Here is my prediction

[Andy823]

In the end no matter who wins the nomination, the other two candidates will support them, and help them get elected. They will NOT try and divide the party by running as independents. They WILL encourage their supporters to also stand behind the nominee to prevent any republican who wins from taking the WH.

No matter what you may read on this board, and any other board, letting the republicans get control of the WH will cause sever damage to all we have gained since President Obama took office. There is way to much to lose in next years election, and we need to unite around the nominee, get out and vote, and make sure things get better, not worse.

[RKP5637]

1. Yep!!! Agree!!! n/t

[Thinkingabout]

2. There isn't ANY republican running I would like to see elected. DU mission is to elect Democrats,

this should be first and foremost. Electing Democrats on every level is important to Democrats.

[cantbeserious]

3. Disagree Completely - HRC - Will Be A Rerun Of Obama - The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks

Will be laughing all the way to count their cash at the expense of the 99%.

No different than if a republican wins.

In the end, the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks control all.

[HassleCat]

4. No difference?

Obama is no different from a Republican?

[cantbeserious]

5. Obama - Has Compared Himself To - Republican Light Of Previous Decades

eom

[JoePhilly]

7. Not this dumb ass shit again.

Obama has an incredibly long list of progressive accomplishments, and this is the nonsense you put out?

Its no wonder its nearly impossible to take many of Bernie's supporters seriously.

[Agschmid]

10. I don't.

[Andy823]

12. The same Obama haters

Are now the same Clinton haters. I think the majority of supporters for any candidate running will gladly vote for the nominee. I also think that the ones here who have trashed and bashed both President Obama, Clinton, and some have started on O'Malley, will never be satisfied with "ANY" democrat in the WH.

[JoePhilly]

14. That's exactly what will happen.

And you are correct on that last point. Some of them don't want a Dem in the WH period, either because (a) they are RW trolls who are just being trolls, or (b) they are fools who think we need to let the GOP destroy the country, so that their preferred Utopia (fantasy-land) rise from the ashed.

[KittyWampus]

35. They would start on Bernie several days after he was elected and had to start being pragmatic

But there is almost no way he'd get elected.

His Soviet flag in his office coupled with non-existent coalition building skills and penchant for simply thinking a speech accomplishes much pretty much makes that a no-go

[Andy823]

9. So I guess

President Cruz is OK with you? I mean there the same, he and Obama, so I will assume you can live with a president Cruz instead of Clinton. Says a lot. You might think about finding a board that agrees with you.

[cantbeserious]

11. The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Care Less The Party - That Is The Point

eom

[Andy823]

13. So you are fine with Cruz? nt

[cantbeserious]

15. No - This Citizen Will Not Vote For The Lessor Of Two Corporate Evils - You Are Free To Do So

Should you so choose.

In doing so, the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks gladly thank you for your service to their cause.

[pennylane100]

17. I think you are so wrong about Hillary,

While I am a very strong Bernie supporter, I believe that programs like social security health care and all the programs that we support will be much safer in Hillary's hands than any republican. Yes, she may not be as liberal as Bernie but she is as different as night and day when compared to any of the repug candidates.

[cantbeserious]

18. Your Opinion Only - Others See The World Differently

eom

[pennylane100]

19. I guess only time will tell.

[cantbeserious]

20. That It Will

eom

[Cal33]

21. Yes, what you say might be true, but the half-dead Democratic Party will at least remain half-dead

under Hillary, and there will be further future elections where we can do more to elect a Progressive.

Where there is life, there is hope. If the Republicans take over the WH this time, the chances are
pretty good that they will try to destroy our Democratic Party and install a permanent Oligarchy.

Which choice, do you think, is the better and more hopeful of the two?

[cantbeserious]

22. Not Voting For The Lessor Of Two Corporate Evils - Is The More Hopeful Choice

eon

[Cal33]

24. Not voting for the lesser of two corporate evils is also a gain for the greater of 2 corporate evils

And if enough Democrats do not vote, it could very well cause the Republicans to win. This
is kinda suicidal, I think. Self-destruct!

[cantbeserious]

26. To The Contrary - The Corporate Evils Could Care Less - As Long As It Is One Of Their Two Evils

eom

[Cal33]

42. You should be looking further than that. I am talking about the Democratic Party surviving

(should Bernie lose in the Primaries), and living to fight another day. The coming election
is not the be all and end all of everything. It shouldn't be.

[cantbeserious]

43. The Democratic Party - Like The Republican Party - Is Dead - Both Parties Are Owned And Controlled

By the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks.

[Fumesucker]

27. Bernie caught them flat footed, this sort of left populist upstart won't be allowed again

The establishment will move to make sure of that, self-protection comes before everything else and they have been shocked to the core by the mood of much of the electorate.

[cantbeserious]

31. All Too True - Mission Accomplished By The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks

eom

[stupidicus]

44. well, she'll pander to this and that abused demographic

and "evolve" where and when needed, but when it comes time to putting a serious hurt on her moneyed masters in finance, the MIC, etc, she'll be quite the lamb.

She'll do just enough to placate just enough people to keep the facade of "liberalism" alive and well in her most gullible and enamored supporters.

[cantbeserious]

45. That Analysis Is Spot On

eom

[NBachers]

52. Where's that bug squasher?

[cantbeserious]

53. The Bugs Have Genetically Morphed - Now Immune To Such Tactics

eom

[JoePhilly]

6. Correct.

[Agschmid]

8. Yup.

[we can do it]

16. Same with me.

[Cal33]

23. Yes, it's non-vindictive and a sensible thing to do. This is an adult way for things to turn out. I

hope the majority of us will be able to view things the way you described above.

[Broward]

25. Letting Hillary get control will cause severe damage.

The vast majority of us don't stand a chance without Bernie.

[Andy823]

29. Bull

The vast majority won't stand a chance if we allow one of the idiots from the GOP clown car to get in the WH. Bernie will stand behind the nominee if he does not win because he knows this, he has already said it. To bad some here can't get that.

[Broward]

30. Bull right back at you.

Corporatists and warmongers regardless of party affiliation are destructive to most of us. I don't know how you can't see that.

[Andy823]

50. I do see that

However I also see that every single one of the GOP clowns running would be a thousand times worse that any one of our 3 candidates. I also know that the two who are not nominated will stand behind the one who is, and they will encourage their supporters to do the same, because they "KNOW" just how bad things would be if a republican takes the WH. I don't see how you can not see that.

[MH1]

32. Do you think Cruz will do LESS damage than Hillary?

Or do you really think Hillary = Cruz?

Or even more, do you think Hillary would be worse than Cruz.

Just curious as to your opinion.

[Broward]

34. I think Cruz would be worse, but Hillary would still be destructive.

[Zambero]

40. Cruz?

Or Trump? I'm reminded of an REM song from years back: "The End of the World As We Know It". Enabling Nader fans content with the outcome of the 2000 presidential election and subsequent awful results must be longing for a return to "divide, conquer, and destroy", with an irreversible finality added to the mix.

[Broward]

41. I'm reminded of the steady rightward march on many fronts over the last 35 years

thanks to corporatists, with the help of their enablers, that have taken over the Dem party.

[bowens43]

28. maybe we need to hit bottom in order to wake up the party and effect change. Maybe .2020...

[MH1]

33. Hitting bottom means a lot more suffering to a lot of people.

Is it worth it to bring about ... whatever you think will happen after?

[Andy823]

47. Exactly!

I can't understand why this meme is even thrown out. It's insane to think that making things worse would be better in the long run. The same meme came out in 2010, and again in 2014. It's a right wing talking point designed to try and get voters to stay home by trying to convince them how much "better" things would be if we only hit bottom. Hell we hit bottom with George W. Bush and those who think letting one of the current clowns in the GOP get in the WH and be George W. on steroids needs to seek some professional help from a shrink!

[Zambero]

39. 2020 would be too late

Four years of absolute GOP control would result in a downward spiral from which there would be no recovery. Any possibility for positive actions on climate change would be gone forever, and the global consequences would be irreversible. The Supreme Court would be toast (Scalia would die with a big smile on his face knowing that multiple clones would replace him and aging liberal members as well). The impact of Citizens United, buying elections, manipulative gerrymandering, and voter suppression would be institutionalized. With an authoritarian theocratic mindset in place at all levels of government, women's reproductive rights would become "crimes". Just the tip of the iceberg. Not a pretty picture, and too risky to even contemplate allowing it to happen.

[Zambero]

37. This is what must happen

Ralph Nader's seemingly marginal 2000 campaign was significant to the point where a close presidential election was stolen, and the subsequent course of history was altered for the worse in more ways than could have been imagined. The fractious far right wishes to inoculate itself against any potential 3rd party 2016 campaigns that might compromise their chances for victory, but would delight in the prospect of having the center-to-left side of the political spectrum doing just that. We don't need to do their toxic bidding. The enemy to be defeated in 2016 will be the Republican party at all levels of government, establishment or otherwise.

[Andy823]

48. +1,000,000 nt

[stupidicus]

46. A "given" ain't much of a prediction

and the fear of rightwingnuttery will eventually melt because of AGW, along with the ice worldwide.

ANd where will the 3rdwayers be without their fearmongering?

[Andy823]

49. You might want to explain that

To some of the more "radical" bunch that want Bernie to run as an independent, or the ones that think we would sit it out and let the republican win because things would be better the next time democrats ran. There seems to be a lot of BS going around trying to get voters to write in Bernie's name no matter what, or simply just not vote. The "fear mongering" to me, would be "we are doomed" unless our chosen candidate is elected, no matter who "chosen" one might be.

[Nonhlanhla]

51. It's not a vote for the lesser evil

Voting for a Dem candidate you don't like because your preferred candidate didn't win, is not a vote for the "lesser of two evils." It is simply a vote for the greater good. The presidency is not a prize to be awarded. It is about the well-being of other human beings. Purists who think they will show the establishment what's what by not supporting the nominee, are simply being irresponsible towards others.

I will vote for the Dem nominee no matter who it is, because the GOP is at this time completely unhinged. Heck, the DNC could nominate Rahm Immanuel (or insert other random undesirable Dem) and I would still vote for him. I would vomit on my way to the polls, but I'd still do it. Because Cruz or Trump in the White House would be far worse than a bit of vomit.