If Sanders was such a great choice, his fans wouldn't have to resort to lies and conspiracy theories

[DanTex]

This is a useful larger principle. If something is really a good idea, it can be defended honestly, without lies, exaggerations, and conspiracy theories.

For example. Sanders fans wouldn't have to claim that self-selecting online polls represent "the people" but scientific polls are manipulated in favor of Clinton.

They wouldn't have to insist that corporations are donating money to Clinton, as opposed to employees of corporations. And they wouldn't have to claim that she is "owned by Wall Street" when in fact contributions from financial employees in amounts of $200 or more account for 3.4% of her campaign funds.

They wouldn't have to claim that the fix is in everytime a major union endorses Hillary, when in fact all of those unions went through their standard endorsement procedure, which includes things like hearing from the candidates, polling their membership, etc.

They wouldn't have to pretend that Hillary is a conservative or DINO when her voting record places her between the 10th and 15th most liberal member during her time in the senate.

They wouldn't have to claim that there's no difference between Hillary and the GOP on economic issues, when in fact it's difficult to think of a single economic issue where there isn't a huge gulf between her and any of the GOP candidates. Seriously, try it. Minimum wage, union rights, SS and Medicare, financial regulation, inequality, tax cuts for the rich, etc.


Why do they resort to this kind of nonsense (and much more)? Because the reality isn't helpful to their crusade. The reality is that we have three candidates who are very strong on the issues. Yes, there are some differences, but all the candidates are strong progressives, and given political reality, the differences in their platforms are things that are never going to get through congress in the first place.

The problem for the Sanders camp is that if people believe the truth then there isn't much reason to take a chance on a self-described socialist who has little support even among his Senate colleagues, and who won't be able to raise enough money to fight back against the GOP in the general. The Sanders argument requires this to be an epic struggle between good and evil.

But that's not what it is.

[Fumesucker]

1. Hi DanTex

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251793308

[DanTex]

2. I get it, you don't like Hillary.

[Fumesucker]

6. I get it, you have no sensayuma

[DanTex]

8. I do share your love of smilies!

[2pooped2pop]

135. I don't think u do get it

I think it may have been referring to people who like to shit stir for no other reason.
Of course I could be wrong.

[deutsey]

45. Some people here certainly have a lot of time on their hands, don't they? n/t

[LovingA2andMI]

111. Yep...

And amazingly, it's allowed to continue, unfettered. Would ask why but....maybe, just maybe folks can read between the lines.

[Snotcicles]

136. Just another dump-n-run. nt

[Hortensis]

172. DanTex is only partially right.

Some people are so aggressive against opponents that they grab any weapon they can conjure up to attack with. Respect for truth and other values are discarded in the prolonged, incessant, interminable, enjoyable heat of battle.

When they do eventually have to admit a loss, they choose another target and start the whole thing over again. So this may be, or become, a "need," perhaps an addiction that develops. Like the behavior of TPers as an example we're all very familiar with.

Oh, and I said "partially" right because their own candidate's worthiness, or lack of it, is pretty much irrelevant once they've identified their target.

[grasswire]

177. the same people did the trashing of Snowden

So yes, there is a pattern.

[Truprogressive85]

3. Question

If HRC is leading all the polls and going to clinch the nominee ( as some Duers) have stated

Why even bother to care what Sanders supporters have to say

Is his supporters that much a threat to you guys and HRC getting then nomination ?

[DanTex]

4. Discussing politics is a hobby of mine.

[Truprogressive85]

10. Ok

Nothing wrong discussing politics


If HRC supporters are confident their candidate is going to win the nomination than why focus on Sander's supporters ?

You and other HRC supporters should be discussing on how the presumptive nominee is going to defeat the GOP in GE or plans on GOTV. It maybe a Presidential election year, but Obama is not on the ticket.

[DanTex]

17. The behavior of Sanders' online supporters is one of the big stories of the primary IMO.

It's a glimpse into the far left and why they never accomplish anything.

[eridani]

20. Far left = Social Security, unemployment comp, Mediare, medicade, Voting Rights Act---

--and the latest, marriage equality. I'm glad that activists didn't listen to people like you about how impossible that would be.

[DanTex]

24. And Obamacare. I don't consider those things "far left".

But if you do, then at some point between then and now the far left has lost touch with reality.

[eridani]

31. None of that would have happened without the far left

They pushed FDR into doing the right thing in the 30s. And widespread activism during the 60s pushed the Great Society programs as well.

Glad to see you being honest and coming out against marriage equality. That was far left and impossible only a few years ago.

[DanTex]

42. Where did you get the idea that I am against marriage equality?

I'm used to lies and smears from the Bernie crowd, but this is out of nowhere.

[eridani]

208. If you are against people campaigning on an issue that appears hopeless, then you are against

--marriage equality. Activists persisted despite being told that they were causing Democrats to lose, and all for something that most people were against.

[Hortensis]

173. Nonsense, Eridani. Surely you know that those programs

came about because, above all, even the middle classes were hurting and decided they wanted them? The New Deal was very much a mainstream product of those days. Progressives in Congress and other government functionaries, conservatives and liberals, worked together to make it happen.

As for the far left, many attacked the New Deal programs for not going far enough. The far right, of course, prayed for God to strike FDR, and his evil sidekick Francis Perkins, dead.

BTW, for those on the far left I do prefer the terms "far left" or "radical left." The core personality characteristics of liberals have gone missing when you examine the far left. Whatever they are, they are not recognizably liberal in personality. Instead they behave a lot more like conservatives on the far right, invested in a different set of ideas but behaving much the same as they pursue them. And vice versa.

[eridani]

209. The New Deal went as far as it did precisely because many on the left did not think they--

--went far enough. The left has led on every single major policy initiative benefiting the 99%. It was the far left that supported marriage equality while conservative Dems told them to stop raising unpopular issues that would cause Democrats to lose elections.

[Hortensis]

210. Please don't deflect. No one said "the left" wasn't big on this.

We were huge.

BUT, you said, "None of that would have happened without the far left," and that was what I spoke to. And yes, the far left did help somewhat, in spite of their much smaller numbers and despite the opposition of some because it didn't go far enough for them; after all, they have votes too.

But to know what kind of person in general made this happen, remember Francis Perkins, a true exemplar of the "many on the left" who were not far left. She was truly remarkable and I'd like to see her replace Jackson on our $20 bill, but she was an extremely competent and pragmatic liberal progressive, nothing "far" about her. She always worked for change from the inside as part of establishment administrations, and in this case the problems troubling most Americans in one way or another lead her to recommend bold, permanent solutions to FDR.

And notably, joining in making those happen were a bunch of the kind of moderate conservatives that have mostly been run out of office these days. Political scientists think we could not implement the New Deal today because we would lack the widespread and bipartisan support of those days.

[redstateblues]

82. The main difference between the far left and far right

is that the far right got organized and elected a bunch of people who are involved in making policy. The far left is mostly talk

[Hortensis]

174. Maybe that's why the far right is far larger? It attracts through action?

[cascadiance]

187. The big difference is that the far left is far more at its heart threatening to the 1% power...

... that has bought and paid for both parties at this point into do their bidding, and rewriting so many laws, etc. that leave them immune from accountability for what used to be crimes of bribery and basically screwing the rest of us in all ways.

Extreme right was more based on extremist views on social issues such as gay marriage, minority rights, etc. that by themselves don't threaten the 1%er corporate powers of today. Therefore they are more "allowed" to get organized, and one should note that the Tea Party was originally funded and organized by big money people too and not just a "grass roots" movement as the "far left" has had to do with the many young people that weren't organized by big money and had to fight everyone, including police harassment with movements like Occupy Wall Street.

So I would say that the extreme right has been "allowed" to take more power to fuel the Democrats fear that this element will get more powerful and force them to push aside the *so-called* "far left" policies to keep the wealthy DINO elements in power, and avoid Democratic leadership shifting to a power structure not owned by the 1%. The corporate media has been focused on social issue division for years to keep us divided and not united on many issues that many from all parties to come together on on things like the TPP, getting rid of excessive college costs and debt, etc. that many of us could all come together on and force down those that exploit us with those efforts.

The statewide propositions that were won even in red states for things like increasing the minimum wage offer proof that Americans at large are more in tune with the so-called "far left" that the powerful keep trying to marginalize us with such labels.

[Hortensis]

211. Nobody's afraid of the far left by itself because of its small

numbers, often exacerbated by low voter turnout. It's far smaller than the far right, which was energized by decades of successes and usually votes in high numbers.

Together though, or mostly together, we stand. When the mainstream left and right and far left join together, we'll sweep the board. And not until then.

[cascadiance]

213. The SO CALLED "Far Left" WON MAJORITIES of votes on minimum wage referendums in RED states...

... in the same election when Corporate Dems were voted down. Most Americans WANT what the corporate media and other branches of corporate power structure keep trying to depict as "small number" "far left", which is a BS meme trying to get a majority of the American people from feeling they have power to kick out the 1% serving "centrists" (in reality CORPORATIST) pols that have been screwing them for decades to reward the elites and redistribute wealth to the top.

Those propositions that passed in red states like Alaska, Oklahoma, and Arkansas in an election where DNC "led" Democrats got screwed in most places where they tried to sell the Third Way BS is an illustration of what is wrong with a party that can't differentiate itself from the corporate part of the Republican party. Bernie not only appeals to those who want minimum wage, but so many other stances like getting rid of college debt, raising taxes on the rich, etc. that the corporate power hates, but which most Americans want and want to try to find a way to make it sound like Americans need the corporate elements to help them win, when THEY DON'T, and in fact when they try to to do that, they alienate more voters in today's populace than they attract, which is WHY they lost so much in last election.

The far right has been energized by support from the corporate sector (as I noted the Tea Party was created by it), because they champion issues that the corporate sector don't care if they are passed or not passed. As I noted in the previous post, Americans don't like pols being bought by the 1%ers. Even right wingers complain about how the banks own Barack Obama and his administration (and they are right about his justice department which has done SHIT in trying to make any banksters accountable for the 2008 financial disaster) as a symptom of this. But the left this time around and many independents and Republicans want some changes in not just the social issues but on financial issues that the corporate sector is trying to marginalize Bernie who is leading on these issues, which I would argue why many polls now show him beating someone like Trump in greater numbers than Clinton does.

Sorry, but votes, and polls don't support your characterization of what is the "far left". You need links or other more definitive details to back up your assertion, which is more of an echo of the memes that corporate media is putting out to us.

[Hortensis]

214. No they did not. It is literally impossible for the "far left"

to win majorities anywhere except in their own living rooms. And even there, they're likely to quarrel and divide over something.

[cascadiance]

216. So, who are you calling "far left" and what makes a person "far left"?

Huh?

Before you dismiss so many of us as being a fringe group of people, why don't you define what makes us so much of a small minority by the characteristics you feel make us "far left" and this "minority".

Then we can argue whether we are really a minority or not based on analysis of that criteria with votes in various elections, etc.

Just trying to smear people like those who support Bernie as a minority "far left" says NOTHING unless you can pinpoint what makes them in this category you are pushing as only being a "minority" of people smaller than the "far right" set of voters. I would argue that it isn't so much that we are a minority of voters, but that so many feel disaffected and aren't participating in the political process because they feel the government and both parties are *owned* by the 1% corporate sector that movements like Occupy Wallstreet were speaking up against. It isn't that those that want what are depicted by many here as being "far left" are a minority of people, it is that they have felt disempowered by the corporate control of both parties that exist now. That is why measures like raising the minimum wage have passed in solid majorities where they were voted on last election, and the voters (those who voted anyway) said FU to the Democrats who tried to be more like Republicans (or at least tried to be more like them in serving corporate masters). People either stayed home, or they came out to vote for issues that they didn't feel were going to turn around and screw them, like many felt Obama did when they thought he would do something when he campaigned he would "renegotiate NAFTA and other trade deals" and instead they got someone that pushed TPP and other free trade deals that were NAFTA on steroids more than anything else he has tried to do in his administration.

What is the "far left" quarreling about or divided over? Why don't you get specific?

[Hortensis]

217. Such a good point to think we need definitions. I so agree.

Last edited Thu Nov 12, 2015, 12:52 PM - Edit history (1)

There are many for "far left," referring to them by political ideology rather than any deep understanding of what they are. Also, note that because so little attention was paid to a mostly dormant far left from about 1980 to now, good numbers for today are not readily available. (Researchers have instead been especially busy studying conservatives and the right to far right during that national swing to the right.)

Plus, there's the the problem of intermixing the terms "far left" and "liberal." The people referred to as "far left" and as "liberals" by experts are not the same, or even fairly similar, at all, yet often discussed without differentiation. (Like here on DU. I'm linking an article that also doesn't explain it from The Atlantic, "Liberals and the Illiberal Left," because it illustrates THAT very well.) Regarding the "far left's" impact, it does point out that "...the same marginality that has always befallen the hard left in America..." Every dog has its day, but the far left's have tended to be short ones in America compared to Europe and Asia.

In any case, the article is loaded with references to consider vis a vis the issue of terminology and definitions and has links to other interesting articles by other authors.

Btw, my observations here at DU lead me to support a "horseshoe" or "circle" notion of the political spectrum, which is very incomplete puts the far left and far right closer to each other than to moderates on either side, very different in goals but similar in behavior. That would explain why the thoughts of so many here at DU seem to be on nonintersecting lines even though we're mostly assumed to average "left."

Here's useful little point from an old New Republic article, "But that very peace and stability, and the ideological narrowness that makes it possible, can also lead us to forget the persistent character of the anti-liberal left and anti-liberal right, with which we (unlike citizens in less fortunate regions of the world) have very little acquaintance. The anti-liberal left has historically been defined by the radical universalism of its principles, the anti-liberal right by its exclusionary (racial, ethnic, national) particularism. That is the primary difference between them."

Of the very inadequate stuff I pulled up on quick search, this may be the most useful by comparing the far left and the far right:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3274984

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/liberals-and-the-illiberal-left/384988/

[stupidicus]

130. there's no such thing as the far left, there's just what's left of the left after you subtract

Hillarians/thirdwayers.

THe "far left" has (commies/etc) have no political voice to speak of in this country, unlike the far right.

It's for all practical purposes, just an imaginary creature manufactured by all the oh so "honest" author of this top post.

[Truprogressive85]

25. really

The far left ? That is something that I would hear on conservative sites or conservative radio

People said the same thing about Obama supporters during the 08's

accused his supporters of being sexist among other things

[DanTex]

28. I was an Obama supporter in '08. Still am. And I don't listen to conservative radio.

[Truprogressive85]

37. I would hope you dont listen to conservative radio

So when HRC supporters in 08' were accusing Sen.Obama and his Obamabots of being sexists

What was your response ?

[DanTex]

40. I thought Hillary and some of her supporters behaved badly in the '08 campaign.

Reminds me a lot of Bernie supporters this time around. Particularly the threats to sit out the GE if the primary doesn't go their way.

[Truprogressive85]

49. now lets break this down

In 2015 it is HRC supporters + writers accusing Sen. Sanders of being a sexist
Same as 08 HRC supporters +writers accused Obama of being a sexist

If a person who is not supporting HRC has plans to sit out this election wouldn't the best strategy be extend an olive branch instead of pouring gasoline into the fire ?

[Mnemosyne]

75. Precisely. Very well stated, Tru. nt

[LovingA2andMI]

115. And of course, there is this from 2008....

At least some of us, have LONGER memories....

"A series of comments from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, her husband and her supporters are spurring a racial backlash and adding a divisive edge to the presidential primary as the candidates head south to heavily African-American South Carolina.

The comments, which ranged from the New York senator appearing to diminish the role of Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement — an aide later said she misspoke — to Bill Clinton dismissing Sen. Barack Obama’s image in the media as a “fairy tale” — generated outrage on black radio, black blogs and cable television. And now they've drawn the attention of prominent African-American politicians.

“A cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements,” said Obama spokeswoman Candice Tolliver, who said that Clinton would have to decide whether she owed anyone an apology.

“There’s a groundswell of reaction to these comments — and not just these latest comments but really a pattern, or a series of comments that we’ve heard for several months,” she said. “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?”

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/01/racial-tensions-roil-democratic-race-007845

Yep, but you know in 2015, it's just those Sanders supporters that need a hand slap....

[99th_Monkey]

131. +10 ... Especially since HRC "already has it locked up" .. why pitch petrol on the flames. -nt-

[ToxMarz]

53. Yes I remember the PUMA'S

[corkhead]

142. Funny, I had to put some of the same Hillary "fans" back on ignore that I had on ignore 8 years ago

It doesn't appear to me that they've changed their ways; they are still "behaving badly". Not all Hillary fans, mind you. I don't mean to generalize like you did.

I only have a "dirty dozen" of the worst offenders on ignore at the moment.

[cannabis_flower]

29. Really?!!!

I hardly ever see stories in the media about Bernie Sanders supporters. And actually I would bet that the television media does way more stories that feature Hillary as the presumed nominee and way less stories about Bernie Sanders. In fact, lately there have been way more Ben Carson and Donald Trump stories than about either of our candidates.

[leveymg]

60. The memes, character assassination and psyops of the HRC campaign are so much more interesting

than anything the little rag-tag army of the Left can put together. No. The organized work of professionals in the HRC camp is really the case study in political dirty-tricks. DU is a fascinating on-line testing ground for all sorts of trial balloons, and wanabee audition reels that sometimes lead to paid employment.

Your notion that the Bernie supporters are the epicenter of myth-making is just another meme in a long, long line of them going back to original inevitability.

Why bother to try to neutralize Bernie, someone asked. The answer is that genuine popular opposition to a political dynasty can never be tolerated -- look at what happened in 2008 -- and putting down peasant revolts provides a convenient field for would-be knight errants to prove their valour and fealty.

Now, quick, get back to work. You have a title to earn.

[DanTex]

63. Did I mention the conspiracy theories?

[leveymg]

68. When all arguments fail, there is always the CT smear. Go get 'em.

Sticking closely to the campaign handbook of cheap put-downs sometimes isn't enough. Try something more creative, DT.

[Ned_Devine]

127. Thank you for your thoughtful and well written response

[leveymg]

144. The OP is pure flamebait.

I didn't want to play into the OP's stupid game of bait-to-hide.

[2pooped2pop]

140. conspiracy theories?

Really? Very lame.

[tex-wyo-dem]

159. So now you're contending that...

Political dirty tricks in campaigns and the existence of online operatives working directly for a campaign is just CT?

I'd recommend Google, my friend.

[stupidicus]

161. like this one

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/10/3721205/grassroots-questions-big-green/

or the one about how HIllarian highbrows pinned a sexist/racist charge on Bernie because....

[AlbertCat]

137. The behavior of Sanders' online supporters is one of the big stories of the primary IMO.

How about the behavior of Hillary supporters...? And by "online" you must just mean here. (there's more online than DU)

Y'know... that "don't even bother...she's got this" thing.

Or the "she's the most qualified candidate for prez ever" thing?

Oh oh... how about the "Sanders supporters hate black people" thing. That's big lately!

And don't forget the loyalty oaths.


Frankly I hear more about Sanders supporters from Hillary folks than I do about Sanders and his ideas. From Sanders people... I hear more about Hillary herself, not her supporters. Indeed, the most striking thing about Hillary supporters ("on line&quot are how all they seem to really know is her name. Her short voting record is ignored as is her frequent changing of positions and her friends at Goldman Sachs.

Oh... and she's better than any repug.

Such a low bar. we can do better.

[DanTex]

141. Online means online, not just DU.

Facebook, twitter, Kos, reddit, comments on news articles, whoever makes all those silly misleading internet memes.

As far as "don't even bother", nobody said that. This is another characteristic of Bernie supporters -- claiming things were said that weren't. Same with "Sanders supporters hate black people". Both are made up by Sanders supporters wanting to play victim.

She is one of the most qualified candidates for president ever.

As far as the "loyalty oaths" (another term used by Sanders supporters playing the victim), it's pretty odd that Bernie fans protest so much when people point out that we should all vote for the Democratic nominee next November.

[AlbertCat]

143. She is one of the most qualified candidates for president ever.

How so?

She was 1st Lady, so I suppose she already knows where everything is in the White House.

[DanTex]

145. FLOTUS, Senator, SoS, nonprofit work.

Nobody has her resume and her experience.

[2pooped2pop]

150. lol too funny

Thanks for the chuckle.

[2pooped2pop]

146. well if hillary gets the nom

U will have accomplished either at least four more years of same shit or four years of republican presidency.

So you can see why Bernie supporters are so very concerned.

It also seems odd that you post of the behavior of Bernie supporters while presenting an entire essay of shit stirring.

[DanTex]

147. I would happily take four more years of Obama. If Obama had a secret twin, he would get my vote.

Obama has been a transformational progressive president. The best since at least LBJ, and arguably since FDR.

The lies and smears that Bernie fans post are the real "shit stirring", not my factual post calling out the distortions.

[2pooped2pop]

152. well things must be going pretty well for u

And the people you know. Not so much for the people I see.

[DanTex]

153. Things have gotten better for the country over the last 7 years.

As Hillary has said, there's still a lot of work to do, but 7 years ago we were on the brink of a depression, and the auto industry was about to go bankrupt. Now unemployment is down to about 5%, the economy is growing again, and millions more people have access to healthcare. Not to mention things like the Iran deal, Obama's work on climate change, etc.

And the reason we haven't made more progress is because the GOP in congress has obstructed everything. That's not going to change, regardless of who is president.

Bernie supporters somehow think he'll be able to wave his hands and get single payer and minimum wage and all that through congress. Not gonna happen. Obama is already in favor of raising the minimum wage, but congress blocked it. The same thing would happen to Bernie, on issue after issue.

The important thing is putting a Dem in the White House to continue the progress.

[2pooped2pop]

156. yes things are better than with bush

And Obama then as now is much much better than Hillary. But still corporations are raping the country unchecked. The rich are taking everything. The middle class is all but gone and hopelessness is growing.
NOT GOOD ENOUGH

Not good enough and Obama is better than what
Hillary could ever be.

[DanTex]

157. Obama and Hillary are pretty close policy-wise, and if anything Hillary is to his left.

I agree that it's not good enough, but the only thing that will change that is getting more Dems in congress. Having Bernie as POTUS won't be much different from either Obama or Hillary.

[2pooped2pop]

163. except that Bernie is not obligated to big money

He is actually for a government by the people, for the people. He does not owe the corporations.

[Comrade Grumpy]

158. That is some silly shit! n/t

[daleanime]

15. And what good is a hobby....

if you can't look down on some one.

[MattSh]

26. There's a difference between discussing politics...

and trashing those who don't have the same political views as you.

Just saying...

[DanTex]

30. I'm trashing lies, not political views.

[monicaangela]

72. Hear, hear!!!

I often wonder about this Truprogressive85. If their candidate is dominating in every poll, and according to them appears to be the better candidate, why trash Bernie? I believe they understand that name recognition has a lot to do with those numbers, I also believe they have watched the debates and the forum on MSNBC and realize their candidate is vulnerable. She led President Obama in the polls for quite some time, but because the debates were not fixed by the DNC at that time and President Obama had an opportunity to debate her on stage and present his case which was much better than what she was presenting at that time and now for that matter, she went down in flames. Her supporters realize this could happen again so they are trying to stack the deck against any opponent. Sad situation when you can't trust your candidate to win fair and square, truly sad indeed. Btw, I really like your avatar, one of my favorite authors.

[earthside]

105. Indeed. I think he doth protest, too much. n/t

[Live and Learn]

5. You are just trying to make me alert on you

so you can use it against me later, right? There could be no other valid reason for such an idiotic post.

[DanTex]

7. What part of the post do you disagree with?

[Live and Learn]

11. Undoubtedly, the parts you agree with.

Sorry Dan, I don't find your posts and games thought worthy or stimulating enough to play along with.

[DanTex]

14. For example?

[Logical]

18. Lol! He does not get it. Nt

[yardwork]

62. But you bothered to post twice in the thread and threaten to alert.

[redstateblues]

86. I think it's a great post

DanTex is one of the posters here on DU that always backs up his opinions

[mmonk]

9. Representing the people means in policy.

There is a gulf between Clinton and the Republicans except on some key philosophy similarities on the economic side and some foreign policy related. I don't see the Sanders campaign saying there aren't differences. But accusation seems to be the story of the primaries.

[DanTex]

12. What policy similarities are there between Hillary and the GOP on economic issues?

You're right, the Sanders campaign isn't saying there aren't differences. It's his online fan base that says that.

There's a big difference between the Sanders campaign and Sanders supporters. That is one of the stories of this primary.

[mmonk]

33. Her economics is smaller government, budget cutting related like most centrists.

Raising the top income tax rates a few percentages isn't going to do much. It is capital or capital accumulation at the top which should be taxed. She will appoint more Wall Streeters to handle the economy like both Republicans and centrist Democrats do. Means testing Social Security and Disability is another similar area. She is not for rebuilding the walls of separation between commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance to end the boom/bust cycles. Despite what she has said concerning the TPP, I find it hard she will advance balanced trade. Just a few for starters.

[DanTex]

38. Not true at all. She's for raising taxes and more government investment in infrastructure.

All the GOP candidates are in favor of massive tax cuts. If you're not aware of that, you should watch one of the GOP debates. It's night and day.

On SS, the GOP is in favor of privatizing and cutting. Hillary wants to protect and expand. Another huge difference.

Financial reform, Hillary has one of the stronger proposals, which gets praise from people like Krugman and Stiglitz. The GOP wants to roll back Dodd-Frank. Another huge difference.


Like I said, on actual policy issues, the differences between her and the GOP candidates (who aren't remotely "centrist" by the way) are enormous.

[mmonk]

44. I said there is a gulf but there are similarities philosophically.

Also, while myself am also a macro-economic type similar to the economists you mentioned, I see little in easing the growing divide domestically in income. I am happy she would propose raising the minimum wage.

[DanTex]

46. Given that the actual policy differences are enormous, these supposed philosophical similarities

are either totally meaningless, or else purely imagined.

[mmonk]

54. Not imagined at all.

She is similar to Reagan in some regards economically while the Republican Party has moved over to Tea Party Libertarian madness. I am for neither approach, at least until the income disparity is dealt with in a more serious matter. Also, we need to reconsider Trust busting to avoid the increasing monopolization of the economy.

[DanTex]

71. Empty rhetoric. Look at policy. There's a huge gulf between her and the GOP.

[mmonk]

113. So the reality of the Clinton wing we've lived under since

the 90's hasn't existed? Yeah, I'm full of shit and empty rhetoric. We'll agree to disagree.

[redstateblues]

154. Another Revisionist

While not perfect, The Clinton years were good years for this country in spite of the republican's best-efforts to sabotage his presidency. It's just like the majority of "Democrats" on this site that trash the president because he is not a perfect progressive.

[mmonk]

171. The bad policies don't affect a country immediately. They have to have time to work

either positively or negatively. Bill Clinton had the dot com bubble which hid the coming damage.

[redstateblues]

87. BS

[Doctor_J]

57. You mean like TPP and privtization and charter schools and private health insurance and drilling and

perpetual pentagon welfare and for-profit schools and tax cuts?

Besides that not much I guess.

[DanTex]

59. You're wrong about all of those.

TPP - she's against.
Education - GOP wants to privatize public education, Hillary wants to expand it
Healthcare - she wants to expand ACA, GOP wants to get rid of it
Drilling - Hillary's in favor of massive investment in clean energy, GOP opposed
Taxes - Hillary wants to raise taxes on wealthy, GOP wants massive tax cuts

[Gman]

13. Well said

Cuts through the bullshit.

[Logical]

16. Lol, you are so desperate it cracks me up. Silly post. Nt

[Gman]

19. Most striking is Ssnders' fans want him to be what he is not

What he can't and never will be. Based in what happened after Obams won in 08, they'd turn on him within 36 hours after the election the first time he does something a president must do.

Later he may find it necessary to send trips to Syria. Their imaginary context for Sanders would crumple.

[DanTex]

21. Yup, that's also true. We won't get to see it, but if Sanders became president, it wouldn't

be a few months before he was getting bashed the way Obama is.

[redstateblues]

89. They would start calling him a neo-socialist

[eridani]

22. I don't have a lot of hople for his foreign policy

Any president relies on a huge wall of MIC informants to get a clue about what is going on in the world. And I have every intention of pushing him on issues that I consider imprtant.

[bahrbearian]

36. Iran's our enemy

[Dawgs]

74. I think you mean 'make promises he can't keep'.

Which is no different than Hillary or any other candidate.

Difference is that Bernie will never change for anyone, and saying he would do something different once he were President is just made up bullshit.

[ejbr]

108. The left turned on Obama

When instead of compromising with Republicans, he offered them what they always wanted. We turned on Obama because he neglected to take advantage of having both houses of Congress to make life better for all of us. He has done some great things, but his illusions about Republicans being fair actors cost us progress.

[avaistheone1]

138. k&r

[Gman]

180. They turned on him much sooner than that

Less than 48 hours after the election was called, he named Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff They went ape shot here and have worked to undermine him ever since. Makes me wonder if their support is even worth the headaches they bring with them.

[ejbr]

185. If he and Rahm

Want to demonstrate more deference to the concerns of repugs than progressives then they should expect blowback...just sayin'

[Gman]

186. That's why nobody really expects anything from progressives

Over the years It's clear their support can't be counted on and it's a lot more trouble than it's worth.

[ejbr]

188. Support

in undermining our ideals? No, they shouldn't expect that. We agree.

[Gman]

191. Therefore Sanders needs to wait his turn

Along with his supporters and stop the whining about the Democratic Party

[ejbr]

192. And should his backers sit out next election

should he not win primary? Or should we bow our heads and be good soldiers? Nah, I think we should continue to stir shit.

[2pooped2pop]

162. most striking to me is that it is very hard to find anything

negative on Sanders himself because he stands for what he actually believes in and fights for the people, so the only place to go is to try to attack his supporters. So many warnings of Sanders supporters gonna cost him the nom, etc So funny. We better just stop it right now lol.

Or I guess the nom might get ripped out from under Hillary again?

And surely this is her last chance. When she says she won't run again, she will mean it this time.

[Gman]

181. I have a lot of respect for him

He'd make a great prez. But for many reasons he can't win. And I'm done chasing lost causes.

[2pooped2pop]

190. yeah I get that but

I guess I just can't go with what I know in my heart will further kill the little people. I have to try for what is right not what I told to settle with. I guess I would have settled for Clinton instead of that unelectable Obama if I was willing to do that.

[tecelote]

23. Yes. We all wish Sanders supporters were angels like Hillary supports are.

[DanTex]

27. Not angelic, simply truthful.

[tecelote]

32. Yes. You are much closer to angels though.

Superior - right?

[bahrbearian]

34. Clinton's not a Democrat.

[DanTex]

43. Haven't heard that one before, but I'll at it to the list.

[Cali_Democrat]

200. LOL. nt

[yardwork]

64. Bullshit. Right wing tripe.

[leftofcool]

35. And there is is. You nailed it.

[Sunlei]

39. Used to be only Republicans-rude, hateful, little-Baggers who acted like that.

[KingCharlemagne]

41. If HRC were such a great choice, she wouldn't have the blood of 1,000,000+

INNOCENT IRAQIS dripping from her hands.

Why are you supporting a war monger?

[DanTex]

48. Bush and Cheney are responsible for the Iraq War.

If you're looking for someone on the left to blame, it would be Nader.

[KingCharlemagne]

51. Hilary voted for the war, knowing full well that Iraq had no WMD nor ties

to AlQ. (Sanders voted 'No').

= War Monger.

Why are you supporting a war monger?????? You need to take a good, long look in the mirror. The blood of those 1,000,000 Iraqis may actually be dripping from your hands also.

[Dawgs]

69. You don't go on the floor of Congress to sell the war and then not take responsibility for it.

Sorry.

[AzDar]

90. "...But I cast it with CONVICTION." She's either a liar, or she's incompetent. Not POTUS material.

[raindaddy]

139. She makes the connection between Iraq and 9/11 along with nuclear capabilities..

You're right Hillary wasn't simply a victim of Bush's false information. She helped sell that war.

She actually believed that Iraq was direct a threat to the United States even after the inspectors report to the UN indicated they had found no evidence of a revival of a nuclear program in Iraq???

Amazing how she avoids any questions about her cheer leading by claiming she was taken in by Bush/Cheney's irrational fear mongering. Claims most of us already knew were BS....

[Art_from_Ark]

215. Hillary railed against the "vast right-wing conspiracy" in 1998

She saw that same "vast right-wing conspiracy" steal an election from her husband's vice-president in 2000.
In 2002, she voted to give that same "vast right-wing conspiracy" the power to wage war against a defenseless country.
That's "evolving".

[Sunlei]

70. If ANY who voted 'no' were such a great choice why couldn't they make a difference back then?

[KingCharlemagne]

76. That is a damned good question and one for which I have no easy answer. BTW, Abraham

Lincoln as a first-term Congressperson from Illinois opposed the Mexican-American War. Lincoln's position didn't make any difference either, although he had some illustrious company, notably Henry David Thoreau.

[Dawgs]

92. The media. n/t

[2pooped2pop]

160. outnumbered

By the warmongers. Outnumbered by the people who took to the stage to sell the war. People like Hillary Clinton.

[Sunlei]

170. do you mean some who voted yes, were "fooled" by the WMD 'trick'?

[2pooped2pop]

189. no I doubt they were fooled

But were convinced by the majority to vote with them.

[hughee99]

47. Clinton makes it easier to "misrepresent" her

Position on the issues when they have significantly "evolved" relatively recently. Some people are concerned they might "evolve" again once she's elected.

[Myrina]

50. Well now, there's a gigantic load of shit for a Wednesday morning ...

n/t

[thesquanderer]

52. And if HRC was such a great choice, her fans wouldn't have to resort to lies either

Accusations of being sexist, racist, pro-gun, anti-Obama, etc.

Whether entirey fictional or merely being a ridiculous over-extrapolation from something, both sides do it.

[Doctor_J]

55. You mean like that Hillarians are white supremecists?

Or hate women?

[Jim Lane]

56. And if Clinton were such a great choice, her fans would know how to use the subjunctive mood.

This focus on candidates' supporters instead of candidates is really getting ridiculous.

[Mnemosyne]

81. Hear, hear. nt

[-none]

107. And also this would be much more about issues and not personalities.

With Bernie it is issues and a 40 year history to back them up. With Hillary it is whatever is expedient at the time, hence aligning her views to be more inline with Bernie. If Hillary get in, I expect her views to revert back to where they started.

[bobbobbins01]

58. Says the person who distorted Clintons bank donor percentages.

Nothing you say has any validity. You've already shown your willingness to knowingly lie to defend Hillary. This is just more of the same.

[DanTex]

66. Sorry, but my numbers are accurate. Anyone who wants can verify this for themselves.

It's simple arithmetic.

[bobbobbins01]

73. Point proven

Keep shoveling...

[Dawgs]

61. You trying to convince others or yourself? n/t

[DanTex]

65. Just sharing my views with a community of politically engaged Democrats.

[alcibiades_mystery]

67. Results of the Alert

Yeeeeeeesh.

****************************

On Wed Nov 11, 2015, 08:04 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

If Sanders was such a great choice, his fans wouldn't have to resort to lies and conspiracy theories
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251793918

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Bullshit post just to widen the rift

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Nov 11, 2015, 08:10 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Divisive and unhelpful, but let's have the discussion andover on.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Calling a mere opinion 'bullshit' and then attributing a particular motive to it illustrates the alerter as either prescient (which we find unlikely), or merely guessing (and thus, by definition unsure) as to why he sent the alert in the first place. it-s primary season: fortune cookie analyses are to be expected; try not to exacerbate the problem by sending fortune cookie alerts in response.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter: stop your nonsense.

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

*********************************

[MohRokTah]

77. The person who voted to hide this should be banned from this site. eom

[KingCharlemagne]

78. Why don't you just go ahead and call for banning all Sanders supporters? Come on, you

know you want to do it.

Don't be shy.

[MohRokTah]

94. Many will self ban after Hillary becomes the nominee and Sanders endorses her.

I can wait.

[alcibiades_mystery]

83. It's pretty clear abuse of the alert system

With the plain hope that enough like-minded supporters would hide the post just as a matter of group action.

I don't know about banning, but they should be ashamed of themselves, that's for sure.

[redstateblues]

95. You have to be kidding me!!

[Persondem]

79. This OP is spot on. Yesterday I recounted all the BS posts concerning Clinton I have seen

mostly in the last month or so. It was quite a list.

Unsourced quotes attributed to Clinton without proof
the Clinton shill episode - unproven
"Clinton promotes TPP 45 times" was a lie
I have seen Clinton blamed for NAFTA, linked to KXL through some bizzaro, made up 6 degrees of separation bullshit, accused of promoting Citizens United, accused of killing 100's of thousands of people, her record twisted and exaggerated to make her look bad, Sanders being the "amendment king", which is a crock, Clinton accused of being "pro-torture", of being a "gun grabber", blamed for the increase of poverty from '95 - '05 (it decreased), accused of corruption regarding donations to Clinton Foundations (zero evidence of quid pro quo), accused of banking specific 6 figure payments that really went to the Foundation, her campaign contributions being misrepresented to make it look like financial sector PACs were her #1 contributors and on and on ...

The crazy part of it is that Sanders' supporters say they like Bernie because he tells the truth, that he is an ethical politician, and then his supporters use lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations in his name. Holy freaking hypocrisy.

[monicaangela]

80. I suppose it is against

the rules to ask why the population as a whole give her much worse favorability numbers than many candidates, democrat or republican..

Hillary will need to keep the propaganda machines going full force to overcome this. She will need every penny of those Corporate donations and the small amount of donations coming from the electorate if she wishes to use those donations to somehow change the minds of the electorate.

[Dawgs]

96. It's a big reason I don't think she wins in the GE.

And those disapproval numbers are bound to go up, not down.

[zomgitsjesus]

84. Wonder why it is that

Sanders has more donors than any other candidate in history if he is such a loser? Wonder why Hillary fans go out of their way to ridicule any positive news for Sanders? If Sanders is doing so badly, why would the Hillary fans even be concerned? So many questions...

[redstateblues]

104. I like and respect Bernie- He's not a loser

He's just not presidential. I'm glad he is in the race-I think it's good for the party and will help us beat the Republicans.

[Kentonio]

117. What the hell is presidential?

Is his suit not expensive enough? Teeth not sparkly enough? Doesn't use the correct media consultant recommended hand gestures? Doesn't kiss enough babies?

How about choposing a president on what he or she actually stands for, instead of all this fluff?

[magical thyme]

85. If Bernie was such an inferior candidate, Hillary's fans wouldn't have to resort to

attacking and smearing Bernie's supporters.

[magical thyme]

88. not to mention, if Hillary was such a superior candidate, all her fans would have to do is

stick to discussing issues and demonstrate her record on the issues with sources. Instead of relying on empty claims and attacks on Bernie's supporters.

[PatrynXX]

91. Hillary and her supporters do the same thing only more so. alas we don't make up lies

ping

but I'm biased I've moved back to being independent because of the lies come from the Hillary Camp for over a decade so if your pro needless wars, pro wall street and very pro oil and big pharma then Hillary is the person who want to vote for.

[Dustlawyer]

93. Your posts seem to mostly attack Bernie, not support your candidate.

Maybe you could see your way to becoming more positive about Hillary and less antagonistic to others? Try it!

[mountain grammy]

97. An over the top rant about over the top rants...

how completely unproductive of you..

[Tommy2Tone]

98. Good job DanTex

I agree with everything in your post and to Bernie fans, take that.

[redstateblues]

99. It's amazing how responses to a well thought out DanTex post

always devolve into a personal attack. Some of the Bernie supporters can't stand it when faced with facts.

[Kentonio]

119. Personal attacks? You mean like calling other people liars in the first line of the op?

[stupidicus]

132. odd, so far I see your hero ducking and dodging every fact-filled rebuttal

to his gish galloping hogwash.

but your positive reinforcement will no doubt feed his ego and trump the embarrassing indefendibility he's been confronted with and is seemingly running from.

[99th_Monkey]

133. Hint: Insults, Snide & innuendo do not equal "facts" -nt-

[pinebox]

100. Dan's upset because I debunked every single one of his claims

You can see my responses here to his post and this is what this whole thread is about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=789356
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=789814
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=791020


An example of my post is here;

----------------------------------------

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.

[stupidicus]

118. whatta throrough buttkicking, and there's one below too

you have to understand though, that the real strength of the thirdwayer is found in the positive reinforcement their fellows provide, not in their ability to defend their garbage.

[redstateblues]

149. Oooh-That scary third way cabal that secretly

runs both parties and the government. Must be a big Blacklist fan.

[stupidicus]

151. most of the politically savvy know better

your description/definition of them reads like grade schoolers guess

[pinebox]

166. And yet

you can't prove me wrong can you?
Nope.
Aren't facts awesome?! XD

[Kentonio]

122. Nicely done. :)

[floriduck]

164. Are you suggesting a liar is

Claiming his opponents lie? That's a fabulous response to his lie and it was the previous times too. Even if the poster can't read, you have nice little graphs and pictures for him. Maybe someone on the other side of the fence can lend a hand.

[grasswire]

178. standing ovation

great work

[KoKo]

201. Recommend! Thanks for all the Link Info!

[Oilwellian]

218. That's how to cut through the bullshit

Impressive!

[valerief]

101. I don't see anything in this post about Sanders, just other posters. nt

[pinebox]

102. He's upset at my post lol

[valerief]

106. Ah, I see. I checked your post above with the links. Your posts had info

about the candidates, not the posters! That's not how it's done when you're riding the high horse.

[bluedigger]

103. If Clinton were the better choice, her fans could promote her policies rather than attack others.

But she isn't, and day after day we get this.

[-none]

121. ^^^That is it^^^

The lack of issues is the issue.
That is why I support Bernie. Because I know where he stands on the issues. He has the history to back it up too.

[stupidicus]

109. another successful use of chumbait, attention granted

everybody here with a half a brain knows her Iraq War vote, continued wearmongering/promotion thereof, non-support for single-payer, failure to fight the TPP, etc, etc, etc, are not gonna vanish or not be considered by thinking people sick and McTired of the thirdway ways, unlike you apparently.

How long have you been supportive of the TPP and against singlepayer? At exactly what gives you the moral authority to be lecturing your betters on that front?

For someone who so adamant about the real or imagined (mostly the latter) nonsense from others, you sure spew it quite profusely, no?

If HC is such a great candidate, then her supporters wouldn't be trying so desperately hard to obscure or diminish the negative impact things mlike that rightly have on her candidacy.

[Perseus]

110. Ok, lets break down your assertions

1. "For example. Sanders fans wouldn't have to claim that self-selecting online polls represent "the people" but scientific polls are manipulated in favor of Clinton."
A. You may need to point out where that has been said, about scientific polls...what HAS been said, repeatedly, is that the media hypes HRC's performance at the debate, that they ignore the turnouts and also fail to report on Sanders' campaign. And that yes, they do hype their own polls, not the scientific polls. If you have proof of the scientific poll allegation, I will gladly stand corrected.

2. "They wouldn't have to insist that corporations are donating money to Clinton..."
A. Well, this IS a fact. Sanders is getting his donations from the people, Clinton is getting hers from corporations and wall st. Why does that matter? because you have to be very naive to believe that if I donate to your campaign that I am doing it for the pleasure of seeing you win, and that I don't intend to use those donations as an ROI. Something to understand is that corporations, and I know because I worked for one, do push their people to donate for certain candidates, they do it in such a way that they don't break any laws, but they do it.

3. "They wouldn't have to claim that the fix is in every time a major union endorses Hillary" I won't argue with that one, not sure what has transpired in the back rooms to have unions believe that HRC would be a better candidate for them, but it is their decision.

4. "They wouldn't have to pretend that Hillary is a conservative or DINO when her voting record..."
A. Her voting record shows that she supports the big tickets that republicans like, TPP (she just changed her tune, but she supported it), the Iraq invasion, etc. Her record is more to the right than to the left, less progressive and more conservative.

5. "They wouldn't have to claim that there's no difference between Hillary and the GOP on economic issues..."
A. She has changed her tune in many of these issues since Sanders is on the race, Sanders is the cause of why HRC has suddenly adopted many of these ideas. For example, in June she supported $12.00 for minimum wage, then as Sanders pushed forward, she changed her tune in July and suddenly she was all for $15.00.

6. "The reality is that we have three candidates who are very strong on the issues. Yes, there are some differences, but all the candidates are strong progressives"
A. The difference really is that HRC has been pushed to the progressive side by Sanders, her history does not support many of her stands today. I agree to an extent with your statement, but Sanders is by far the most progressive and his record shows it, he has been right in so many issues where HRC has been wrong, TPP and Iraq just to name a couple outstanding issues.

7. "he problem for the Sanders camp is that if people believe the truth then there isn't much reason to take a chance on a self-described socialist who has little support even among his Senate colleagues, and who won't be able to raise enough money to fight back against the GOP in the general."
A. Of all your arguments, this may be the weakest, because Sanders track record has been very good here. Why call him a socialist? He is a "Democratic Socialist" which is different to what you are trying to infer. People, because of ignorance, associate "Socialism" with "Communism" and these are two very different ideologies, a socialist is someone who favours and believes that government is there to serve the people, not special interests, and that social programs, that help people improve themselves is one of government priorities. He believes that health care is a right and should not be there to fill the coffers of Insurance Companies and their CEOs, that education should be free, and this is without infringing on private institutions. That is what a "Democratic Socialist" is, and Sanders is that, he believes in capitalism, but not one where only a few benefit. I am not sure what is wrong with that...Don't use "Socialist" as it is a bad thing, you already benefitt from a lot of the "socialist" programs in the USA.

If Sanders does not win the nomination I will definitely support HRC, because like Sanders said, "HRC will be indefinitely a better president than any in the GOP". God help the USA if a GOP clown wins.

[stonecutter357]

112. k&R

[HassleCat]

114. Oh, my goodness

Aside from the obvious logical fallacy of blaming a few supporters, you open up a whole whirlpool of stuff that makes Clinton look disingenuous, if we were to commit the same logical fallacy you used.

[Android3.14]

116. Can't help but notice you are still afraid to discuss the issues

I'm sure you will get around to it.

In the meantime, here's something for those who actually care about a people's democracy to consider...
Bernie Sanders Defeats Trump By a Wider Margin Than Clinton in a General Election

[DanTex]

123. HA Goodman. LOL.

[Fearless]

120. One giant straw man argument.

[whereisjustice]

124. On the big issues, President Hillary will cut American workers down at their knees... jobs to Asia

Wall Street crime, tax shelters, corrupt police, corporate influence, war, etc.

Hillary is a conservative on the economic issues driving disparity and inequality in the US.

[2pooped2pop]

125. another shit stirring for the sake of shit stirring post

U must be fond of the shit stirring stick.

[Bluenorthwest]

126. I'm done with giving Primary votes to candidates who have hindered my equal rights in the past and

preached about how their 'faith' just won't allow same sex marriages. Done. Obama spent the last free pass, there are no more such passes.
Additionally, the IWR vote was lacking in both courage and discernment.

So my Primary vote will go to the candidate who has never exploited religious intolerance against my people for their own advantage, and that is how it will be for the rest of my life.

I understand that straight posters don't give a fuck about LGBT persons or rights and that is exactly why we can't afford to play around with candidates whose history is less than stellar in regards to language about minority voters.

[Armstead]

128. Anything you don't agree with is "conspiracy theory"

It's not like the Clintons (TM) didnlt pack the government with Goldman Sachs types in he 90's, and basically gave Corporate Monopolists everyhing hey wanted.

You think skepticism about legislation like the Telecommunications Reform Act which reduced the number of ragio station owners from hundreds to almost total dominance five or six corporate monopolies is just a conspiracy theory?

Does the fact that those same corporate monopolists are backing Hillary now, when they are tring to do the same to the Internet is just a coincidence?

Is it at least worth bringing up? Or should we just ignore it and go "Hilllarrry! Hillarrrry Rah Rah!"

[stupidicus]

134. indeed, and BC even pre-apologized for some of those "conspiracies"

to smooth the trail out before she stumbled and fell over them.

The TRA has been a pet peeve of mine since enacted. Gee, who could predicted the outcome of that one eh?

[Doctor_J]

169. Here is my brief view

Arguments against Mrs. Clinton:

- TPP
- Expanded Wars
- Favors Charter schools
- Doesn't want to try for a $15 minimum wage
- Voted for IWR
- Was one of the last Dems to approve of SSM
- Is taking millions from bankers and wall street and private prisons

Arguments against Sanders:

- He's a racist
- He's a sexist
- He's old
- He doesn't evolve on issues
- He's unelectable

Which list is based on facts, and which list is based on feelings?

[Thinkingabout]

129. K & R Good post Dan

[MsMAC]

148. I get the feeling that Sanders is being jammed down my throat and I don't

appreciate that! I'm not necessarily a Hillary fan but I hate these Sanderistas attacks on her. I've thought about not voting because this is getting too ugly within the party! It's enough to have to listen to the stupid repugs, but when it's Sanderistas, it's disgusting. I delete anything about him that shows up on my facebook page because I don't want to read it!

[Catherina]

179. Most unconvincing. LMAO! Goodbye n/t

[Koinos]

155. I am feeling so comfortable with O'Malley at this point.

Has anyone here read his comprehensive plan for veterans?
https://martinomalley.com/policy/veterans/

Even if you don't want to vote for him, at least discuss the issues that he has so carefully addressed in great detail.

His policy statements alone have earned him the right to be heard.

[HassleCat]

165. I'm kinda glad you keep reposting this.

It makes me feel less bad about what I am going to write in response.

Clinton supporters are every bit as guilty as Sanders supporters when it comes to lies and exaggerations. Your post provides an excellent example.

The contributions from financial corporations are deceptive, listed as individual contributors to make it appear that the company itself had nothing to do with all its employees getting together and each giving a generous amount. Fortunately, our campaign finance laws require contributors to disclose their work associations, so we can see when this happens. To claim these are independent donations that have nothing to do with the employer is a deception at best, and I would call it an outright lie.

Given this deception, I want to consider your statement that, "If something is really a good idea, it can be defended honestly, without lies, exaggerations, and conspiracy theories." If that were true, you just proved the Clinton candidacy is not a good idea. Of course, your axiom is not true. It's inductive reasoning, and poor inductive reasoning, since it infers a general principle from a small number of examples. Your deception on behalf of Clinton does not mean she is a bad candidate. And the lies and venom we see from Sanders supports do not prove he is a bad candidate.

As for reality, here it is. Sanders stands almost no chance of beating out Clinton for the nomination. If he could somehow do so, he would do extremely well against the Republicans. Current polls show him beating Republicans by wider margins than Clinton shows. He has more appeal to voters in general than he does to Democrats. That's reality, and that's why I support Sanders. He would also stand a chance of bringing some progressive legislators along with him, something we are less likely to see from Clinton.

It is also part of reality that Clinton is not a "strong progressive." She is a weak progressive. She dared to call herself a progressive months ago, and she avoids that label now. In fact, that's part of her appeal to the mainstream Democratic Party, the fact she's not "too progressive." Her reform proposals stop well short of anything a real progressive would advocate. She refuses to oppose capital punishment, for example, something a real progressive would consider absolutely essential for criminal justice reform, and a big civil rights issue. She still has not taken a firm stand against raising the Social Security retirement age, even after she was pressed about her "open to it" remark. She moves in a progressive direction only when it feels safe, as illustrated by her position on DOMA. And she will probably follow the accepted Third Way strategy of running back to the right after the convention, so I expect her to "clarify" that she really didn't say she was a progressive at all.

It's not that I don't like Clinton, nor am I in love with Sanders. I refuse to make excuses for his support of indemnifying gun manufacturers, for example. If candidate supporters want to appear here on DU and tell us why their candidates are wonderful, that's great. But when candidate supporters show up and say, "You lie for your candidate, and that proves he's inferior," I can't let that slide past without comment. Much of the stuff my fellow Sandernistas -- some of them, not all of them -- hurl at Clinton is just false, probably copied from right wing talking points. The email non-scandal is a prime example. But there are differences, important differences, between the two candidates, and all this "93 percent" stuff is another deception we get from some, not all, Clinton supporters. It is extremely misleading to claim the 7 percent difference is meaningless, and it conveniently goes away when the Clinton people want to point out an important distinction. Then it comes back when they want to blur a distinction. I can forgive this, but I can't sit on my hands when somebody does it, then says, "Ha! You were deceptive! That proves your candidate is no good!"

So, yeah, she's going to win. Barring some kind of spectacular disaster, she will win the nomination and the presidency. I'm OK with that, but the gloating is pissing me off a little. I can even tolerate the gloating, except when accompanied by a broad-brush condemnation of my candidate and all his supporters.

[DanTex]

168. OK...

The contributions from financial corporations are deceptive, listed as individual contributors to make it appear that the company itself had nothing to do with all its employees getting together and each giving a generous amount

It's illegal for employers to coerce their employees into donating to campaigns, and there's not a trace of evidence that a single one of Hillary's contributions was coerced. The contributions are made by individuals, the only deception is people trying to claim otherwise.

If he could somehow do so, he would do extremely well against the Republicans. Current polls show him beating Republicans by wider margins than Clinton shows.

That depends upon which poll and which Republican. But what's more important is that the GOP hasn't gone after Bernie yet. If he were to face the full brunt of GOP ferocity, he'd be toast. Clinton can stand up to it -- she's already standing up to it (see Benghazi).

It is also part of reality that Clinton is not a "strong progressive".

I don't care about the labels she uses or doesn't use, I care about policy. Her platform is very progressive, and her voting record ranked her as the #11 most liberal senator during her tenure. You can always cherry-pick dishonestly to make people look bad. Hillary isn't as progressive as Sanders, but she's definitely in the liberal/progressive category.

I refuse to make excuses for his support of indemnifying gun manufacturers, for example.

Credit to you on this. But a lot of Sanders supporters, for some reason, decided to try and defend that.

The email non-scandal is a prime example.

Yes it is.

But there are differences, important differences,

Yes, there are. But those differences (e.g. single payer, $15 versus $12) won't make any difference in the face of GOP obstruction. Any Dem president would be pulling in the progressive direction, and what matters is how well they maneuver against the GOP, not how lofty their ambitions are.

and all this "93 percent" stuff is another deception we get

It's not a deception at all. It's mainly a rebuttal to the smear that Hillary is GOP-lite, which you've no doubt heard. Pick a random Republican and see how often he or she voted with Bernie. There will be a huge difference. The fact is, Hillary and Bernie agree on most things, although there are some notable exceptions.

[Vattel]

167. They don't have to resort to lies and consipracy theories.

Comparing records will suffice.

[d_legendary1]

175. About your "theories" or whatever lie you're spewing

1. "...but scientific polls are manipulated in favor of Clinton"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=705161

The majority of the people polled were moderate Dems and seniors. One thing I always look at when someone posts those Pro-Clinton polls is who the pollsters questioned. Methodology makes and breaks polls. Polling people who are Pro-Clinton and then claiming its scientific is about as accurate as those CNN online polls.

2. "owned by Wall Street" when in fact contributions from financial employees in amounts of $200 or more account for 3.4% of her campaign funds.

So where are the other 96.6% of her donations coming from? Those $500 a plate fund raisers that corporates usually attend? Speaking fees? Big Donors?

3. "...when in fact all of those unions went through their standard endorsement procedure, which includes things like hearing from the candidates, polling their membership, etc. "

The LA Times disagrees with your assumption. The rank and file weren't ready to endorse Clinton (teachers hated Obama's policies on education and Clinton is for them), but the heads went with it anyway. I can't speak for other unions but the NEA endorsement was a sham.

4."her voting record places her between the 10th and 15th most liberal member during her time in the senate."

Based on what? The Iraq war? The bank bail outs? The Patriot Act? The Death Penalty? All yes votes from HRC's time as Senator.

5. "They wouldn't have to claim that there's no difference between Hillary and the GOP on economic issues...Seriously, try it. Minimum wage, union rights, SS and Medicare, financial regulation, inequality, tax cuts for the rich, etc."

Does TPP count? Or does her recent "I'm against it" negate the fact that she and the GOP wanted this deal when she was SOS? If this deal goes through it won't matter if she's for union rights or a minimum wage. TPP will obliterate all of her stances. Kinda like how Obama is pitching a big game about worker's rights but wants to sign a treaty that would undermine all of his executive orders.

[BlueCaliDem]

176. Or Republican talking points, for that matter.

These days, I see alarmingly more posts attempting to use Republican talking points in order to demonize Hillary Clinton. Considering that this is a Democratic Party supporting site - and an open one - and Hillary Clinton is, according to all polls, the Democratic front-runner, it disturbs me to see how many "new" DUers are coming here posting vicious Republican lies against our front-runner, and are able to let those posts stand because they claim to be "Sanders supporters" (which is doubtful).

I say, again and again, don't attack Hillary Clinton or post why no one should vote for her. We know she isn't perfect. We're not political novices here.

Instead, start posting sound reasons why we should support and vote for Bernie Sanders. I haven't read a single thing any of them has posted that has even remotely moved the needle of support from Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. None. And their vicious attacks of Hillary Clinton isn't helping their cause. It's only telling me that they're not voting for Bernie Sanders. It's telling me that they're trying to vote against Hillary Clinton.

[AgingAmerican]

182. You are projecting

nt

[RichVRichV]

183. I'll take a crack.

For example. Sanders fans wouldn't have to claim that self-selecting online polls represent "the people" but scientific polls are manipulated in favor of Clinton.

I keep seeing this posted over and over again. It simply makes no sense. Self-Selecting vs random sample has nothing to do with science. Being self selecting doesn't make something non-science. Being random sampled doesn't make something science. For something to be based on science it has to follow the scientific method. That is develop a hypothesis, test hypothesis, collect data on hypothesis, repeat tests, adjust hypothesis. There's is nothing inherently scientific or unscientific about how sampling is done. What is ideal to science is eliminating variables, regardless of methodology used.

You act as if online polls are useless because they can't predict who will win. They're not about predicting winners, they're about showing enthusiasm. Bernie wins online polls because he has a larger base of enthusiastic people behind him than Hillary does. This is further proven by the crowd sizes when he gives stump speeches, and anecdotally here on DU. The reason why straw polls are not good predictors of elections is because of the self sampling, but it's not because of science. Only people who are self motivated to follow politics tend to partake in them. People who are self motivated only make up a small percentage of the total electorate. Most people simply don't care enough to do anything but let the information come to them. Their sampling is simply insufficient. However what these things do show is that among people who are self motivated to pay attention to politics Bernie is far and away the favorite. If the entire electorate were self motivating when it comes to politics then straw polls would be just as accurate as any other polls. Most of the electorate isn't so they're not. That doesn't mean they're useless.

Now let's go into the "scientific polls" as you like to tout. These are better representation of what currently exists because they also sample the non-self motivating electorate (which makes up the majority of voters). However, just like any other poll, they also are simply a snapshot of the here and now. They are no better at predicting the future than an online poll or any other method because we can't predict the future. That's something a lot of people here don't seem to grasp. But just like any other public available poll they do introduce bias, no matter how honest people running them are. Public released polls always favor who is in the lead by reinforcing that they are going to be the winner (again, people can't grasp that polls don't predict). How many times have you seen on this very forum someone say they like Bernie but he can't win. That is reinforcement. That is what all public released polls do (whether they're "scientific" or not). We need to recognize that no poll is necessary to Democracy. We could easily have an election without saying a word about who is "leading" heading up to an election. This is why Incumbents are so difficult to displace, even when they're not liked.

The fallacy of your argument is that science has anything to do with politics. It doesn't. Politics is about propaganda, not science. It is about spreading a message to elect a specific individual or group. Whether the propaganda is based on science or not, it's still propaganda. That is politics in a nutshell.

Finally I want to point out some hypocrisy on you and general Hillary supporters parts. You like to keep bringing up self selecting online polls as being invalid, and yet there isn't a peep out of you about endorsements being invalid. By their very definition these are self selecting. And yet these are not only considered valid, they're regularly touted here. You bring it up in the very post I'm responding to. All an online poll is is a mass endorsement by the peons (those not in power). They are neither less nor more valid than endorsements by powerful individuals.

They wouldn't have to insist that corporations are donating money to Clinton, as opposed to employees of corporations. And they wouldn't have to claim that she is "owned by Wall Street" when in fact contributions from financial employees in amounts of $200 or more account for 3.4% of her campaign funds.

I guess super pacs supporting Hillary is a conspiracy. I guess we're to believe that it's common folks funding these super pacs with dark money. Maybe you're right, and Hillary really isn't in with the corporations.

Maybe she doesn't believe in the super pacs and them helping her won't buy any influence.

Maybe all these people in banking and corporate jobs are donating to her simply because they believe in her, and don't expect anything from it.

Maybe all the times she supported the TPP really was just Obama's bidding and she really is and has been against it.

Maybe she was always against NAFTA and didn't want to make her husband look bad by denouncing it.

Maybe her positions in favor of global fracking were because she truly believes it's in the best interest of the people of the world, or she was just forced to follow what Obama wanted.

Maybe those 200k speaking deals with corporations weren't quid pro quo. Maybe the CEO's just felt she was just this super amazing motivator to pay for.

Maybe she doesn't personally associate with the wealthy and powerful because she shares their views on life. Maybe she just likes all their company while disagreeing with them on beliefs.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Any of these (and a whole lot more) taken individually can be written off as not proving anything. But at what point does a mountain of circumstantial evidence become enough to prove she's in it with the corporations? To use a law term, when do we exceed 'reasonable doubt'? Does there have to be a smoking gun, a confession?

Would her coming out and directly saying so prove it to her supporters? I doubt it. She has already recently stated she's "guilty of being a moderate" and yet there are supporters here who claim she's a liberal.

Which brings me to the next point.

They wouldn't have to pretend that Hillary is a conservative or DINO when her voting record places her between the 10th and 15th most liberal member during her time in the senate.

They wouldn't have to claim that there's no difference between Hillary and the GOP on economic issues, when in fact it's difficult to think of a single economic issue where there isn't a huge gulf between her and any of the GOP candidates. Seriously, try it. Minimum wage, union rights, SS and Medicare, financial regulation, inequality, tax cuts for the rich, etc.

That doesn't prove she's a liberal. That proves the how far right the government has slipped. There are articles from other countries describing how Bernie would be a moderate left candidate in many other industrialized counties (not the fringe far left that Hillary supporters like to claim) and Hillary would be a moderate right candidate. I have even seen Bernie described as an Eisenhower Republican on these boards recently. And there's been many discussions about how both Hillary and Obama are Reagen Republicans (Obama even came out and said as much himself).

This should give some indication of how far right our country has moved. Yes Hillary is way less right than the current Republicans. There's no question of that. But that doesn't mean she's to the left. What she is is left on social issues and right on economic and foreign policy (the Republicans are generally right to hard right on all those issues). That's the simple truth of the matter. Whether you look at it from a world perspective or historic perspective that's the case. The only way she can be viewed as a liberal is through the American lense of modern politics. The simple fact is, compared to where we are at as a country at this point in time, Hillary will continue pulling us right (at worst) or keep us where we're at (at best). Bernie will pull us slightly left (at worst), or substantially left (at best) back towards where we were 50 years ago (economically). This is why I support Bernie. Not because I see him as some savior. But because I think politically on economics where we were 50 years ago is better then where we're at right now. I believe Bernie will start moving us in the right direction, unlike every president of the past 35 years. I recognize we're highly unlikely to achieve that under his terms alone. But we have to start somewhere.




There is a difference between Bernie and Hillary supporters.

When a Bernie supporter makes a well reasoned post, the average Hillary supporter's response is this ->

When a Hillary supporter makes a well reasoned post, such as yours, the Bernie supporters will counter with a well reasoned response (you know, actual debating).

You can say what you want about us, but you can't say we're afraid to defend our beliefs.






I look forward to the response. I truly enjoy when someone can bring a well reasoned rebuttal to debate.

[DanTex]

184. Rather than trying to explain the science and statistics behind polling,

I'll just refer you to this excellent post by another DUer, Godhumor:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251567623
And here's a useful explanation of why online polls are useless.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/net_election/2000/01/why_online_polls_are_bunk.html

They don't actually measure enthusiasm either, they measure who wants to click on a website more, and in many cases (including the debate) who is more organized about getting people to click on a website. And the point I was making is that Bernie supporters insisted that "the people" thought that Bernie won as evidence by the online polls. That's pure silliness.

Also, while polls don't predict the future with absolute precision, what they can do is give an accurate snapshot of the opinions of the population (provided they are conducted scientifically). For example, they can help answer questions like "who do most people think won the debate" in a way that online polls cannot. They do have some predictive value, moreso when the election is near, but at this point the most useful predictive tools are betting markets.

Regarding endorsements, yes, endorsements are perfectly "valid." Endorsements are important, that's why politicians seek them. They aren't polls, and nobody claims that they are. What an endorsement by a politician or a union or other group means is simply that that politician/union/group thinks that candidate X is the best qualified. Also, as Nate Silver and others have documented, endorsements have predictive value, often more even than polls.

I guess super pacs supporting Hillary is a conspiracy. I guess we're to believe that it's common folks funding these super pacs with dark money. Maybe you're right, and Hillary really isn't in with the corporations.

First of all, SuperPACs don't contribute to campaigns. Also, the donors to the main pro-Hillary's super PAC, so far, are wealthy individuals, and not corporations.

Maybe she doesn't believe in the super pacs and them helping her won't buy any influence.

She doesn't believe in SuperPACs, she's against CU, but she's not going to unilaterally disarm. The people donating to her SuperPAC are liberals like George Soros and Tom Steyer who simply want to see a liberal president in the same way that Ben and Jerry are wealthy donors who are supporting Bernie because they think he's the best candidate.

Maybe all these people in banking and corporate jobs are donating to her simply because they believe in her, and don't expect anything from it.

Yes, that is correct. People in banking in particular aren't stupid enough to think that a $2700 campaign contribution is going to net them personally anywhere close to $2700 in return, even if they could buy influence with it, which they can't. People with corporate jobs donating to Hillary are simply people who think that Hillary is the best candidate.

Maybe all the times she supported the TPP really was just Obama's bidding and she really is and has been against it.

This one is simple: she was in favor of TPP while it was under negotiation, but when it was finalized it wasn't what she had hoped or expected.

Maybe she was always against NAFTA and didn't want to make her husband look bad by denouncing it.

She was in favor of NAFTA, as far as I know.

Maybe her positions in favor of global fracking were because she truly believes it's in the best interest of the people of the world, or she was just forced to follow what Obama wanted.

She and Obama pushed natural gas, including fracking in some instances, as part of a climate change initiative, since natural gas burns much cleaner than the main alternative which is coal.

Maybe those 200k speaking deals with corporations weren't quid pro quo. Maybe the CEO's just felt she was just this super amazing motivator to pay for.

Correct, they weren't quid pro quo. There are a lot of people on the speaking circuit, not just Hillary, but she gets paid the most because she's a huge name. If you want to save money, don't hire Hillary, instead go for someone like Dennis Kucinich. If you want the best, you have to pay top dollar.

Maybe she doesn't personally associate with the wealthy and powerful because she shares their views on life. Maybe she just likes all their company while disagreeing with them on beliefs.

Funny, it never bothers people when Bernie associates with uber-rich capitalists like Ben and Jerry. They even introduced him at his campaign kick-off in Burlington. As for Hillary, she associates with a lot of people from all walks of life and all parts of the world. Her breadth of experiences and people she's known is part of what makes her such a great candidate.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. Any of these (and a whole lot more) taken individually can be written off as not proving anything. But at what point does a mountain of circumstantial evidence become enough to prove she's in it with the corporations? To use a law term, when do we exceed 'reasonable doubt'? Does there have to be a smoking gun, a confession?

None of it, either individually or collectively, comes anywhere close to proving that she's "in it with the corporations."

Would her coming out and directly saying so prove it to her supporters? I doubt it. She has already recently stated she's "guilty of being a moderate" and yet there are supporters here who claim she's a liberal.

Yes. If she comes out and says "I favor the well-being of corporations over the well-being of people", that would prove it.

That doesn't prove she's a liberal. That proves the how far right the government has slipped. There are articles from other countries describing how Bernie would be a moderate left candidate in many other industrialized counties (not the fringe far left that Hillary supporters like to claim) and Hillary would be a moderate right candidate. I have even seen Bernie described as an Eisenhower Republican on these boards recently. And there's been many discussions about how both Hillary and Obama are Reagen Republicans (Obama even came out and said as much himself).

In some other countries, she might be considered center-right on certain issues, but not in this country, which is the one we live in. Calling her a Reagan Republican is just silly -- Reagan ushered in supply side economics, cut domestic spending, hugely increased the military, drastically cut taxes, was nakedly anti-environment and anti-union, nominated Scalia and Bork, etc. Please be serious.

This should give some indication of how far right our country has moved. Yes Hillary is way less right than the current Republicans. There's no question of that. But that doesn't mean she's to the left. What she is is left on social issues and right on economic and foreign policy (the Republicans are generally right to hard right on all those issues). That's the simple truth of the matter. Whether you look at it from a world perspective or historic perspective that's the case. The only way she can be viewed as a liberal is through the American lense of modern politics. The simple fact is, compared to where we are at as a country at this point in time, Hillary will continue pulling us right (at worst) or keep us where we're at (at best). Bernie will pull us slightly left (at worst), or substantially left (at best) back towards where we were 50 years ago (economically). This is why I support Bernie. Not because I see him as some savior. But because I think politically on economics where we were 50 years ago is better then where we're at right now. I believe Bernie will start moving us in the right direction, unlike every president of the past 35 years. I recognize we're highly unlikely to achieve that under his terms alone. But we have to start somewhere.

The only lens that matters is the lens of current American politics. And by that lens, she's clearly a liberal. In case you've missed it, a lot of people on DU are talking about not even voting in the general if Bernie loses because they think that Hillary is not significantly better than the GOP. Believing that requires some serious cluelessness.

And Hillary will certainly not pull us to the right. Every single policy that Hillary is proposing would move the country to the left of where it is right now. Go down the line and check for yourself. Minimum wage. Employee free choice. Financial regulation. Raising taxes on the wealthy and on capital gains. Affordable college. Large investments in clean energy. Equal pay for women. Etc. There's not one policy she's advocating (that I know of) which is to the right of current policy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The only real beef that one could rationally have with Hillary is that she wouldn't pull us far enough to the left. And it's true, what she's proposing is not as far left (on some issues) as what Bernie is proposing. But she'd still be pulling left. Just as Obama has been pulling left.

Finally, it doesn't really matter how far left someone's policies are, what matters is how effective that person will be in fighting with the GOP. Neither Bernie nor Hillary are going to get half of what they are proposing passed into law, the GOP is going to obstruct it all. The same way they've obstructed Obama. The fact that Bernie supports single payer, for example, will make no difference whatsoever in terms of what policies his administration will actually be able to accomplish. In fact, the only way the single payer will make any difference is if that if he actually tries to pass it, in which case he will fail catastrophically, and leave him weakened politically and more vulnerable to the GOP.

[RichVRichV]

196. I understand the statistics behind polls just fine.

You can argue an online poll has no meaning, and by itself it doesn't. But just like random sample polls, they can show trends. The online polls have favored Bernie since he first declared. They have consistently favored him without fail. That is called a trend.

Maybe you think there's been some effort from the very beginning to manipulate every poll by Bernie's machine. Maybe you believe that Hillary supporters are smarter and avoid every online poll as a monolith..... Or maybe there's just more fervent Bernie supporters than Hillary supporters.

I get that Bernie actually being ahead in something would shatter your universe. I'm truly sorry for that. But the evidence is pretty compelling at this point. Right now Hillary has more people willing to vote for her. Bernie has more people willing to support him. That's called enthusiasm. And no amount of spinning will change that.

Also, while polls don't predict the future with absolute precision, what they can do is give an accurate snapshot of the opinions of the population (provided they are conducted scientifically). For example, they can help answer questions like "who do most people think won the debate" in a way that online polls cannot. They do have some predictive value, moreso when the election is near, but at this point the most useful predictive tools are betting markets.

Once again. polls can give a snapshot of the here and now. They can even be trended to extrapolate probabilities (based upon what we can measure). They cannot predict the future. Never could, never will. A week from now a candidate (any candidate) could commit an act or say something so vile that even their most ardent supporters reject them. Or a world event could happen that dramatically changes peoples priorities. At that point all current polling becomes invalidated. These are but two extreme examples of why polls can't predict the future. And anyone that relies on any poll to decide how they should vote is easily manipulated.

Regarding endorsements, yes, endorsements are perfectly "valid." Endorsements are important, that's why politicians seek them. They aren't polls, and nobody claims that they are. What an endorsement by a politician or a union or other group means is simply that that politician/union/group thinks that candidate X is the best qualified. Also, as Nate Silver and others have documented, endorsements have predictive value, often more even than polls.

Not only did you not acknowledge the hypocrisy between your positions with online polls and endorsements, you doubled down on them. There is no difference between someone in power saying they endorse a candidate and someone in an online poll saying they endorse a candidate. They're the exact same thing. Both are done with the intent to influence. Once again, we can't predict the future. Endorsements don't predict, they influence. This is simple causality we're discussing here.

First of all, SuperPACs don't contribute to campaigns.......
......Funny, it never bothers people when Bernie associates

I could take these one at a time and we could go round and round, but there's no point in doing so. Individually you can try to explain them away forever. However, when judging a candidate you have to do so with the net view of their beliefs and stances. At some point the sheer volume of evidence has to mean something.

None of it, either individually or collectively, comes anywhere close to proving that she's "in it with the corporations."

Yes. If she comes out and says "I favor the well-being of corporations over the well-being of people", that would prove it.

You've already proven that you won't believe anything in a negative light about Hillary. You expect us to take everything she says on her word. You expect us to believe her when she says she's truly against the TPP. You expect us to believe her when she says she's against the KXL. You expect us to believe her when she says she's against corporate donations and not under their influence (all the evidence to the contrary). Despite all that we're supposed to take on faith, when she says she's "guilty of being a moderate" you don't believe her. You still believe she's a liberal. How do you expect anyone to have an intellectually honest debate with you when you set different standards for each side?

In some other countries, she might be considered center-right on certain issues, but not in this country, which is the one we live in. Calling her a Reagan Republican is just silly -- Reagan ushered in supply side economics, cut domestic spending, hugely increased the military, drastically cut taxes, was nakedly anti-environment and anti-union, nominated Scalia and Bork, etc. Please be serious.

I'm very serious. Barrack Obama stated in an interview that he would be a Reagan Republican if it were the 80s. When asked how her presidency would differ from Obama's in the debate, Hillary said she's a woman. She literally had nothing of substance! Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law, which has caused millions of lost jobs in this country. Obama is trying to push through the TPP (among others), NAFTA on steroids. Hillary supported NAFTA and helped negotiate the TPP. None of these people have disavowed supply side economics. None have put a dent in the military spending. When it comes to economics they all share the same third way beliefs.

Sure they're all a lot better than modern Republicans. That's not a bar we should be setting our views to. We should expect and demand more than we're getting, or else we'll never get it.

The only lens that matters is the lens of current American politics. And by that lens, she's clearly a liberal. In case you've missed it, a lot of people on DU are talking about not even voting in the general if Bernie loses because they think that Hillary is not significantly better than the GOP. Believing that requires some serious cluelessness.

Actually virtually no one is saying it anymore, because doing so can get people banned from this site. But it still amazes me that on one hand Hillary supporters can point out how many people would refuse to vote for her and how much Republicans hate her and attack her, then on the other hand keep saying Bernie is the unelectable one in the generals. There's a disconnect there a mile wide.

Finally, it doesn't really matter how far left someone's policies are, what matters is how effective that person will be in fighting with the GOP. Neither Bernie nor Hillary are going to get half of what they are proposing passed into law, the GOP is going to obstruct it all. The same way they've obstructed Obama. The fact that Bernie supports single payer, for example, will make no difference whatsoever in terms of what policies his administration will actually be able to accomplish. In fact, the only way the single payer will make any difference is if that if he actually tries to pass it, in which case he will fail catastrophically, and leave him weakened politically and more vulnerable to the GOP.

This is where Hillary supporters fail to see the real issue. It's never been about which candidate can work with the other side. It's about which candidate can replace the other side. By all accounts, the Democratic party should be dominating. We have the superior message, the sane candidates, Demographics favor us. As people have rightly pointed out, the Republican party should be practically dead. And yet the opposite has happened. Republicans are taking over states left and right. They've taken both chambers of congress (even they can't gerrymander their way into the senate). So why is this happening?

The answer is simple. The Democratic party has spent so long triangulating that we no longer have a strong message to counter theirs. Yes their message might be nuts, but they wear it proudly and loudly. People go with Republicans because only one side is showing strong convictions to their beliefs. What we need to do is switch from a party focused solely on winning to a party focused on fighting.

People are fed up with the middle class disappearing. People are fed up with unions becoming non-existent. People are fed up with losing their jobs over seas. People are fed up with skyrocketing health costs. People are fed up with the staggering bills to get an education. They're no longer responding to smooth talking politicians who spend more time on how their message sounds than what their message means. What people want is someone to fight for them.

You can try to claim Hillary is that person but she's not. She's continuation of the same status quo that hasn't worked for us for the past 35 years. Whether Democrat or Republican the rich keep getting richer and everyone else keeps falling farther behind.

[DanTex]

198. All evidence to the contrary...

You can argue an online poll has no meaning, and by itself it doesn't. But just like random sample polls, they can show trends. The online polls have favored Bernie since he first declared. They have consistently favored him without fail. That is called a trend.

A trend in a meaningless metric. In other words, a meaningless trend. It says nothing about who "the people" support, it simply says that Bernie supporters vote more in online polls.

Maybe you think there's been some effort from the very beginning to manipulate every poll by Bernie's machine. Maybe you believe that Hillary supporters are smarter and avoid every online poll as a monolith..... Or maybe there's just more fervent Bernie supporters than Hillary supporters.

Or maybe the fervent Hillary supporters don't care about online polls.

I get that Bernie actually being ahead in something would shatter your universe. I'm truly sorry for that. But the evidence is pretty compelling at this point. Right now Hillary has more people willing to vote for her. Bernie has more people willing to support him. That's called enthusiasm. And no amount of spinning will change that.

My universe is based on facts, and if Bernie were actually ahead in something meaningful, that would be no problem. In fact, he is currently ahead in one meaningful thing: the New Hampshire polls.

The people being shattered by reality are Bernie supporters, who simply can't accept that Hillary is preferred by most Democrats. That's why they cling to silly things like online polls or conspiracy theories.

Once again. polls can give a snapshot of the here and now. They can even be trended to extrapolate probabilities (based upon what we can measure). They cannot predict the future. Never could, never will. A week from now a candidate (any candidate) could commit an act or say something so vile that even their most ardent supporters reject them. Or a world event could happen that dramatically changes peoples priorities. At that point all current polling becomes invalidated. These are but two extreme examples of why polls can't predict the future. And anyone that relies on any poll to decide how they should vote is easily manipulated.

Polls have some predictive value, otherwise Nate Silver would be out of business. Sure, they can't predict future events with 100% accuracy, but then again nothing can. Polls (scientific polls) can give an accurate snapshot of the here and now, as you said, and in the here and now most Democrats support Hillary. It might change in the future, but it probably won't. Also, most Democrats thought Hillary won the first debate. Bernie supporters for some reason can't accept that.

Not only did you not acknowledge the hypocrisy between your positions with online polls and endorsements, you doubled down on them. There is no difference between someone in power saying they endorse a candidate and someone in an online poll saying they endorse a candidate. They're the exact same thing. Both are done with the intent to influence. Once again, we can't predict the future. Endorsements don't predict, they influence. This is simple causality we're discussing here.

Of course there's a difference between someone like John Lewis endorsing versus some anonymous person on the internet. John Lewis is someone I (and many others) respect highly, so his endorsement carries more weight than some anonymous internet troll. His endorsement will have more influence on voters, and also, as I pointed out before, endorsements from congresspersons have been shown to have predictive value in primary races.

I could take these one at a time and we could go round and round, but there's no point in doing so. Individually you can try to explain them away forever. However, when judging a candidate you have to do so with the net view of their beliefs and stances. At some point the sheer volume of evidence has to mean something.

That's the Bernie fan strategy. Repeat a bunch of false or misleading statements, and then pretend that the "sheer volume of evidence" means something, despite the fact that each individual piece of evidence is garbage. The idea is to overcome the lack of substance with volume.

You've already proven that you won't believe anything in a negative light about Hillary. You expect us to take everything she says on her word. You expect us to believe her when she says she's truly against the TPP. You expect us to believe her when she says she's against the KXL. You expect us to believe her when she says she's against corporate donations and not under their influence (all the evidence to the contrary). Despite all that we're supposed to take on faith, when she says she's "guilty of being a moderate" you don't believe her. You still believe she's a liberal. How do you expect anyone to have an intellectually honest debate with you when you set different standards for each side?

I certainly won't believe falsehoods or conspiracy theories that are not backed by a shred of evidence. And that's what you've presented. I take a fair view of Hillary's statements and record. You, on the other hand, take everything she has said or done in the worst light possible -- you're basically admitting as much.

Based on her platform, and her past record, she is a progressive. The gets high rankings from all the usual liberal groups, unions, environmental, social issues, etc. She was #11 in the senate liberal rankings during her tenure. Her platform is very progressive. What Hillary bashers do is ignore all that and substitute some fantasy "evil Hillary" for the real thing. And, sure, if you ignore most of what she does and says and focus on a few votes and offhand statements, then you can convince yourself of anything.

I'm very serious. Barrack Obama stated in an interview that he would be a Reagan Republican if it were the 80s. When asked how her presidency would differ from Obama's in the debate, Hillary said she's a woman. She literally had nothing of substance! Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law, which has caused millions of lost jobs in this country. Obama is trying to push through the TPP (among others), NAFTA on steroids. Hillary supported NAFTA and helped negotiate the TPP. None of these people have disavowed supply side economics. None have put a dent in the military spending. When it comes to economics they all share the same third way beliefs.

First off, you are fabricating again. Obama didn't say he would be a "Reagan Republican", he said he would have been considered a "moderate Republican." Reagan was not a moderate Republican. Also, Obama was wrong about that, he was saying that to combat accusations that he was a socialist. It's part of the political back-and-forth.

Regarding NAFTA, nobody believes it costs "millions" of jobs. The most pessimistic estimates are around 1 million, and those are overblown. The fact is, unemployment remained low for years after NAFTA was passed. Both sides of the free trade argument grossly exaggerate the effects of free trade deals. I'm with (noted supply side right-winger) Krugman on this topic. Moreover free trade agreements have nothing to do with supply side economics, which is mainly about cutting taxes, primarily on the wealthy, in the hope that it will stimulate the economy so much that it will actually increase government revenues.

And, yes, Obama has totally disavowed supply side economics. He specifically called it a failed theory, and his policies, including the stimulus, the auto bailout, raising the top tax rate, etc. were the opposite of Reaganomics. Sorry, but you are completely at odds with the facts.

Oh, and on military spending, Reagan increased it, Clinton reduced it, Bush increased it, Obama reduced it.

Actually virtually no one is saying it anymore, because doing so can get people banned from this site. But it still amazes me that on one hand Hillary supporters can point out how many people would refuse to vote for her and how much Republicans hate her and attack her, then on the other hand keep saying Bernie is the unelectable one in the generals. There's a disconnect there a mile wide.

That should get people banned from a Democratic website, and it's true, Hillary haters have had to hold their tongues a little more, and this place is looking less like Free Republic, which is a good thing. And, yes, I understand that some people hate Hillary and won't vote for her in the general, I just don't think those people should be part of a Democratic forum. The small number of people who won't vote for Hillary in the general because they think she's too far to the right has nothing to do with electability, of course. Hillary will do much better than Bernie with every other demographic besides the fringe left.

This is where Hillary supporters fail to see the real issue. It's never been about which candidate can work with the other side. It's about which candidate can replace the other side. By all accounts, the Democratic party should be dominating. We have the superior message, the sane candidates, Demographics favor us. As people have rightly pointed out, the Republican party should be practically dead. And yet the opposite has happened. Republicans are taking over states left and right. They've taken both chambers of congress (even they can't gerrymander their way into the senate). So why is this happening?

It's not that simple. First off, both chambers favor Republicans. The house, first because gerrymandering, and also because geographically liberals tend to be highly concentrated in cities, which means that even with "fair" districting the GOP would get an advantage. The senate because low-population conservative states are grossly overrepresented. Wyoming has something like 50 times as many senators per capita as California.

The answer is simple. The Democratic party has spent so long triangulating that we no longer have a strong message to counter theirs. Yes their message might be nuts, but they wear it proudly and loudly. People go with Republicans because only one side is showing strong convictions to their beliefs. What we need to do is switch from a party focused solely on winning to a party focused on fighting.

If this is true, then what the left wing should do is work on getting people elected to the house and senate. Do they do that? No. Instead, every four years they back some Hail Mary presidential candidate that has no chance of winning, and when that candidate doesn't win, they go back to complaining and doing nothing. Nader, Kucinich, and now Sanders.

[brooklynite]

206. One additional point...

Online polls (at least the ones I see) are nationwide; and we're constantly told that nationwide polls are meaningless because the Primary is fought State by State. Right now, Sanders is behind in every State which has been polls except New Hampshire, which itself currently seems to be an even split between Clinton and Sanders. Where is the evidence that he has strength in any other State?

[RichVRichV]

220. He's ahead or stastically tied in 6 states.

Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.



An uphill fight no question. But he is making progress in a number of states. Right now the polls are largely a measure of race. With white people polled, Hillary and Bernie are splitting (Hillary takes the older, Bernie takes the younger). However Hillary is crushing him on the minorities polled atm. The thing about that is minorities don't vote as a monolith (no one does), and Hillary isn't substantially better than Bernie on minority issues. He actually has a very strong record there. Expecting her to get a virtual monopoly on the minority votes is asking a lot. I expect it will split just like the white vote will. How much it splits may just determine who the nominee is.



I see this primary season going one of two ways at this point. Bernie does well in the early primaries and we see a repeat of 2008 (where her support falls out from underneath her). Or he shows poorly in the early primaries and Hillary takes it running away. Either way those early primary states are going to tell us a lot.

[RichVRichV]

219. The evidence is fine.

A trend in a meaningless metric. In other words, a meaningless trend. It says nothing about who "the people" support, it simply says that Bernie supporters vote more in online polls.

Or maybe the fervent Hillary supporters don't care about online polls.

It's called enthusiasm. Bernie has it. Hillary not so much.

My universe is based on facts, and if Bernie were actually ahead in something meaningful, that would be no problem. In fact, he is currently ahead in one meaningful thing: the New Hampshire polls.

The people being shattered by reality are Bernie supporters, who simply can't accept that Hillary is preferred by most Democrats. That's why they cling to silly things like online polls or conspiracy theories.

He's also statistically tied or withing striking distance in a number of states. If he has a strong early showing things could get dicey for the inevitable one.

Polls have some predictive value, otherwise Nate Silver would be out of business....

Nate Silver is in business because he's good at selling himself. Just like any pundit is. Polls cannot predict the future. As you yourself stated nothing can. They are very good at influencing who will be the winner (cause and effect). The funny thing about the debate winner (besides who won being subjective) is that all the focus groups immediately after the debate went for Bernie. The polls claiming Hillary won didn't come out until a number of days later after the pundits spent days raving about Hillary's performance.

Personally I thought both candidates came out of the debate in good shape.

That's the Bernie fan strategy. Repeat a bunch of false or misleading statements, and then pretend that the "sheer volume of evidence" means something, despite the fact that each individual piece of evidence is garbage. The idea is to overcome the lack of substance with volume.

Project much? Except Hillary supporters can't even use volume. You use the same thing over and over again.

I certainly won't believe falsehoods or conspiracy theories that are not backed by a shred of evidence. And that's what you've presented. I take a fair view of Hillary's statements and record. You, on the other hand, take everything she has said or done in the worst light possible -- you're basically admitting as much.

Based on her platform, and her past record, she is a progressive. The gets high rankings from all the usual liberal groups, unions, environmental, social issues, etc. She was #11 in the senate liberal rankings during her tenure. Her platform is very progressive. What Hillary bashers do is ignore all that and substitute some fantasy "evil Hillary" for the real thing. And, sure, if you ignore most of what she does and says and focus on a few votes and offhand statements, then you can convince yourself of anything.

You keep using the term conspiracy theory over and over. Maybe if you keep saying it someone will believe the bullshit. Nothing I have said is a conspiracy theory. It's all backed by evidence. If you actually did look at her statements and record you would see that. She is liberal on social issues and conservative on economic and foreign policy issues. No matter how you try to spin it that's the simple truth. Her history backs that up.

First off, you are fabricating again. Obama didn't say he would be a "Reagan Republican"....

Clinton and Obama are way better than the Republicans on economics and yet nothing ever changes. We keep signing free trade agreements (notably the Democrats). Jobs keep going oversees. New jobs are lower wage than the jobs they replace. More of the income and wealth keeps concentrating to the highest earners. etc...

?itok=fGviTaYx

?itok=eOWaGAxg

What we're doing isn't working.

Hillary will do much better than Bernie with every other demographic besides the fringe left.

All evidence to the contrary. Bernie has already shown he can gather independent and Republican voters to his side in Vermont. He polls neck and neck with Hillary when faced off against various Republicans.

It's not that simple. First off, both chambers favor Republicans. The house, first because gerrymandering, and also because geographically liberals tend to be highly concentrated in cities, which means that even with "fair" districting the GOP would get an advantage. The senate because low-population conservative states are grossly overrepresented. Wyoming has something like 50 times as many senators per capita as California.

Losing both US chambers not good enough for you? How about losing 900+ state legislature seats and 12 governors during Obama's tenure? I don't put all the blame for that on Obama by any means, and I expect a bounce back on some of it. But obviously the party is failing right now. People are rejecting it across the country. We can either deny there's a problem or fix the problem.

If this is true, then what the left wing should do is work on getting people elected to the house and senate. Do they do that? No. Instead, every four years they back some Hail Mary presidential candidate that has no chance of winning, and when that candidate doesn't win, they go back to complaining and doing nothing. Nader, Kucinich, and now Sanders.

Of all the arguments you could go with, that's what you choose? Hahaha! Progressives do run for office. The Democratic party usually pushes them out in favor of their preferred moderates. Do a search on here for DWS in Florida. I've personally seen the same thing happen repeatedly in Illinois. Good progressives get bullied out of primaries in favor of corporate leaning Democrats. It's kind of hard to get progressives elected when both the Republicans and our own party are against them.

[Recoverin_Republican]

193. Wow! this wasn't alerted and swarmed on by the Sanders supporters? Amazing!

[TheFarseer]

194. if you spend time on sites like this

And still don't see the difference between Bernie and Hillary on the issues then I just feel bad for you. There's nothing I can do to help. There are valid reasons to support Clinton but you act like the only difference is that one can win in the general and that's just plain wrong.

[DanTex]

195. Guess you missed the part of the OP where I said "there are some differences."

Which is very befitting the whole point of the OP.

[TheFarseer]

197. OK

I missed the whole point because you put some tiny qualifier in a huge post? Sorry I'm not smart enough to keep up with you I think most people would take "some differences" to mean obviously they're not clones but there's not enough difference to care about.

[DanTex]

199. You also missed the reason why the differences aren't very significant.

The differences in policy are in areas that aren't going to get anywhere near passage through congress. Single payer is going nowhere. The minimum wage is not going to up to $15. Regardless of which Dem becomes president, what matters is how effectively they fight against the GOP in congress, and now how far left their aspirations are. They're all going to be pulling congress to the left as far as they can.

[TheFarseer]

204. we just don't agree

I don't believe she will be inclined to fight them on hardly any economic issues. She's in the wing of the democratic party that talks about working class issues but caves in pretty consistently because no one's paying her to stop outsourcing, T.P.P. or H1B visa abuse.

[merrily]

202. And yet you resort to posts like this.

[villager]

203. Oy. If stuff like this gets 50 recs, the mainstream Demo party is embittered and broken.

More and more so, all the time.

Ignore list time.

[bravenak]

205. Bernie has no real accomplishments that aren't a part of somebody elses signature legislation.

Not much really that he was the main sponsor to. The record is long but shallow.

[MrMickeysMom]

207. You forgot to ask us when we stopped beating our spouses...

Silly post... Don't you know that Wall Street owns MOST of Congress? Check the campaign coffers of the many who are beholding to Wall Street's special interest. Ask yourself after all these decades of health care "reform" why we still are spending 17.5 of our GDP on a health care system that leaves out so many people, but never challenges the pharmaceutical industry and private insurance regulators.

Then, see who is supported by the people of this country. There is no conspiracy there... It's all true.

That IS what it is.

[Gothmog]

212. Great OP