fellow Americans with different thinking.

[thesquanderer]

74. I don't get why anyone cares why someone *else* supports a candidate

So what if there are libertarians who like Sanders? Or NRA fans, or anyone else? Heck, it's just that many more people who might consider voting for him in November. We don't all have to like a candidate for the same reasons. We don't all have to like each other, either, to support the same candidate.

[brooklynite]

76. ...except that I have -no- objection to Bernie Sanders, just to -some- of his supporters here...

...who throw hyperbole at Clinton rather than thoughtful disagreements on policy, and call working class people who don't see the campaign the way they do "idiots".

[Amimnoch]

117. Exactly!!

This.

[JDPriestly]

128. Please provide concrete examples of the posts that offend you.

That way we Bernie supporters can know what we are doing that is so objectionable. Thanks.

[Bobbie Jo]

132. No you wouldn't

It's been done.

Providing examples only results in more dismissive hand waving.

Mob behavior is fascinating.

[GoneFishin]

169. Listen .... crickets.

[seaglass]

192. Do you think referring to people as "race nagging" is objectionable? That would be a good place

to start. Thanks.

[rhett o rick]

130. Explain which "policy" discussions you'd like to discuss. There are posts after posts

that discuss what Sen Sanders stands are on the issues. There are zero posts on H. Clinton's stands.

Sen Sanders says that college should be free to those qualified. What does H. Clinton say? No one should be in debt for going to college. Think about it. Pure rhetoric. No one "should"... yada yada yada. Heavy on the "should".

How about fracking? She thinks it's a good source of energy (and profits for oil companies). The hell with the aquifers that are ruined. People can buy water from Pepsi or Coke.

XL Pipeline, how does she stand? With the 99% or with the corporations?

[treestar]

78. I would say don't pretend

that only goes one way.

[RoccoR5955]

81. What irks me

is that they come up with these memes, then when asked to prove them, they are not found, or they just reword and repeat the damn tired old meme.

[Dont call me Shirley]

84. and we are "racist, white privileged elitists" according to some duers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=524437

[MisterP]

86. also "you're intruders onto our subforums because you're just responding to your candidate

being insulted after decades of your kind ignoring our issues" (carefully neglecting that most "issue" posts are in GD anyway)

[retrowire]

89. yep.

sanders is untouchable so they attack the supporters instead.

[Pharaoh]

91. Please provide quotes

[WillyT]

92. K & R !!!

[Aerows]

96. Well said, Bonobo

I will say it now - I am a Bernie Sanders supporter.

I've been hounded toward saying things to get a post hidden and resisted the urge.

Be wary.

Be as polite as you can, folks, it's only going to get more cutthroat from here since Bernie is surging as a candidate.

[navarth]

121. +a gazillion

..and might I add: please everybody, avoid feeding trolls...they're pretty obvious and go away if you don't feed them

[HassleCat]

101. Guilt by association

This is something every political candidate has to endure. Some of it is pretty bizarre, such as the editorial proposing Sanders is attracting "elitist white progressives," whatever they are. This is the kind of thing one would expect from Republicans, not supporters of a Democratic candidate. I have to admit some of my fellow Sanders supporters have engaged in this sort of thing, too. I wish we could all just focus on the issues and the candidates' good points.

[BeanMusical]

103. Kick and R

[Douglas Carpenter]

109. knr

[Phlem]

113. Fricken K&R!

[d_legendary1]

114. I've noticed this as well

Can't attack the candidate so attack their base. This is really stupid and it will backfire since his supporters come from all sides of the isle. Has it ever occurred to some people that Bernie's supporters are just plain tired of the establishment taking a major dump on their heads? This election cycle isn't about making friends with the Republicans; its about restoring the middle class.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. it's like the macarena on a circa '96 cruise ship - EVERYONE IS DOING IT!

Serious jourmalists all the way from buzzfeed to politicsusa have apparently been given very clear instructions to write breathy anecdotal ad hominem hit pieces, totally devoid of anything resembling actual evidence or facts, delineating in no uncertain terms what a bunch of doody-heads Sanders' supporters are.

[Bonobo]

137. The macarena is far more dignified. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

166. Apparently Secretary Clinton still owes the American People a Macarena.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/hillary-clinton-vows-to-do-the-macarena-with-al-gore-when-news-footage/450000682

I'm not sure she and Al Gore still keep in touch, though.

[PatrickforO]

139. K & R!

Absolutely true. They criticize us because they can't find anything to criticize with Bernie. And they rail against us and say if we don't 'shape up' then THEY will NOT support Bernie. I guess shaping up means shutting up - not being vocal about our support.

It reminds me of nothing so much as the kid on the playground years ago who said to me, "Do what I want or I WON'T be your friend!"

Thing is, that kid was never my friend.

[joshcryer]

146. Campaign supporters are political ambassadors.

It is obvious that some people bash the ambassadors in order to make a chink in Sanders' armor or numerical advances, but that's neither here nor there.

I disavow a lot of what Sanders "supporters" say or do because I don't think they're true supporters, I think they're anti-Clinton or "anti-establishment" types who don't actually support Sanders or do anything for him. The first clue is anyone who says that they will not vote for the nominee if they're not Sanders. Sanders wouldn't want that and if Sanders loses he will call for his supporters to vote for the nominee.

It's really fucked up how this is just yet another continuation of the BLM stuff that was blown way out of proportion in order to inoculate poor (as in not very good) Sanders "supporters" from the rest.

Fortunately most Sanders supporters are not irrelevant online forum posters, and they are doing the real work that has a chance of getting him nominated. Once you get out of the online forum poster bubble you realize just how utterly insignificant it all is. Weeks of BS posts dedicated to the BLM thing that was literally over within a day from the point of view of the campaign. (If any thing these forum posts are what are keeping such non-sense alive, because some writer will see it still has legs and write some clickbait title to keep it going.)

[Bonobo]

153. No, Josh, they are voters with an internet connection.

They are voters expressing their opinions on an anonymous internet forum.

"Ambassadors". Give me a break.

The fact underlying all of this is the bizarre imbalance represented by, on the one hand, criticism (or "rabid, frothing at the mouth animal-like rage and blind hatred: if you are someone who likes their spin) of Hillary, the Democratic candidate running for the presidency of the United Stats on the one hand, and ridiculously broad attacks on the supporters (voters, or "ambassadors" if you like a dramatic flair) of Sanders on the other hand.

Here, in simple form.

Critique of Hillary VS. Critique of supporters of Sanders.

That is a bizarre dynamic however you want to look at it.

This is a serious election. We are looking for a President, not doing a half-assed psyche profile on millions of different of people (if such a thing were possible).

[joshcryer]

155. I have no evidence to believe they are anything more.

Because in real life none of these idiotic conversations come up. It's always online internet drama where I see these arguments. In real life most people take their role as ambassador seriously, they don't drudge up outrage over anonymous internet personality clashes.

And sure there are some that do, but when they do they're not taken seriously by anyone.

But the internet is "serious business."

Oh, unless you want to be a big "meanie-weanie," I guess.

[Bonobo]

156. Glad you agree.

And since we are all just voters with an internet connection, the least we can do is be honest and try to some equanimity in how we talk about things.

And so, once again, I bring up the point of my response to you -that you did not respond back to - namely, that the bizarre imbalance of discussing Hillary's issues on one hand while focusing on Bernie supporters as a guilt by association tactic is bizarre and dishonest.

[joshcryer]

158. There's nothing to attack Sanders on.

There's no issue that he's really bad on. I guess Israel but I support him on Israel and most people you'd expect to bash him on Israel hold their tongue.

So the lines are formed with the personality conflict. The ironic part is that it's self-perpetuating. People take sides when they don't have to. We can agree with Sanders on issues and agree with other people on other issues without magically disagreeing with or not supporting Sanders. It's all about how you "look" to the internet mob.

Fuck it. It's why I'm not posting as regularly any more. I know where I stand on issues I care about and I'm not going to let some anonymous internet twerps annoy me.

[Bonobo]

160. Twerps? What happened to the "there are other people at the end of the internet" thing?

Physician, heal thyself and all that rigamarole.

[joshcryer]

162. I don't recall specifically calling anyone that.

[Bonobo]

164. Still, tossing around a term like that so callously. You never know WHO might get hurt! nt

[Bonobo]

168. Time to kick again. The demonization continues. nt

[beam me up scottie]

170. It's all they've got.

Pathetic.

[RandySF]

176. No

Bernie was not responsible for the online harassment of the scientist that gave Hillary an award.

[LondonReign2]

177. "FUCKED UP and rather a sleazy way to approach things."

Describes the way the Clinton campaign is running to a T.

[cali]

181. it's only going to get uglier. Hillary will not attack Bernie herself. surrogates

will be dispatched to do the dirty job. We have overwhelming evidence that this is how they operate. Both Bill and Hillary have long histories of engaging in the politics of personal destruction, which considering that they've both been targeted by those same tactics, is both sad and ironic. I have no doubt that Hillary's campaign is actively involved with trying to paint bernie's campaign as hostile minorities. And the parade of Clinton surrogates doing this started a couple of months ago.

[Bonobo]

189. How right you were! nt

[Bonobo]

188. If you look closely, you will see this happening against individuals as well.

The demonization -on a personal level- against Sanders supporters is on the increase.

It is a tactic and it is foul as hell.

[Warren DeMontague]

194. yeah

I'm catching more than a whiff of desperation, whistling past the graveyard.

"I'm not skeeeeeered!"

[hifiguy]

190. It is bullshit straight out of the Atwater/Rove playbook.

That much is as obvious as a grizzly bear in a phone booth.