The main reason, IMO, that Bernie fans are failing to draw people over to their side.

[DanTex]

It's because they simply cannot comprehend why anyone would not support Bernie. Most of the big failures of the Bernie movement stem from this essential misunderstanding. The aftermath of the BLM debacle, for example. Bernie fans figured, hey, we're just going to tell PoC that Bernie marched with King, and then they're all going to love him. After all, who wouldn't, he's so great an Hillary is so horrible. When that didn't work, they got angry.

You see it every time Hillary gets a big endorsement. Bernie fans can't possibly believe that a major union or LCV or respected progressives in congress actually support Hillary, so the angrily hit Twitter and Facebook with conspiracy theories. Same thing after the first debate. Bernie fans were just positive that he had crushed it, and when the scientific polls came back saying the opposite, it just had to be a conspiracy.


Here's the thing. Hillary supporters aren't dumb. They aren't Third Way. They aren't bought off. They aren't any of that. They simply think that Hillary is a better candidate. And posting the video of her IWR speech 100 more times is going to change a total of zero minds. We already know that she voted for the IWR -- anyone who's mind is going to be changed by that has already changed their mind.

As I see it, the main reasons people support Hillary over Bernie and Martin are:
1) She'll be a more effective leader
2) She's more electable
Yes, there are other reasons too. Bernie's supporters have turned off quite a few people, particularly PoC. She has more experience. She's better on gun policy. Her policies on certain issues are better thought out. She hasn't spent her whole career bashing the Democratic party. It's time to elect a woman president. And more.

Still, IMO, effective leadership and electability are the biggest things Hillary has got that Bernie does not. Here's where Bernie fans freak out and repeat the usual talking points:

Bernie was in favor of X before Hillary was.
Nobody cares. What matters is who is more likely to get something accomplished about X, and that's Hillary.
Bernie will bring out disaffected voters and independents.
There's no evidence for this (aside from meaningless anecdotes). It might be true to a small extent, but this effect will be dwarfed by people who think Bernie is too far left, and the fact that his campaign can't compete financially with the GOP.
Bernie polls well in GE matchups
This is because the GOP has not run any attack ads against Bernie, and are training all their fire on Hillary.
Corporatist! Bankster! Oligarch!
LOL
Bernie's going to usher in a political revolution that turns both chambers of congress blue.
No he isn't. It's going to be gridlock either way.

[JaneyVee]

1. Shhh!

The more they attack Hillary, the higher her poll numbers go.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Your post should be an entree to a thoughtful discussion but it won't.

EOM

[Doubledee]

35. Perspective

One persons thoughtful discussion is another persons hit piece.

[upaloopa]

3. Bernie folks are much like a group of people on the right. Meaning their actions and mechanics and

motives are similar. The thing of going on social media to attack people and to try and build a false narrative is something people on the right do. It is ideology driven. I really think they support Bernie because they feel he agrees with them rather than them seeing Bernie as a leader. They will throw Bernie under the bus with everyone else they have thrown there, it's just a matter of time. They wanted Warren but she meant it when she said she wasn't running. They tried to draft her as if they could manipulate her into doing their bidding. Then Bernie said he might run if there was enough support. So they switched to Bernie.
Bernie folks see themselves as on a holy crusade. They are the progressives, they are the liberals they are the Democrats. They will define everybody else, Hillary and her supporters using their paradigm.

They can't get more than 25% support because they are a fringe group. Not that Bernie is a fringe candidate but his followers are really not loyal to him, they are not followers of his. They existed long before he announced his candidacy. He gave them voice.

They do not inspire people to follow them. Theirs is not a happy, hopeful, uplifting movement that people want to join. Rather it is a mean spirited, self centered, bullying kind of thing that turns a lot of people off.

That's the face they have shown to me. I really think that Bernie understands this and he doesn't see these folks as the movement he wants to lead. After all if you can't get more than 25% support how are you going to get the 10's of millions to start the revolution.

No these Bernie fans will not start a revolution. They just do not inspire other people to join them.

[NurseJackie]

10. "Fringe group" Yes! Exactly right!

A small but loud core that is incapable of persuading enough voters, but very good at driving them away.

[shenmue]

43. Yes upa

[Tarheel_Dem]

86. I agree with you, but you obviously hurt someone's feelings. I'm #3.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Tue Nov 10, 2015, 09:29 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Bernie folks are much like a group of people on the right. Meaning their actions and mechanics and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=789176

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The thing of going on social media to attack people and to try and build a false narrative is something people on the right do.

This probably won't get locked but it should be.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Nov 10, 2015, 09:40 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is criticism of a supposed political movement. Not too much different than other criticisms (of other groups) we see here on DU all the time. Grow a thicker skin is my only suggestion.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The purpose of the jury is not to stifle thought that you may not agree with. You are using the jury system improperly.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I hope the alerter is right when he/she says "This probably won't get locked", because I vote to Leave it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Painting w/a really broad brush ..... I don't like it when Hillary people do this about Bernie
and his supporters nor do I care for it from Bernie people either. This post is low rent crap
w/the goal of stirring up anger.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Broad brush smear. Unacceptable.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[mymomwasright]

4. Hillary is third way! The people just fail to see it!

$12 minimum wage is a point blank example. The bar is higher! The people deserve it! Oh yeah, and Hillary supported TPP 40 times before she opposed it! [link:http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/|

[mymomwasright]

5. Thanks liberal/corporate/turd way media!

EOM

[Walk away]

78. I have always said that Bernie supporters are just talking to themselves most of the time.

Finally!!!!! Proof!!!!!

[stonecutter357]

12. The people just fail to see it!

That is RWNJ talk

[DanTex]

14. Why do you think the people fail to see it?

Could it be perhaps that a $12 minimum wage would be both the largest percentage increase since 1950, and also the highest inflation-adjusted minimum wage ever?

[shenmue]

41. Replying to yourself. Enjoy your stay.

[tk2kewl]

7. a better leader...

Leading us to where exactly?

LOL @ corporatism and oligarchy? I don't find those things to be funny.

And who is more electable is certainly up for discussion as Bernie seems to have crossover appeal while Hillary is mostly hated on the right

[2pooped2pop]

44. better at

Convincing the people that her plan or actions are for them.

Better at throwing the little people a small bone so they wont see the steak fed to the corporations.

Yeah better. Better for the continued decline of the US.

[Hiraeth]

49. He forgot to add :on DU: elsewhere on the internet people are not so stubborn.

[Orrex]

50. "Bernie seems to have crossover appeal"

This is an article of faith among Sanders' acolytes, but it is not strongly supported by evidence, and evidence is very lacking that these "crossover voters" would actually make the leap and vote for Sanders in Nov 2016.

LOL @ corporatism and oligarchy? I don't find those things to be funny.

A failed Sanders candidacy won't be much funnier.

I will vote for Sanders if he miraculously lands on the ballot, but--as great leaders go--he would likely lead the country to a Republican Whitehouse.


I know that his acolytes refuse to believe this, and as long as they vote for the Democrat in Nov 2016, I don't care.

[mmonk]

8. We are not to be defined as Bernie "fans". He is a vehicle we see to make a change

in this country for the common good. Until you figure that out, the conversations it appears will not advance. It won't be about ideas.

[upaloopa]

11. That's what I said. But get this. You can't speak for everyone's common good. You don't get to

define everybody else. You don't get to determine what is best for everyone else. You are not standing on some mountain top yelling down to the masses, "Vote for me and I'll set you free."

[mmonk]

26. I've been talked down to enough by those that say what is in my good or not.

You see, I know what happened in the 1990's that led to the crash in 2008. Their advice on politics isn't any better with all the state legislatures the Republicans control and a gerrymandered House while their chosen for the Senate has not faired much better. We've had enough and had rather have representatives that listen to us, not the other way around.

[upaloopa]

31. Who the hell are we? That is a big problem. You are not "we" We are "we"

You did not live the last several administrations in a vacuum.

[Plucketeer]

59. >WE< are the ones

who look at this photo and realize WHO provides Hillary with her dressings. Those that aren't amongst the "we" see a nice, blue pantsuit. >WE< understand that's ultimately gonna prove to be one expensive outfit - one that >WE< are ultimately going to pay DEARLY for. That's who I see as WE. Of course, if you just see the blue pantsuit.....

[Chef Eric]

30. I don't think anybody is trying to define EVERYBODY else.

Furthermore, nobody is talking about EVERYONE'S "common good," because there is no such thing.

The most important thing is how many people stand to benefit if a particular candidate is elected.

Like most Sanders supporters, I contend that his policies would benefit the most people, by far. Not everybody. Just the most.

[DanTex]

13. Well why do you think he's failing to convert most Dems?

[NurseJackie]

17. The conversations will not advance until

the angry Bernie fans "figure out" how it is they who are holding him back. As annoying as many if them are, at this point, I welcome their sour attitude and aggressive behavior. Such things continue to cripple his campaign and drive more support and endorsements to Hillary and Martin.

Feel the bern is gradually becoming more like #crashandbern ... and they'll have nobody to blame but themselves. (Well, actually I'm sure they will blame everybody except themselves, but their misplaced blame won't change the truth.)

[tecelote]

24. Bumper Stickers. 5 to 1 or better.

Don't believe everything you hear from the media.

Look around, Bernie is doing just fine in drawing people to his side.

---

Take a look at history and you will see why Hillary supporters have to push the Bernie is unelectable meme. They are afraid of history repeating itself.

November 4, 2008

Hillary 44%
Obama 22%

But what's real fun is to look at the trajectory:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

For those that don't like the site itself, here is Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates

Like Obama, Bernie just needs exposure.

America doesn't need the pick of the oligarchy and corporate media.

America needs a President of the people, by the people, and for the people.

America for Americans.

[dmosh42]

9. Hillary is a celebrity and we know 'mericans watch celebrities more than anyone! If we polled....

Princess Kate( Duchess ofCambridge) against HRC, Hillary loses!

[shenmue]

40. You mean former Senator and Secretary of State

[Beacool]

96. Disingenuous and dismissive comment.

Hillary has more than enough experience to be president. Aside from her 20 years as an activist first lady of AR and the U.S., she served 8 years in the Senate and 4 years as SOS. Kate married a prince.

No comparison.

[Dem2]

15. Good post

Biased but you make some good points, most of which I agree with.

[aikoaiko]

16. You mean more people, because Bernie has drawn about 30% of Dem voters so far..

And I emphasize, so far.

We understand the Clinton machine may not be stoppable? But someone has to try.

[NurseJackie]

21. There aren't enough "undecided"

voters for him to capture and catch up. And even if he were to somehow manage to get all of the undecided voters and all of martin O'Malley's supporters, it's extremely unlikely that he will be able to convince enough Hillary supporters to switch over to his campaign.

If Bernie's fans truly expect to change the minds of Hillary's supporters, they're doing it wrong. The numbers speak for themselves.

[aikoaiko]

29. Maybe so. We may be left with the entrenched.

But Bernie didn't start as high as 30% and HRC started much higher than 55%. Its not been just an undecideds swinging to Bernie. Some folks have switched.

Either Bernie pulls it off in the debates or he doesn't. We'll have to see.

There isn't much chance of the tightly wound HRC campaign making a fatal mistake, but a new scandal could always emerge and change the game.

[NurseJackie]

36. You make many valid points. Thanks for the reply.

Peace.

[NurseJackie]

62. It seems you've made up your mind. Thanks for clarifying.

So even if Hill wins the primary, our write-ins, together with indies and dissatisfied Repubs will cause her some serious damage. Is it really worse to have an idiot GOPer than one that acts like one for the interests of corporate power? They are the same to me. Today's Dem leaders are the same as Repugs. So I'm not about to support them.

I think you're letting your emotions get the best of you, Floriduck.

It may be Bernie or Trump for me.

That's good to know. Very illuminating.

[floriduck]

75. No more so than most posters, just being honest

My commitment was to Bernie, day one. I decided the voting public was more interested is allowing the Third Way people to control the party that left me. I am willing to admit it. But I'm sure others feel the same way. The proof will be when Hillary backs off her recent position changes, involves us more in war activities and creates new trade policies that hurt American jobs. A vote for anyone other than Bernie will further damage this country. And that is my humble, illuminating opinion. I am pleased that I made my position clear to you, Jackie.

[NurseJackie]

77. "Humble" isn't the correct word.

But it certainly is "illuminating" that's for certain.

[freshwest]

93. He can't answer. But I've heard this more than once. What is so great about Trump?

How does one go from a 'lefty' from Vermont to an oligarch who spouts and incites violence against immigrants and their kin?

What is the connection that people see between these two men?

I think the answer might be very troubling, but I won't blame BS for it.

[NurseJackie]

94. I honestly don't have an answer to that.

Maybe the "political spectrum" isn't linear. Maybe it's shaped more like a circle, and if someone goes too far in one direction, they're actually crossing-over to an area that we typically think of as being on the far end of the other side..

And you're correct ... Bernie can't control what people say or do.


EDITING: Oh! I now see what you mean by "he can't answer". He literally is not allowed to answer! (I thought you were being figurative and commenting that he couldn't think of an appropriate response.)

[Jamaal510]

124. There's a term for that:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

Maybe the "political spectrum" isn't linear. Maybe it's shaped more like a circle, and if someone goes too far in one direction, they're actually crossing-over to an area that we typically think of as being on the far end of the other side..

[NurseJackie]

147. Interesting. Thank you.

[George II]

95. I think that says a lot about the suspicion about some Sanders supporters.

[geek tragedy]

90. Your commitment to sacrifice your posting privileges to maintain your principles is admirable.

Though it also means you will soon be banned.

[Walk away]

79. Is that a threat?????

Just asking.

[firebrand80]

18. The only reason Bernie isn't winning is because Wall St. is against him

What else could it possibly be?

[shenmue]

39. Actual people want to vote for Hillary, because they like her

[Rebkeh]

19. Agreed on the first half of the OP

But I emphatically disagree on the second half - Hillary is not the right person for President. But I respect your opinion, vote for whoever you feel is right.

[DanTex]

23. Fair enough. I can also understand why some people don't want to support Hillary.

I think all three candidates are good, but I think Hillary is the strongest. For me it's mostly about electability -- I just don't want a Republican in the White House.

[cosmicone]

20. But.... but...

You forgot the secret millions who live in deep rain forests who have no phone service and who only have laptops tuned to reddit and facebook.

They are never counted in traditional polls and are completely invisible except on line.

They are going to come out of the forests and vote en masse for Bernie which is why he is winning all 50 states!

[BrainDrain]

22. Let me this as clear as I possibly can....

I would NOT vote for Hillary if she was the only candidate on the ballot..I would use the write in slot to vote for Mickey Mouse or Daffy Duck...both of whom would be infinitely preferable than HRC.

So please keep tell us all how well your candidate is doing, and how wrong we are.

Oh..and let the flaming begin.....

[Gore1FL]

25. Same arguments made for all candidates. n/t

[pinebox]

27. See Dan here's the deal

Every time Hillary gets some big endorsement, we question things. Do you know why we question things? Because often, the entities which endorse Hillary actually rank Bernie higher in their own little rankings or have fought heavily for Bernie.

2 such entities are right here.





See, let me clue you inn.
When it comes down to it, in a general, Hillary is behind Bernie. We can argue until we're red in the face but she is. While Hillary is popular AMONG DEMOCRATS she sure isn't outside the bubble. Hillary doesn't garner enthusiasm outside the Dem bubble, Bernie on the other hand has cross over power and that's been demonstrated many times with how he has Republicans voting for him.

I've heard some Hillary supporters actually say "we don't want Republicans voting for our nominee!". Hey, I don't want idjits voting in the general, people like that who don't understand that you need a coalition of voters to win the White House. If people think you can win strictly because your candidate is popular among your own party, boy do they have a rude awakening come next November when Dems lose the general.

Corporatist! Bankster! Oligarch!
LOL

You think that's funny? Really? REALLY? It's not fucking funny at all.
She's completely sold out to special interests and I can toss you FACTS all day long it yet you Hillary supporters refuse the reality that she is. That SHOULD concern you. Why do you think she hasn't said jack shit about ditching her SuperPACs? Why do you think she's so quiet on issues? Because she has a monetary stake in many things. Let's look at actual issues shall we? http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251788698

If you don't think money in politics is important, go be a Republican.

Bernie was in favor of X before Hillary was.
Nobody cares. What matters is who is more likely to get something accomplished about X, and that's Hillary.

Actually Dan millions DO CARE. However you're not seeing the forest through the trees here one bit.
*Iraq
*LGBT Rights like DOMA, DADT, SSM.
*KXL
*TPP
*NAFTA
*Guns
*Immigration

On and on it goes, where it stops only Hillary knows. She's a flip-flopper on just about every issue you can think of. We saw how well that worked out for Mitt Romney. This speaks of integrity & the American people aren't buying it. Why do you think Hillary is underwater in terms of how people like her and trust her?

Bernie will bring out disaffected voters and independents.
There's no evidence for this (aside from meaningless anecdotes). It might be true to a small extent, but this effect will be dwarfed by people who think Bernie is too far left, and the fact that his campaign can't compete financially with the GOP.

You're incredibly wrong here Dan. Very. I myself am an Indy and the ONLY reason I'm voting for a Dem candidate is because Bernie is running. That's IT. Dems by far and large are to the right of me on many positions and I find my likeness in other areas. In fact, you may want to read this thread this thread on DU http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=781355

Meanwhile, THIS IS HAPPENING! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395700/-Republicans-for-Bernie-Sanders

Bernie polls well in GE matchups
This is because the GOP has not run any attack ads against Bernie, and are training all their fire on Hillary.

WRONG. Completely wrong. In fact, Janie was just saying yesterday on here how Republicans are attacking Bernie left and right. If Republicans aren't running attack ads, can you describe what this is please? Thank you.
Of course they'll attack Hillary, they hate her, as much as Dems hate Sarah Palin.

Bernie's going to usher in a political revolution that turns both chambers of congress blue.
No he isn't. It's going to be gridlock either way.

And this is always a constant faux attack on Bernie but in the end, there are common issues which both sides can work on.
*NSA
*Privacy concerns
*War (Tea Party support with that one & the Rand Paul neo-Libertarain side)
*Money in politics (Tea Party support with that one & the Rand Paul neo-Libertarain side)

See, it's amazing how many issues we all have in common. My girlfriend is Libertarian and yet, her and I agree on many things. Things like LGBT rights as example, gay marriage, and even some things when it comes to immigration. (Did you know that many true Libertarains believe in open borders? I bet you didn't) That's what you a coalition to get shit done.

You know who doesn't have that? Hillary. Nobody is going to work with her and it's strictly a fantasy to think otherwise. She is the most polarizing figure in politics and it's rooted in literally decades of hate and outright disdain for her.

If you honestly think the stagnation is bad now, wait until you see what it's like IF she's wins. It's going to royally suck. Hell, Republicans are already calling for her impeachment her very day in office if she's the winner. Think about that. Stop and think.
NOTHING will get done and people will literally suffer because of it, the Govt will shut down at every chance they can get leaving millions without a paycheck. Nope.

[DanTex]

33. OK, one at a time.

As far as the LCV endorsement, both candidates have strong voting records, but obviously LCV based their endorsement on more than just that. And rightly so. They think that Hillary will be a more effective leader, and also is more likely to get elected.

As far as the Democratic "bubble," like I said there's no evidence of much there, except for meaningless anecdotes. Hillary will do better with independents and moderates who think Bernie is too far left and won't vote for a socialist. And there are a lot of those people.

--Corporatist! Bankster! Oligarch!
Yes, I think it's funny the way Bernie supporters throw around those words. I know that y'all are very skilled at "Six Degrees of Hillary Clinton", but outside the Bernie bubble, people recognize that she's a progressive on the issues. Hence all the endorsements from unions and LCV and her big lead among Democrats.

--Bernie was in favor of X before Hillary was.
Some people care about that, but most don't, because the understand that all humans change their minds on things over time and make mistakes. More importantly, people who will never ever vote for someone who voted for the IWR are already not supporting Hillary. Pounding this point over and over won't change anything.

--Bernie polls well in GE matchups
That billboard ad was an attack against Hillary, trying to tie her to the left wing policies of Bernie. If you really think the GOP is going after Bernie the same as Hillary, you need to wake up. During the GOP debates they almost exclusively attack Hillary. During the Dem debates they ran that Benghazi ad. Hillary is the one they are afraid of, and she's the one they are attacking. And she's still standing strong. If somehow Bernie comes out with the nomination, they will pummel him into the ground.

--Bernie's going to usher in a political revolution that turns both chambers of congress blue.
It's no surprise that you have libertarian leanings. However, libertarians are a small part of the GOP, and a small part of the population. They are also crazy.

Next time leave out all the images. It clutters the conversation.

[pinebox]

70. Recant

Dan, Hillary's record isn't as strong as Bernie's on environmental issues. I'll cite you both KXL and TPP right now.
Also, did you stop and think that that Board Chairwoman Carol Browner, served as Environmental Protection Agency administrator under President Bill Clinton? That's how politics works. Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

Let's see what the president of Earth Justice, who endorsed Bernie, has to say about the LCV endorsement.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/09/3720490/lcv-endorses-hillary/


I just showed you evidence of people crossing over to vote for Bernie. Would you like more?

Why Surprising Numbers of Republicans Have Been Voting for Bernie Sanders in Vermont
If Sanders ends up being the Democratic nominee for president, his GOP opponent is going to have a hard time beating him.
And as NPR's "Morning Edition" found out last year, some of Bernie's biggest fans are in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom, the poorest and most conservative part of the state.

Sorry Dan but the facts are Bernie is getting conservative support. I don't know what else to tell you but it is what it is and to go ahead and just turn a blind eye to it says a lot.

--Corporatist! Bankster! Oligarch!
Yes, I think it's funny the way Bernie supporters throw around those words. I know that y'all are very skilled at "Six Degrees of Hillary Clinton", but outside the Bernie bubble, people recognize that she's a progressive on the issues. Hence all the endorsements from unions and LCV and her big lead among Democrats.

No Dan it isn't funny at all and she IS NOT progressive on the issues at all. She's a reactionary faux progressive who changes her views depending on how the wind is blowing. Can you show us where Bernie changed his views in the last 20 years? Go for it. Meanwhile, just a few days ago, Hillary changed her views on pot. What's next? Upping her stance to $15/hr?

Sorry Dan but her biggest donors are CEOs of the biggest companies in America. It is what it is. If you think big endorsements are a thing, go ask the people of the unions what they think and you'll see that while the entity supports Hillary, the people who make up these said entities, support Bernie. The people matter MORE than the organization much as policy matters OVER party.
You're being made a Mark by buying into the whole image rebrand thing. It's marketing and advertising 101 and you're being manipulated. You may not like that but the truth is, progressives don't make remarks about bombing Iran or support a wage which isn't a living wage. Nor are they against single payer. Have you read her stances on Social Security? Go read her record on it http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm As far as union support goes, that doesn't mean someone is a progressive, it means someone is a Democrat.

--Bernie was in favor of X before Hillary was.
Some people care about that, but most don't, because the understand that all humans change their minds on things over time and make mistakes. More importantly, people who will never ever vote for someone who voted for the IWR are already not supporting Hillary. Pounding this point over and over won't change anything.

Wrong. Most do care about it and that has a direct impact on how people perceive a candidate. As I cited, Hillary is underwater with how she is seen in terms of being trustworthy and if people like her. That bodes bad in a general because it equates to people just saying "meh" and NOT voting. Obama brought the fire, Hillary brings well, one that's been put out. In the Dem bubble she has some fire for sure but outside that small bubble, nope. Mark my words right now, bookmark my post. IF she is the candidate and that's a big IF right now a year out, the general will be a nail biter and it's possible Dems lose it. Mark my words as I said.

--Bernie polls well in GE matchups
That billboard ad was an attack against Hillary, trying to tie her to the left wing policies of Bernie. If you really think the GOP is going after Bernie the same as Hillary, you need to wake up. During the GOP debates they almost exclusively attack Hillary. During the Dem debates they ran that Benghazi ad. Hillary is the one they are afraid of, and she's the one they are attacking. And she's still standing strong. If somehow Bernie comes out with the nomination, they will pummel him into the ground.

No Dan that was an attack ad on BOTH candidates. You said Bernie isn't being attacked and I clearly showed you he most certainly is. Now only that BUT he's being attacked by Dems too, specifically Clinton surrogates.
Let's take a look and see what conservative pundits are saying about Bernie shall we? Let's look at Red State http://www.redstate.com/search/Bernie+sanders and The Daily Caller https://goo.gl/Pdeg3Y
What's funny though is you cite how often cons attack Hillary but yet I'm guessing you think IF she's elected things will get done? Derp.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/25/claire-mccaskill-bernie-sanders_n_7662124.html

--Bernie's going to usher in a political revolution that turns both chambers of congress blue.
It's no surprise that you have libertarian leanings. However, libertarians are a small part of the GOP, and a small part of the population. They are also crazy.

Next time leave out all the images. It clutters the conversation.

No. Images are used to illustrate my point and back up facts. I have libertarian leanings? You misconstrue my point. It's not "Libertarian leanings", it's called "common interests". No matter WHICH candidate you support, we all agree on certain issues. Greens, Dems, JP'ers, Libertarains, all agree that nobody should be able to be fired because they are black. See what I mean?
True Libertarains Dan aren't members of the GOP, they're members of the Libertarian party and I'm sorry but my girlfriend isn't crazy and I take deep offense to that remark.

Maybe you should study the other sides of the coin and actually learn. Knowledge is power after all.

[Dustlawyer]

88. +1!!!!!!

I would ask Hillary supporters if they are worried about the money in our politics. What about the corruption caused by all of the campaign and Super Pac donations to our elections, not just Hillary's take? Do they believe it is a problem? Do they still believe that we have Representative democracy, or have our politicians come to represent their Donors instead of the rest of us? If so, how do they believe that Hillary will approach this problem? Why do they believe that Hillary is NOT BEHOLDEN to her major donors? Why do they think Wall Street gives her so much money and support?

I have not seen any Hillary supporter address any of this except to deflect and say Bernie cannot win. I have yet to see the questions answered head on by any of the Hillary supporters here at DU.

And as far as SCOTUS is concerned, I worry that Hillary's appointments to SCOTUS will have corporate defense backgrounds or come from Wall Street. It is a very real concern, being socially liberal, but fiscally in the tank for Wall Street/corporations is not a Justice I want!

[DanTex]

89. I'm not interested in misleading internet memes.

Dan, Hillary's record isn't as strong as Bernie's on environmental issues. I'll cite you both KXL and TPP right now.

Two issues where Bernie and Hillary have the same position. Both are strong on the environment, both get strong ratings from LCV, but Hillary is both more electable and also a more capable leader.

I just showed you evidence of people crossing over to vote for Bernie. Would you like more?

Sure, there are a few such people, but there's no evidence that this is a significant factor, certainly not enough to outweigh the number of people who won't vote for him because he's too far left.

No Dan it isn't funny at all and she IS NOT progressive on the issues at all. She's a reactionary faux progressive who changes her views depending on how the wind is blowing. Can you show us where Bernie changed his views in the last 20 years? Go for it. Meanwhile, just a few days ago, Hillary changed her views on pot. What's next? Upping her stance to $15/hr?

Calling her "reactionary" is just dumb. And the problem with over-the-top rhetoric like that is that it plays well in the Bernie bubble, but just makes you look silly outside of it. Bernie is further left than Hillary, that's true, but they are both progressive. Look at her voting record, her platform, etc.

Sorry Dan but her biggest donors are CEOs of the biggest companies in America.

This is totally false. There aren't nearly enough CEOs of big companies to amount to even a small fraction of her donations at $2700 a pop, even if they all did support Hillary, which they don't.

If you think big endorsements are a thing, go ask the people of the unions what they think and you'll see that while the entity supports Hillary, the people who make up these said entities, support Bernie

.
Also totally false. Every major union that endorsed Hillary polled their membership before their endorsement. I'm sure there are some members of unions who prefer Bernie, but most of them don't.

No Dan that was an attack ad on BOTH candidates. You said Bernie isn't being attacked and I clearly showed you he most certainly is.

I see it mainly as an attack on Hillary, tying her to Bernie's socialism. Regardless, it's just one billboard. Look at the Benghazi ad they ran on TV (or the entire Benghazi committee, for that matter), or who the GOP candidates go after in their debates. It's all Hillary. Bernie isn't even on the radar. If he somehow gets the nomination, this will all change and he'll be flattened.

Greens, Dems, JP'ers, Libertarains, all agree that nobody should be able to be fired because they are black.

You're wrong, libertarians are opposed to anti-discrimination laws because they feel that privately owned companies should be able to discriminate if they want to, it's not the government's business.

True Libertarains Dan aren't members of the GOP, they're members of the Libertarian party and I'm sorry but my girlfriend isn't crazy and I take deep offense to that remark.

There aren't very many of them, and they certainly don't want single payer healthcare. Yes, libertarians are crazy. I'm sure your girlfriend is an exception, but by and large, they're nuts.

[pinebox]

98. Facts aren't misleading Dan.

But that's a good way to spin it so things fit your narrative.

I've debunked you twice, want a third time? Ok.

wo issues where Bernie and Hillary have the same position. Both are strong on the environment, both get strong ratings from LCV, but Hillary is both more electable and also a more capable leader.

Are you honestly kidding all of us? Dan, what part of "The TPP is the gold standard" aren't you understanding? She mentions the TPP and how wonderful it is in her book 45 times. FORTY FIVE. The same position but her position is always changing when the wind blows. Again, the pot issue.

No Dan she's not more electable, she doesn't do as well in a general. The general is what matters. Not Dem pandering.

Sure, there are a few such people, but there's no evidence that this is a significant factor, certainly not enough to outweigh the number of people who won't vote for him because he's too far left.

As opposed to those who won't vote for Hillary because she's been hated for decades? I have news for you, Hillary is hated a great deal more than Bernie is. In fact, I'll even use your own logic against you with "GOP attacks only Hillary".
Hillary is underwater & it's a problem. People don't vote for candidates they don't like.

Calling her "reactionary" is just dumb. And the problem with over-the-top rhetoric like that is that it plays well in the Bernie bubble, but just makes you look silly outside of it. Bernie is further left than Hillary, that's true, but they are both progressive. Look at her voting record, her platform, etc.

No Dan it isn't dumb, it's a fact. It's not over the top rhetoric either. It's a fact she's a flip flopper and she's the biggest one in the entire race no matter what side of the aisle you look at. She's completely reactionary. How many years did it take her to come out in support of SSM?
*KXL
*TPP
*Single Payer
*NAFTA
*DOMA
*Iraq
*Guns
*Insert latest political issue here

On and on Dan. On and on.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/

This is totally false. There aren't nearly enough CEOs of big companies to amount to even a small fraction of her donations at $2700 a pop, even if they all did support Hillary, which they don't.

No Dan, it isn't false. It's true and I showed you what Politifact said. You want another chart to prove my point?
Here you go. Show us otherwise. Show us something that says she isn't propped up by the 1% please. Ball is in your court because this is factual.

Also totally false. Every major union that endorsed Hillary polled their membership before their endorsement. I'm sure there are some members of unions who prefer Bernie, but most of them don't.

Uhhh no Dan, you're wrong. See the NEA https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/the-nea-may-be-about-to-endorse-hillary-clinton-without-input-from-majority-of-members/

I see it mainly as an attack on Hillary, tying her to Bernie's socialism. Regardless, it's just one billboard. Look at the Benghazi ad they ran on TV (or the entire Benghazi committee, for that matter), or who the GOP candidates go after in their debates. It's all Hillary. Bernie isn't even on the radar. If he somehow gets the nomination, this will all change and he'll be flattened.

And see that's what you don't understand. You say that but Trump said he agrees with Bernie on trade deals. Can you show me please where ANY Republican candidate has said they agree with Hillary? See, here's the difference, Bernie will work with the other side on issues because HE CAN. Hillary would like to BUT SHE CAN'T. I don't know how to explain this better to you but the absolute hate of Hillary from the right and many indy voters causes her a brick wall. We can argue over this but if you honestly think for a second that Republicans will work with Hillary you're mistaken.

Meanwhile Republicans helped Sanders get elected. Can you show us the same please for Hillary when she ran for Senate?
Thank you.

You're wrong, libertarians are opposed to anti-discrimination laws because they feel that privately owned companies should be able to discriminate if they want to, it's not the government's business.

You're confused here Dan. You're thinking Republicans. True Libertarians see things quite differently. See their bylaws please and keep in mind, no (L) is currently serving in Congress.
https://www.lp.org/platform

There aren't very many of them, and they certainly don't want single payer healthcare. Yes, libertarians are crazy. I'm sure your girlfriend is an exception, but by and large, they're nuts.

Sure they're against single payer health care but most Libertarians I've met, real libertarians, by and large share some issues with liberals. That is where we need to concentrate instead of always think "They're the bad guys!" because that solves absolutely nothing. We can start with the Patriot Act and go from there which Hillary by the way has fully supported.

That's how you get shit done.

[DanTex]

126. You're just repeating falsehoods and cutting and pasting pictures. It's getting a little repetitive.

Let's go through this again. Briefly, because responding to the same nonsense over and over is a waste of time.

Yes, Hillary is opposed to TPP and KXL. This is common knowledge. Try google.

Regarding the general, GE matchup polls show both Hillary and Bernie doing well against the GOP, but like I've said many times, the GOP hasn't attacked Bernie the way they have Hillary. Once they do, he's toast, particularly since he won't have the funds to fire back.

If you think Hillary is "reactionary" then you don't know what that word means. Hint: it doesn't mean "not quite as far left as Bernie".

The contributions: you claimed that CEOs of the biggest corporations are her biggest donors. This is totally false. Those misleading internet charts only tell you what industry her donors work in, not their job titles. And, like I said, even if every Fortune 500 CEO donated to her, it would only add up to a tiny fraction of her overall campaign funds. It's simple math.

Your excerpt from the libertarian party says "members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free market solutions." This is exactly what I said: they don't think it's the government's law to enforce things like anti-discrimination laws for private enterprises. This is part of the reason that libertarians are crazy. They believe in the utopia of the free market.

[pinebox]

135. No Dan, everything I've posted is backed up thoroughly from trusted sources

I'm sorry that you're upset but I've debunked every single one of your talking points.. EVERY ONE. But you keep coming back for more. You call it nonsense but in reality these are incredibly important issues.

Yes, Hillary is opposed to TPP and KXL. This is common knowledge. Try google.

Dan, you're failing to connect the dots here. Hillary was against TPP and KXL, she called it the gold standard. In fact on many issues, she flip flops. If Hillary is so against TPP then can you explain to us all please why she's not willing to lobby against the TPP? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=791412 On so many issues, this is a regularity and I keep telling you this and proving this to you. Pot. SSM. Criminal justice reform. On and on.

You want me try Google, ok then. And once again I'm having to use the same thing from Politifact which shows Hillary flip-flopped on TPP.

Regarding the general, GE matchup polls show both Hillary and Bernie doing well against the GOP, but like I've said many times, the GOP hasn't attacked Bernie the way they have Hillary. Once they do, he's toast, particularly since he won't have the funds to fire back.

And like I've told you, in a general, nobody will be attacked as much and as often as Hillary. She has a great deal more baggage than Bernie has. Yet, you seem to think Hillary gets a pass on this for some unknown reason. Bernie doesn't have the funds to fire back? Dan, Bernie is fundraising on the coattails of your candidate and he's doing it without a SuperPAC. One thing you're failing to realize is that Hillary has a 99% name recognition, she's a celebrity essentially. Bernie isn't. There is no middle road with Hillary, people either love her or hate her and over all, they hate her, hence her numbers being upside down. Yet you think she would get a pass for some unknown reason. Is it strictly because of money? Meanwhile... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-maxed-out-donors_56203715e4b06462a13b8414 Read it. Bernie has more donors than any other candidate but here's the kicker...."Only .039 percent of Sanders' donors have given the maximum amount allowed."

You're obviously not aware of how Bernie has been fundraising & it's a pretty big deal. You may want to educate yourself on the issue because you'll be hearing about it again after this Saturday and the debates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fundraising-debate_561e429ee4b028dd7ea5c825

If you think Hillary is "reactionary" then you don't know what that word means. Hint: it doesn't mean "not quite as far left as Bernie".

Dan, I'm well aware what reactionary is. I'm thinking perhaps you aren't however and don't quite understand what it is I am saying. Reactionary; of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.

So you're upset because you're immediately equating the word to something that's conservative yet you go ahead and say "Hint: it doesn't mean "not quite as far left as Bernie". Well wouldn't she technically be more conservative Bernie seeing as how's she's to the right of him? Just sayin'. Anyways that's not my argument, my argument is that she's a reactionary person. She doesn't come forward with many of her own ideas and waits until something happens until taking a stance. But in the end, we're splitting hairs here and she's trying to re-label herself by taking up Bernie's positions but people see through her charade.

The contributions: you claimed that CEOs of the biggest corporations are her biggest donors. This is totally false. Those misleading internet charts only tell you what industry her donors work in, not their job titles. And, like I said, even if every Fortune 500 CEO donated to her, it would only add up to a tiny fraction of her overall campaign funds. It's simple math.

Dan, the facts are right there when it comes to Hillary. To say anything but ignores and flies in face of facts. "Those internet charts" which happen to be backed up by a fact checking site called Politifact and the other called Open Secrets.

Here, go read and go look yourself;

https://www.opensecrets.org/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/
I'm sorry if the facts don't fit your talking point but it is what it is. But again just because I can, let's look at who donates to who between Bernie & Hillary when it comes to contributions shall we? These are through each candidates career so far. I think you're confused Dan. I wasn't speaking strictly about her campaign in running for POTUS, I was speaking about her entire political career. She is propped up by Wall Street and if you want to know about her campaign and money, I'll ask you why you're supporting a candidate who has a SuperPAC along with having dark money rolling in. Unless you don't think that's wrong of course and that all the money in politics is just fine & dandy. If that's the case, we'll stop the discussion right there because that is a conservative position to take. It's hard to be for campaign finance reform yet taking the food out of the hand that's offering to you. In other words, that's called "talking the talk but not walking the walk" or as Texans say, "all hat and no cattle".

Your excerpt from the libertarian party says "members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free market solutions." This is exactly what I said: they don't think it's the government's law to enforce things like anti-discrimination laws for private enterprises. This is part of the reason that libertarians are crazy. They believe in the utopia of the free market.

Yes they believe in the utopia of free market and they downright despise the government but then again, most American's do these days. Why do you think Congress's approval rating is like 9%? Boycotts are fine and in Indiana this past summer, people boycotted a pizza shop who refused to serve gay people. Demonstrations are one of the cores of our democracy. I have no problem with anybody demonstrating and speaking out for what they have a conviction for, no matter what side of the aisle they're on. The st is a beautiful thing! As far as enforcing laws to enforce such things, yes and no on that. It depends and there is a fine line between personal liberty and free will. It's funny we're talking about this because my other half & I were talking about this last night. People who refuse to serve others based on their sexual orientation don't really have a leg to stand on as she put it and it's because their lives aren't being affected. However, people who are refused are having their lives affected. As she said to me, "don't you dare confuse me with the Christian right!". She has a point.

[DanTex]

137. Sorry, but graphics that some Hillary-hater made aren't "trusted sources".

Like I said this is getting boring. I could keep posting facts and you could keep pretending you "debunked" them by posting colorful but misleading pictures.

In the end, you're arguing from falsehoods, and this is a big reason why people aren't going over to the Bernie side. Inside the Bernie bubble you can just post "Hillary is evil" and everyone will cheer. But if you want to reach outside of that, you need to start dealing with reality.

[pinebox]

138. Dan, facts are facts, period.

You can debate all day long where they come from but in the end, I won the argument and backed up everything with very solid sources.
You haven't backed up a single thing other than your opinion.

Misleading photos? No Dan, those photos are all backed up with links if you'd care to look.

In teh end, what you consider falsehoods are actually facts, from highly reputable sources like Politifact, Open Secrets and Daily Kos. I'll remember that though and I'll quote you with a screen shot when you decide to use those sources in any upcoming post that you may have just so you remember what you said.

If it doesn't fit your narrative, it's "OMG faslehoods!"

[DanTex]

139. Wow, another image! Whoddathunk!

Yes, facts are facts, but they're not on your side.

[pinebox]

140. Sorry Dan but they are

and I proved my point, you've not given a single reference for yours, not one.
You lost, lick your wounds and toughen up.

[DanTex]

141. LOL. Internet poster declares victory in argument!

[pinebox]

142. And yet you continue. This is fun watching you rage.

[DanTex]

143. Oh I'm a-ragin'! LOL.

[pinebox]

144. mmmmhhhm that's why you're making posts

like this http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=793918
You really should just quit already.

[DanTex]

145. I like posting. Particularly when there are lies to be called out.

Evidently you like posting too. You just don't like facts very much.

[pinebox]

146. Dan Dan Dan, then prove me wrong already

because right now, you've got nothing, literally, and you got reked.
You haven't provided one single source to back up any of your claims to prove me otherwise. NOT ONE.
If you like posting so much then why not make a post that proves WaPo, Opensecrets, Poltifact, and the others are wrong.

[DanTex]

148. I have, plenty of times.

Just to recall a few off the top of my head:

Hillary is opposed to both TPP and KXL.
Hillary's campaign is not largely funded by CEOs of large corporations.
Libertarians do not believe the government should force private companies to not discriminate.
Hillary is not a "reactionary" (reactionary means right-wing extremist, in case you're wondering).

And so on. Basically, you're wrong about everything you've claimed, and you try to hide it by posting a lot of pictures to make your posts difficult to read.

But when it comes to facts, you're wrong.

[leftofcool]

101. You have a sword, Dan. He has a toothpick. Enough said!

[pinebox]

103. I think you mean pen.

Perhaps you meant pen because as the saying goes, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Prove me wrong in anything I've said.
DO IT.

I've debunked every single talking point he's thrown my way in 3 responses to him. EVERY. SINGLE. ARGUMENT.

[bravenak]

122. Hahahaha!

[zappaman]

154. Lol!

[George II]

87. Too bad Biden isn't in this debate. He'd dust off his Rudy Giuliani characterization....

....."every sentence of his has a noun, a verb, and an oligarch".

[bravenak]

102. Lol!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128072291

[99th_Monkey]

67. Excellent post pinebox nt

[pinebox]

72. Thank you.

[coyote]

85. Wow! Great post.

[Cleita]

99. +1000

[retrowire]

100. *applauds pinebox*

this is so very good. excellent counterpoint.

[pinebox]

104. Thank you

[840high]

155. Thank you!

[Agschmid]

105. AKA: "Owning Someone"

Lordy... We have such great things happening right here on DU.

[pinebox]

106. We do!

Care to jump in and discuss?
Please do or are you going to deflect about something which isn't pertinent to the thread at hand?

[Agschmid]

107. It's totally pertinent, when you started the other OP...

And link to this you made it pertinent.

But no I'm not even going to attempt to discuss anything with you if your goal is "owning Hillary supporters".

Sorry, better luck next time.

[pinebox]

110. My goal is dish out facts

this is DU and this is how you have a discussion and I'm sorry if you have a problem with video game language, not my problem, see ya.

[Agschmid]

112. Could quite "own me" could you.

LOL, Sorry.

See you around.

[JonLeibowitz]

150. Perhaps you aren't aware of the meaning that was intended

See this wikipedia post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn

Nobody was actually talking about physical "ownership"

[Agschmid]

151. I'm well aware what it means.

It's still bull, no one should be attempting to do that here.

We should be better than that.

[JonLeibowitz]

152. It is certainly childish, I am with you there. n/t

[SoapBox]

109. Bravo!

Damn those pesky FACTS!

The Truth cannot be shutdown.

[George II]

114. Sadly this post is fraught with inaccuracies.

[davidpdx]

133. And sadly you are not able to name any

Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming does you no good. Then again, maybe you will drive yourself insane doing so.

[George II]

136. David, I've pointed out to pinebox several times some of the "inaccuracies" (nice way to put it)...

....in his posts, he/she still posts them. That poster knows what is inaccurate, and I suspect many here do also.

So, it's not a matter of putting my fingers in my ears and screaming, it's a matter of getting through to pinebox who refuses to correct the inaccuracies.

[tecelote]

115. Thanks!

[Renew Deal]

28. I agree that Sanders supporters can't comprehend how people don't support Bernie

Here are two examples just from yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=787820

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=785834

[mmonk]

32. Two valid questions. Give us the flip side.

[DanTex]

37. The answers are pretty simple.

1) Hillary and Bernie are both politicians, everyone understands that. People change their minds, including both of them. In the end, most Dems think Hillary will be a stronger leader, and are confident that she has their back. Hillary haters think of Hillary supporters as "camp weathervane" but other people don't. It's just a difference of opinion.

2) Both Hillary and Bernie have strong voting records on the environment, but LCV evidently believes that Hillary would be a more effective leader and also would be more likely to defeat the GOP and avert disaster. I agree with them.

Why do you think LCV endorsed Hillary? Conspiracy?

[ieoeja]

73. "Why do you think LCV endorsed Hillary?" The head of LCV was in Bill's cabinet. n/t

[pinebox]

46. Thanks for linking to my post

I think my post stands on its own. Never mind that the head of LCV is Board Chairwoman Carol Browner, who served as Environmental Protection Agency administrator under President Bill Clinton.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/09/3720490/lcv-endorses-hillary/

[redstateblues]

34. Great post DanTex.

As usual you are right on the money. I like and respect Bernie but I'm voting for HRC. I think a lot of the folks who say they won't for HRC under any condition are not Democrats anyway and probably voted for Nader or some other fringe candidate. The good thing is that in a few months they will be free to post to their hearts' delight elsewhere- maybe someone will start SU. It probably wouldn't be long until Bernie would be called a neo-socialist for not being pure enough.

[shenmue]

38. Yes!

[still_one]

42. This will not come across as very nice, but the reason I think a lot of people support Hillary over

Bernie is because they do not believe a person who describes himself as a socialist, whether the word Democratic is used in conjunction with socialist or not, can win a general election today.

I realize some will point out that a lot of the programs we have today that have socialism built into them, literally have been life savers, and helped millions of Americans, but in my view the word socialism has been branded with such a negative connotation in America, that it would be hard to convince those, especially in the red states, otherwise.

[raindaddy]

45. Bernie was in favor of X before Hillary was. Nobody cares. What matters is who is more likely to get

something accomplished...

It depends on what you want accomplished.

Bush/Cheney's orchestrated campaign to try and sway the public into believing Iraq was an actual threat to the United States.. Their motive to secure the oil fields for the global oil corporations. Bernie like most of us saw right through it and voted against it.

Hillary either actually bought the idea that the Iraq was not only a threat but the situation was dire enough that we couldn't even wait for the inspectors to do their jobs...Or she was on board with Bush/Cheney's plan to secure the oil fields.. Either way I not exactly the mindset of someone I'd vote for...

And something was accomplished.. Global oil liberated the oil fields... Plus hundreds of thousands of people died. The Middle East is a mess. And the American taxpayers are stuck with the multi-trillion dollar bill...

Oh and some people do care..

[JohnnyRingo]

47. K&R for being well written and concise.

Though I'm not one of Hillary's biggest fans, the Bernie people here have completely turned me off to their candidate. Their smug brand of self-envisioned liberal purity can be very off putting and I don't want people to think I identify with such an idealistically intolerant movement. If anything, they've driven me to seek a more moderate candidate that appeals to the vast majority of middle America.

I wonder sometimes what will become of a splintered DU if Ms Clinton wins the eventual nomination and Sanders runs as an independent. Will they demand a name change to "Independent Underground" or "Liberal Underground"? Will they depart the site or attempt a take over? I've been a member for at least a dozen years, and I can't imagine a DU that trashes the 2016 Democratic candidate for president.

[redstateblues]

65. Someone should start SU-Socialist Underground

or even Democratic Socialist Underground-DSU

[gordyfl]

51. Hillary too Hawkish

Have you ever considered the possibility that people who support Bernie Sanders actually oppose Hillary due to her hawkish foreign policy and subservience to big banks?

Hillary would have been more suited as a G.W. Bush admin Secretary of WAR ... (er, um ... that is ... I mean "Secretary of State&quot My greatest fear of Hillary is she is a hawk ... more dangerous to world peace than even John McCain because unlike him she actually might become president one day .

[KingCharlemagne]

52. Hillary's support is a mile wide and an inch deep. sanders' supporters are

Highly energized and motivated.

But you keep right on whistling past that graveyard right up till Feb. 1

[brooklynite]

91. "Whistling past the graveyard" asserts an denial of troubling knowledge

Show us the factual evidence that 1) Sanders has millions (that's what he needs now) of completely off the radar supporters who will come out and vote for him (unlike the supporters of Dean or Paul) and 2) there are million of claimed Clinton supporters who will shift their vote to Sanders based on the way he is campaigning today.

[JohnnyRingo]

108. You imply that Sanders supporters are few but devoted.

Small numbers of ideologically pure voters do not win elections and never have.

Regardless the front runners now, the GOP will most certainly present their most moderate candidate available- as they have in every election of my lifetime- and liberal ideals will fall to the vast middle of American voters who want a president that does no harm.

Sanders supporters- who admittedly are very good liberals seeking a better way for the working class- don't stand a chance in a general election where sheer numbers decide the race. Though it doesn't make for a good campaign slogan, most Americans just want a president who will kick the can down the road and make marginal improvements. I know that's sad, but every election in the past 50+ years has followed that formula.

[wiggs]

53. I think there's another factor, reflected in current polls. For what seems like a year now,

republicans have been bashing Clinton any way possible. Officially through hearings...constantly on FOX...constantly on the 90% of talk radio that's conservative. And...people remember she was a flawed, stiff candidate in 2008. This created low expectations for her this time around. There was general uncertainty that she was up to it. There was general uncertainty that she was trustworthy

So now that her campaign is ramping up and she's making more appearances in interviews, a forum, and a debate I think people see that she has gravitas, she's more than capable, she's a real person, and she's presidential. She's creating a level of comfort. Since the gop makes a living by over-reaching and distorting...it's easier to dismiss their general background noise and come to the conclusion that she's not a monster. And even though Sanders does great in front of a camera and is running a great campaign and seems to be everywhere at once, Clinton is the one gaining in the polls because she is methodically dispelling myths and low expectations among skeptical dems. IMO.

How long this lasts, I don't know....but in answer to your question I think current polls reflect a newly formed impression among moderates that Clinton's not as bad as she's been made out to be and she's getting a lot of momentum from that.

(Happily voting for Bernie in primary...anticipate voting for Clinton in general)

[CrispyQ]

69. Personally I think her numbers are up after she rocked it at the Benghazi hearing.

HRC's too hawkish for me, but Damn! That was some ultra cool that day! I think a lot of folks saw that & thought, "This woman must eat nails for breakfast."

I've said in the past I wouldn't vote for her, but if she gets the nom, I will. Not enthusiastically, but then I haven't voted enthusiastically for someone in decades.

[Starry Messenger]

54. Well said.

[angrychair]

55. Elections are won and lost when they are won and lost

During the first week of November in 2007, HRC was up an average of 22 points on then SBO (USA Today/Gallup had her up 28)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

HRC was crushing SBO in October of 2007:
"...and in October the same poll showed her commanding majority Democratic support, with 51% compared to Obama's 21% and Edwards' 15%."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008

Then SBO didn't start polling north of 30 points, as a constant average, until January of 2008.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

All major labor unions had endorsed HRC before December of 2007
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/labor/laborendorse08.html

She had hundreds of endorsements from Congress and other Democratic Party elite and SuperDelegates
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2008

And there was this observation from Gallup (bolded emphasis mine):

"The Democratic Race: Conditions Auspicious for Sen. Clinton to Win
Gallup’s 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year.

No other announced or potential Democratic candidate has come close to threatening Clinton’s front-runner status since the campaign began, including former Vice President Al Gore and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102277/gallup-election-review-october-2007.aspx

Elections are won and lost when they are won and lost.

[Sheepshank]

56. Correct!!!!

And I'd like to add an item that has bothered me and in the context of the OP, I feel like saying..

After the first BLM debaucle, after the storm had settled down, and Bernie was making moves to hire PoC, activists, I really thought that there could be a surge that improved his numbers.

Bernie made solid attempts at reaching out, and there was a glimmer of hope that maybe he would make some inroads at the polls with PoC. But then came the Lewis endorsement. Bernie fans swarmed his Fb and insulted not only Lewis' intelligence, his civil rights work, but started back in on BLM. Every single inroad (and then some) made by the olive branch Bernie extended, was berned to a crisp by the Bernie Supporters. He doesn't need Republican smear machine to damage his brand, he has his own supporters for that.

[retrowire]

57. you tried.

but it's clear you need to look into Bernie a bit more.

[gordyfl]

58. Hillary Sides With George W. Bush

This is a good enough reason to oppose any Democratic candidate....

[Smarmie Doofus]

60. Can you define "PoC" as you use it here?

>>>>Yes, there are other reasons too. Bernie's supporters have turned off quite a few people, particularly PoC.>>>>>

Interesting argument as a whole...... but largely off the mark as I see it.

But back to "PoC": What does that mean, exactly?

[CrispyQ]

71. People of color. -nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

83. I was hoping the OPer would define it; since he/she used it. However.....

I know what the acronym stands for.

What I mean to determine is: does that term.... as OPer uses it here..... pertain to AAs exclusively?

Or does it ... as OPer uses the term...include all citizens of non-European ancestry: Asian, Latino, Afro-Carribean, Native American, Middle Eastern, etc.?

[Robbins]

61. You see

unlike many i can remember the history of the Clintons.this nonesense she is trying to sell now isn't real clinton.

yeah she is effective leader is you want a DINO to work with republicans.

More electable independents don't like her.republicans hate her,and some dems wouldn't vote for her.Nominate her and
say hello to president Trump In 2017.

unlike Obama we can't be fooled by the record.so dems who support her must be centrist,corporist,and pro-war.Soon we will know
if there is 2 partys or just one centrist,corporist pro-war party.

Clinton may claim she regreted the IWA vote but she has proven she learned nothing from it.I call her a liar on that.she only claims that was mistake because that is what democratic primary voters want to hear.

the entire GOP 2016 gameplan is to run against clinton.Bernie like obama takes that away.

So the OP says we should support a right wing dem to win.sorry we have won nothing.Obama proves a dem can screw over people too.

It's time to have someone who will fight for us.Clinton will work for corporations and sign GOP bills.Bernie will fight gop and corporations.

[upaloopa]

81. There you go defining everybody and using that

worn out smilie.
Centrist corporatist pro war huh? And who are you? The true liberal progressive I guess you'll say.
You and people like you are why Bernie will not be the nominee

[restorefreedom]

63. sorry but the myth that she is more electable

has been debunked several times.

and it is up to bernie to win the voters, his supporters can help but the best thing they can do to help is get people to rallies and get them watching bernie's speeches. he can win votes when people hear his messge directly

[relayerbob]

64. There are a few of us ...

who support Bernie, but respect Hillary, too. I prefer his policies overall, but think both of them will do a fine job as President, and both are miles ahead of any GOPper. To suggest Hillary is a closet republican is just ignorant. And frankly, I believe in the end, a small fraction of hard core Bernie supporters you are referring to are going to be the impediment that prevents him from winning. The noise on FB is so shrill I have left virtually every group. It's very sad, and a lot of it is being influenced by people outside of either campaign, with anarchists on the left screaming and hollering over nothing (and trying blackmail the party in some cases) and on the right GOPpers working for Operation Chaos 2016 which is in full swing. I think Bernie has a chance to win, but I think it has been diminished by the behavior of some (not all, in fact, only a pretty small percentage) of his supporters.

[redgreenandblue]

66. That HuffPo graph showing pull numbers suggests otherwise.

Bernie has been posting gains for months.

[brooklynite]

76. ...and so is Hillary

Hillary is ABOVE 50%; unless her numbers come down, all the gains in the world won't give Sanders a win.

Add to which, EXCEPT for New Hampshire (which at the moment appears to be a tie), he's behind by significant numbers in every other State. Where does he break out?

[redgreenandblue]

80. All I am saying is that I do not understand how anyone can conclude that ...

... "Bernie is not connecting with potential voters" after looking at that graph.

He may or may not win over Clinton voters in the future, but I don't think anyone can claim the last months haven't been a success.

I look at that chart like the stock market: Interesting in retrospect but unpredictable in the future. Bernie certainly has done well so far.

[brooklynite]

92. Nobody denies that Bernie has been connecting...

...unlike a number of people here, Clinton supporters don't assert that the polls are wrong and his support is LOWER that reflecting in polling.

What Bernie is NOT doing is expanding those connections into Black and Hispanic communities, and in States that are somewhat less liberal than Vermont. Personally, I think he'll end up with a respectable 30-35%. But that will mean Clinton gets 65-70% (no offense to the O'Malley people but I'm just not seeing any forward momentum) and will be the winner.

[redgreenandblue]

113. Well, I'm all for testing assumptions against observation.

We will certainly see how this plays out in the following months.

I like Bernie and have some reservations against Hillary Clinton but part of me really wants to see her in office. Unlike Obama I think she will be under no illusions that she can be friends with the Republicans. If she is elected there will blood, and I certainly think she is capable of standing up to them. It is a fight she has been preparing for for decades.

[Bread and Circus]

68. What you don't seem to understand is that....

Bernie should only be polling at 2% to 5% if that. To be doing as well as he is should be telling you a great deal.

This may not be Bernie's time but there is a huge rift in the party and if you guys don't adjust there will be problems going forward.

[JackRiddler]

74. Do I detect a false premise already in the title?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. The main reason that Hillary fails to get the votes of the Left.

Forget the wars. Forget the deaths. Forget the torture. Forget the collaboration with the Republicans. Forget the collaboration with the corporations. Forget the pursuit of whistle blowers. Forget the poor. Forget the persecuted. Forget the police state.

Again, we are told to be patient. That the other side is worse.

Again, we are told to shut up and vote for the candidate who can win and ignore their record.

And, again, we are told that "this time it will be different."

[Vattel]

84. Your absurd charicature of "Bernie fans" makes this post less than serious.

For example, you say without any evidence that in the "aftermath of the BLM debacle, for example. Bernie fans figured, hey, we're just going to tell PoC that Bernie marched with King, and then they're all going to love him." That's ridiculous. I doubt that any Bernie fan thought that, and you certainly don't show that any did. There was nothing wrong with pointing out Bernie's civil rights record, and attempts to turn that into a flaw are, well, primary season silliness.

[Beacool]

97. I have no problem with anyone supporting Sanders or O'Malley.

What I find uncalled for are the myriad of posts that have nothing to do with policy differences and are just hatchet jobs, some of them using RW talking points and making personal attacks.

One may prefer a candidate over another, but we are on a Democratic site and some of the comments that I see posted here are repugnant and disrespectful, not only of Hillary, but also of her supporters.

[Aerows]

111. If you invested as much time as you do

psychologically profiling Bernie Sanders supporters, as you did screaming from the rooftops what her stance on issues, policy and governance is, you wouldn't have to be doing this.

We'd all know why we need to vote for her.

"Because" is not a reason.

Issues. Platform. Priorities. Shout it from the rooftop!

[Warren DeMontague]

117. I'll tell you, "bernie fans" and "sanders supporters" are definitely not gonna win the primary

When i get the ballot for my state, Will you help me find the spot where I'm supposed to vote for "Sanders supporters" so I'll know not to do that?

[Cha]

118. And, I can understand why they support him.. he's just not for me.. and now even more so.

[Rebkeh]

119. The Clintons

charmed the pants off the nation and used us. They did some great things and some horrible things. Some people are still in the throes of their charm (ahem, performance) despite the truth about them having been exposed. We forget that most people are not politically engaged so the new guy who is clearly better, though not nearly as charming, doesn't resonate.

People are scared.

I'd rather have the curmudgeon, at least he's honest. I feel safer with the guy who is telling it like it is. I'd rather have the nerd than the smooth operator.

[sheshe2]

120. KnR

Thank you Dan.

[Martin Eden]

121. "effective leadership and electability"

Last edited Wed Nov 11, 2015, 12:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Those are neutral concepts which can be applied to a politician anywhere on the left/right spectrum.

My biggest concerns with Hillary Clinton (aside from the very real possibility she might not be so "electable&quot has everything to do with her judgment in matters of war and peace; where she would "lead" our country; and how close she is to the titans of Wall Street.

To put it bluntly I do not trust Hillary Clinton, and I think millions of potential Democratic voters feel the same.

Nearly everything we hope to accomplish as Democrats (saving/expanding Social Security; universal healthcare; affordable education; rebuilding infrastructure; investing in renewable energy) is being sacrificed/under funded because we're pouring trillions of dollars into wars that only serve to perpetuate terrorism and enrich the owners of the military industrial complex.

Gridlocked Congress or not, the POTUS has great power to get us into or keep us out of wars.

Hillary Clinton was a hawk in the run-up to the disastrous war in Iraq, and she's a hawk now.

I'm not trying to engage in tit-for-tat rooting for this candidate or that. I'm talking about real world consequences of the most severe kind that destroy lives and possibly the future of our country. If we don't fundamentally change the way we've been conducting foreign policy through the barrel of a gun, we can kiss good-bye our hopes and dreams for a better future.

I have zero confidence that Hillary Clinton will lead us in that direction.

I trust Bernie Sanders. I believe he is honest, and I agree with him on issues and policies more than any other candidate in my 40 years of being a registered voter.

I've just articulated what I honestly think. Take it for what it's worth.

[Fawke Em]

123. Electable?

That's funny as hell.



If she's the nominee, I'll leave.

Can I come back when she loses and tell you why? Is that in the TOS?

[Scuba]

125. You must be smarting from that spanking!

[DinahMoeHum]

127. Too many on our side (Bernie) have a severe case of I call. . .

. . .the "Nothing-But-The-Best-For-The-Oppressed Syndrome".

Once again, I bring forth the words of a real progressive, the late, great Doris "Granny D" Haddock:

http://www.alternet.org/story/15789/don't_stand_in_the_way_of_our_joy

(snip)
There are many among us on the peace trail who will not support a candidate unless that candidate is perfect on every issue. Politics is about winning. For us, it is about winning to save lives and raise people up from poverty and illness and loneliness and injustice. Those posturing on the left sometimes forget that. Don't tell me that you can't support a particular candidate because of this or that. This isn't about you and your precious political standards. It is about saving nature and our people. We are coming out to win, so please don't stand in our way. When we have reasonable people in power, let us start our arguments again, for we can not move forward unless we have a decent government underneath us and a Bill of Rights to let us speak freely.
(snip)

(*the boldface emphasis is mine)

As far as I'm concerned:
Political purity is bullshit.
Political perfectionism is bullshit.
THE ONLY THING THAT COUNTS IS WINNING.

I say all this as a Bernie Sanders supporter who will nonetheless support Hillary Clinton for POTUS if she wins the Democratic nomination.

[Nonhlanhla]

134. Great quote! nt.

[freshwest]

153. We must all keep this in mind, never forget it for one second:

'For us, it is about winning to save lives and raise people up from poverty and illness and loneliness and injustice.'

Thank you for reminding us all to keeping our 'eyes on the prize' inspiring all to remember what is really important.

That's one of the most poignant things I've ever read. It must become a permanent facet our consciousness and decision making. Anything else is not worthy.

[NCTraveler]

128. Here is a big part of what some are missing.

They have erroneously called this a revolution. Yet in the same breath they are upset that the debate is on a Saturday night because all of the revolutionaries are going to be out having fun. Damn near every optic of the campaign is at odds with reality. The image they themselves have created doesn't match the realities in society. When that is how it's being sold there aren't going to be many buyers.

[Truprogressive85]

132. Who is BLL ?

I know you are not talking about BLM because the media fails to report on the marches and vigils for the little boy that got killed doesn't mean it didn't happened

[Number23]

156. Wow.

[thesquanderer]

130. The main reason EITHER group of fans are failing to draw people over to their side

at least here on this forum

is that most people have already made up their minds.

As a HRC supporter, you'd probably agree that there is no way you're switching to BS no matter WHAT someone says. And likewise, the BS suporters aren't going to switch in the other direction.

People on this site are plugged in. There probably aren't too many undecideds here.

We all believe we have good reasons to prefer our candidate. None of our minds are likely to be changed.

[Act_of_Reparation]

149. Incorrect.

It's not nearly that complicated.

Bernie supporters are failing to convince Hillary supporters for precisely the same reason Hillary supporters are failing to convince Bernie supporters: they're all a bunch of fanboys who fawn over political candidates like your average TMZ-reader fawns over celebrities.

Both candidates, I'm sorry to say, have their strengths and their weaknesses. Hillary supporters are every bit as blind to her weaknesses as Bernie supporters are blind to his. Case in point: this OP.