I'm hearing that lots of Bernie supporters might not vote for another candidate in the general.

[DanTex]

Not here on DU, I mean in the world, based on that one poll that's getting posted.

Mathematically speaking, isn't this a reason to nominate Bernie? I mean, it's a chunk of votes that we get if Bernie is the nominee, and we don't get if Bernie's not the nominee.

Don't we want more votes? What gives?

[MineralMan]

1. No. Think about it.

[DanTex]

2. I have. Can you explain what I've gotten wrong?

[MineralMan]

7. Sure. What if he isn't the nominee?

That's very likely. Many Sanders voters will vote for someone who is not our nominee. To heck with that noise. Your point is: Nominate Sanders or else...

No, thanks...

[Thekaspervote]

61. This!!

[OnDoutside]

11. Because you'd lose a ton of independents and suburban moms.

[DanTex]

29. It didn't really work out that way last time, is one concern.

Chuck Schumer, I remember was talking about all the votes we would pick up like that with a centrist. And I don't know, the Joe Rogan type independents seem keen on Bernie, and there also, a lot of people seem to think that's a bad thing.

[delisen]

214. We have some core values on equality and human rights.

We need to focus on the constituencies that share these values- 2018 demonstrated that it is a very large constituency that turns out once they have information and understand the danger to our democracy.

A lot of time was wasted in 2017 as too many people tried to normalized the Trump administration and downplay the Russian role.
I
We can seek the votes of those who see the Trump administration as valid and untainted or we can seek the votes of those wo comprehend what is happening and has happened.

We can pander to the Ostrich vote or the Eagle vote. I am focusing on the Eagles.

Otherwise we end up like the General in Vietnam who claimed he had to destroy the village to save it.

[redqueen]

215. I thought it was only Bernie's supporters who weren't blue no matter who.

[OnDoutside]

218. I'd say read my post again...I didn't mention Dems.

[sheshe2]

82. It is called holding the election hostage.

My guy or else.

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

[DanTex]

83. Does that also apply to centrists who would vote Biden but not for a socialist?

Would you say they are also holding the election hostage?

[MineralMan]

84. Who are they?

Everyone I've seen will vote for the nominee. According to one poll, only 53% of Sanders supporters would do the same. To heck with that noise.

[DanTex]

87. Maybe there aren't any. But I keep hearing about moderates who would vote Biden but not vote

for a socialist. Maybe you're right, though, that fear is overblown, and anyone who would vote Biden would also vote Bernie.

[MineralMan]

90. Well, everyone here has said so. I know I have.

I will vote for the party nominee. Period. I have a strong preference, but I'm not going to sulk or vote for someone else. I am a Democrat. I vote for the nominee of the party.

[nolawarlock]

118. If that's the case,

… why didn't you include the "nobody but Biden" scenario in the original post and use it as a justification to support Biden? Clearly even you're seeing it more with Bernie or your original post would have been focussed on multiple candidates whose supporters won't support anyone else.

[DanTex]

164. Good question.

The "meta-point" of this post, if you will, is the double standard I see. Anti-Bernie people will post articles even from conservatives like Jennifer Rubin or Bill Kristol or whatever talking about all the centrists who would vote Biden but not Bernie, in support of Biden's electability.

At the same time anti-Bernie people also post links to polls suggesting that a substantial number of Bernie primary supporters wouldn't vote for Biden or other centrist candidates in the general election. The idea is to paint Bernie supporters as "disloyal".

The problem I have is the double standard. If we're celebrating the Jennifer Rubin type conservatives that would vote Biden but not Bernie as a plus for Biden, then logically we should celebrate the "Bernie or Bust" (for lack of a better term) people as a plus for Bernie. Or, conversely, if we're going to shun the "Bernie or Bust" voters as disloyal, then we should also shun the centrists that would go for Biden but not a progressive like Bernie or Warren.

I would ask you, when people post those articles about centrists crossing over for Bernie, would you object to them about why they didn't also include the "nobody but Bernie" scenario, the way you did to this post?

[nolawarlock]

223. I would object to all of it ...

I don't peruse as much of this site as I should, but out on social media, I'm only seeing the Bernie or nobody crowd so that's why I commented here.

As I did in 2016, any friend of mine that sits home or goes third party won't be my friend for long. I hold a grudge. I'm still bitter about Nader in 2000. ;-D

[sheshe2]

91. Are those voters threatening to withhold their vote?

No, they are not, only BS supporters are doing exactly what they did in 2016, refusing to vote, voting trump or Green. Since his dream team is Green pretty sure they too will refuse to vote , write in BS or go third party.

No DEMOCRAT I KNOW IS REFUSING TO VOTE. Then, they are Democrats.

[redstatebluegirl]

128. I will vote for our nominee period.

I may have to hold my nose but I will vote for the nominee. I am hoping he is not our nominee but if he is it will take s ton of work and a miracle to get him elected. I will work for that outcome. I will not be happy but we cannot afford another Trump term.

[johnnyplankton]

159. Thanks for the common sense reply.

[dware]

3. And then what?

We'll lose just as many, if not more, Independents, and moderate Repubs who are sick and tired of the Mango Menace who will never vote for a far left socialist.

Whether we like it or not, this country is a center to center left country, that's just the way it is.

[dware]

13. Except that fantasy isn't going to happen.

But, stranger things have happened.

[jalan48]

17. Don't forget Hillary, unity to defeat Trump!

[lapucelle]

26. Don't worry. Few people have forgotten. N/T

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

100. Exactly... so there's no problem, that is, unless Biden supporters refuse to vote for Bernie.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[Demsrule86]

224. It won't be Biden supporters...but AA VOTERS. He should never have celebrated Rogan

And Jane liked the Mlk video maker. It only takes a small drop in this vote and Sanders loses. His nomination gives Trump an EC victory and maybe we lose the house. And enthusiasm matters in terms of Biden voters as well as any other group of voters. I know you like Sanders but I don't ...Sick of Sanders and the threats. This will be his last run thank God ...he has my vote in a general but he won't need it as he wont be the nominee.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

222. I have no doubt!! It's the right thing for Biden to do!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[Mr.Bill]

4. I have never made a vote

based on threats from another candidate's followers.

[nolawarlock]

119. This.

I have resolved to vote blue no matter who. Heck, I'd vote for Cindy Loo Hoo Who Was No More than Too If She Were Blue. But those kinda threats from the Berners (which I've seen across social media from his people and no other candidates) are the only thing that has made me actual consider staying home.

I was a big Hillary supporter in 2016. I hated Trump then and I hate him more now, but the man saved me tens of thousands in taxes and, so far, my [gay] marriage is intact. My point is, the average screaming Bernie supporter has far more to lose than some of us whose hatred of Trump goes far beyond economics. And more than this, their ultimatums will hurt many poor and marginalized people who don't have the luxury of wading through the sludge of another four years of Trump.

[Rorey]

180. I would vote blue in spite of the threats

Because I care about my country more than foolish pride.

I don't think I'll have to vote for someone I really don't support, but I'll do what I have to do if Sanders somehow wins the nomination.

[Mr.Bill]

185. Of course.

I was speaking about my vote in the primary. I would support Rocky the Flying Squirrel in the general if he was the Democratic nominee.

[Rorey]

209. Lol, me too

Sorry, i didn't mean to sound like i wasn't agreeing wholeheartedly.

[msongs]

5. gee which candidate has spent a career criticizing the democratic party? nt

[PatSeg]

6. I'm sure there also are many voters who

won't vote for Bernie if he is the nominee. I suppose there will always be people who are stubborn enough to either not vote or vote for a third party candidate. Meanwhile, we all need to choose the person we believe is best qualified to be president and of course, the one who can beat Trump. Then suck it up in November and vote for the Democratic nominee.

[grumpyduck]

9. If any so-called Democrats won't support a candidate because it's not Bernie,

that means they would vote for Trump. Or not vote at all.

That's not a Democrat.

I don't know what it is, but it's not someone who cares for the future of this nation.

Like they said in "The X-Files," the truth is out there. So go ahead and report this post. Get it deleted.

The truth is still out there.

[Skittles]

14. my candidate or no candidate is not a supporter, it is a cult member

fuck them

[OnDoutside]

20. Democrats can't win on their own....it's usually a coalition including

Independents.

[nolawarlock]

120. of course this is true.

I'm sure most remember that website of exile I won't name that many departed to in 2016. I'm sure folks also remember how many people on that were trying to justify how Trump was the most like Bernie on trade and other issues. Heck, Sarandon said Hillary was worse than Trump publicly so I doubt everyone on that site was a Russian bot. Then again, maybe they were because there are all of around ten people talking on it these days.

[Demsrule86]

225. Most Democrats will support the nominee. The Rogan types never planned to

support Sanders in the General...operation chaos ratfucking. We can win without the extortionists.

[Skittles]

10. LOL

not only no but HELL NO

[squirecam]

19. Agreed

We don’t negotiate that way.

[UniteFightBack]

12. So if that's the case just what kind of people are they really? Are they REALLY Dem's if they

are refusing to vote for one??? As soon as some folks are knocked out their votes are going to Biden and Bernard will be finished.

The pukes are cheating ...we have an orange turd CHEATING to get elected. We need to win by the widest margin possible by the candidate with the broadest appeal in the swing states and that is NOT BERNIE.

You are advocating PANDERING to a small minority of people on the far far left...yeah NO THANKS.

[NurseJackie]

15. Ah yes... let's appease the blackmailers. -- GMAFB!

Mathematically speaking, isn't this a reason to nominate Bernie?

No, it's not.

The effort spent trying to validate any butthurt losers who want to "punish" the party by not voting for the Democrat is wasted. Better to use the time getting NEW voters.

[DanTex]

37. I don't think referring to voters as "butthurt losers" is a great way to go.

I agree with your point about getting new voters. That's part of why I think it's good to get endorsements from people like Joe Rogan, who is an independent, and his audience, which contains a lot of new voters.

[redstateblues]

52. There are plenty of independents, like my wife, who won't vote for Bernie

She might go third party or stay home. She won't vote for a Socialist. I'm not happy about that but I honestly don't think a self avowed Socialist can win in the General

[UniteFightBack]

65. Well what about Biden...she won't vote for Biden??? nt

[redstateblues]

220. She will vote for Biden-possibility Warren

[Retrograde]

116. Stay home? There are other elections in November

like, every Congressional seat and a third of the Senate. Even if one can not bring oneself to vote for the presidential candidate, there's no excuse for staying home.

[redstateblues]

221. Believe me- I make sure she will vote for somebody

It’s a little discouraging to be in the reddest county in a red state. She feels like the Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot and nominate someone who can’t win. I keep it positive. I believe we will win.

[sheshe2]

85. Joe Rogan endorsed Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

Enough said.

[sheshe2]

93. Well I never believed calling Hillary worse than trump was the best way to go.

[NurseJackie]

99. ...

[UniteFightBack]

64. Yes let's pander to a small minority and see how that pans out. nt

[Thekaspervote]

66. +1000

[Pantagruel]

16. Extortion?

No thanks.

[Blue_true]

117. You picked up on it too. Sort of telling someone that if they do X, you break their leg. nt

[delisen]

18. It means need to aim our efforts elsewhere.

[squirecam]

22. Bernie

Won’t be the nominee. Party due to this strategy.

[blm]

23. Dan, that's just wrong.

[calguy]

24. A lot of Bernie supporters sat out the last general election

and now we have trump. I hope they're happy.

[UniteFightBack]

67. They are happy. The hardcore people would rather have dump any day than 'her'. They are

not our friends.

[nolawarlock]

122. The real reality is ...

… that many of them would rather have "dump" than any woman.

[Rebl2]

25. Need to vote for

whoever the Democratic candidate is. I will vote for Sanders if I must because we need to get the current occupant of the w.h. out of there. Those who refuse to vote if Sanders isn’t the candidate are being selfish.
.

[Fresh_Start]

27. You want to build a party based on a RELIABLE group of voters

Sanders voters who won't vote for the democratic nominee are NOT a reliable group of voters.

Find voters who believe in the platform, not the finger wagger alone.

[aikoaiko]

30. You are correct. Bernie is bringing in people who will vote for him, but not any other Dem nominee

Assuming Democrats still vote for Bernie as the loyal base they claim to be or are touted to be, of course.

[Demsrule86]

56. I would not assume that...DU isn't the real world. While I don't doubt any here will vote

for the nominee, other Democrats or Democrat leaning voters may not be willing to vote for Sanders especially after the Rogan thing. My own daughter announced she wouldn't...(she is Gay and pissed about Rogan) vote for Sanders..I think in the end I will convince her to vote for him if we must...but the idea that the loyal base will fall in line may not be true. Sanders is going after alt-right voters it seems to me, and that may cost him support.

[DanTex]

73. Let's say that's true. Wouldn't that mean that the supporters of other candidates are just

as "disloyal" as the supporters of Bernie are accused of being?

I mean, if someone would vote for Bernie but not Biden, to me that's equivalent to someone who would vote Biden not Bernie. I don't see why one category would be described as disloyal or whatever but not the other.

To me they are all just "voters" and we need to get their votes, as many as possible.

[RandySF]

31. I guess I should congratulate those with the resources to ride out another four years of Trump

[Fresh_Start]

39. By voting for Bernie or not voting for the Democrat at all?

yeah. really funny that Bernie campaign has ads about fighting for someone you don't know....

which means fighting for Bernie or not fighting for others you don't know

[Demsrule86]

226. Bernie will lose the general. He has my vote but it would be a disaster of

epic proportions.

[Squinch]

32. Negotiating with terrorists is never a good idea.

This is a ridiculous idea, but then you knew that.

[CentralMass]

33. I hear that is bullshit being sold by people trying to create trouble that doesn't exist.

The party insiders are getting desperate.

[nolawarlock]

123. Are you not on social media?

I've seen many, many people on Twitter and Facebook shilling the Bernie or Bust mindset. And, while I know that some are probably bots, some are also clearly not. Heck, I had a Berner (who I actually know for sure is not a bot) come onto my own Facebook and, with a straight face, tell me that the scorched earth politics Nina Turner and David Sirota didn't count because they were just "random voters influenced by Russian bots." I'm unsure how anyone willing to traipse across social media to defend Bernie isn't aware of who his campaign co-chair and speechwriter are but here we are.

There are many singing the Bernie or Bust song. Anyone who doesn't know that can't possibly be paying attention.

[dawg day]

133. And Trump is trying to stir it by expressing sympathy

For Bernie. This is... I don't know... too twisted for me. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee. But Bernie believes could make that less difficult if they stopped with the strong arm tactics... "some of us will vote against any nominee but BS... so vote for him in the primary or the dems will lose."

That won't make me vote for Trump, but I'm pretty sure it's going to lead to a less successful four year term. Quiet resentment is the best response we can expect.

So... maybe just don't keep telling us this great Bernie or bust scenario and that we should then force ourselves to support him in the primary? I think this is the third post I've seen like this, and it makes me feel grim.

[Demsrule86]

227. Trump likes sanders ...Jesus. He says nice things.

I want to puke everytime i hear him.

[CanonRay]

34. I sincerely hope none of my friends do this

or I will be losing a few.

[Demsrule86]

228. I hope not too. My sis really doesn't like Sanders. I tell her she has to vote

for him if he is the nominee...but I don't know if she will.

[maryallen]

35. Sorry. I don't buy it.

[Generic Brad]

38. Sounds like a threat

"That's a nice democracy you have there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it."

I do not yield to threats.

[Demsrule86]

58. +1000

[SergeStorms]

40. I can't believe this is seriously being considered....

by anyone, on DU, or not. People do not respond well to threats, extortion, or ultimatums. The candidate in question seems to be more trouble than help, and after the November election it may very well be time to cut all ties with said candidate. Of course that's only my opinion.

[DanTex]

43. I'm not threatening anyone.

I'm voting for the nominee no matter who. I don't even know who I'm voting in for the primary, I'm trying to figure out for myself who is most likely to beat Trump.

I'm just thinking aloud about the math of the whole thing. I mean, we nominate Bernie, there's a pile of voters there that don't seem like they'll vote for any other candidate. Maybe they;re not Dems, maybe they are Joe Rogan fans, but they still get to vote. And I want as many votes as we can get.

[Skittles]

48. they're cult members if they will only vote for one person

and we should not cater to cults

[SergeStorms]

54. I meant said candidate's supporters.....

not you. Sincerely, I don't think a far left candidate can beat Trump, and many people much smarter than you or I agree with that assessment.

[uponit7771]

131. +1

[left-of-center2012]

41. So ... Vote for Bernie, or else?

[still_one]

42. I will not be blackmailed. "Vote for me or else i will screw the Democratic party"

WTF kind of supporters do that?

They are beneath contempt, and those that do that .......

[DanTex]

45. Wait, I didn't say that at all.

I'm voting for the nominee, no matter who. It's just that it seems to be that there are some other people out there that might not. I can't control that. If I could, everyone would vote for the Democratic nominee.

[still_one]

50. I didn't say you. I said what kind of supporters would do that?

[DanTex]

51. I'd guess supporters that really like one candidate and not so much the others.

[still_one]

53. Supporters like that do not care if trump is re-elected, and that speaks volumes

about their moral compass

[UniteFightBack]

68. They are not Democrats then and we will not be blackmailed by them. nt

[DanTex]

72. What about the centrists we keep hearing about that would vote for (say) Biden but not a socialist?

Is that blackmail too? What makes the Bernie people blackmailers and not the Biden people?

I think a vote is a vote. We want as many as we can get. Centrist, Independent, Dem, anything. We need to beat Trump.

[UniteFightBack]

88. Because in that poll it was the Sanders people, and to be fair also Yang's who said they would

only vote for their candidate. EVERYBODY else by a large majority said they'd vote for the nominee.

[nolawarlock]

124. Again ...

… if these people are such a likely demographic, why didn't you include them in your initial post.

[treestar]

125. Biden has always been a Democrat

Not just to run for POTUS. And the population you describe is rare and very few.

[NCProgressive]

44. A lot of Bernie supporters are not Democrats

and ... there is a far more likelihood of HRC supporters not voting for Bernie.

Besides, isn't it something like "if I don't get to be the pitcher, I'm taking my ball home?"

[DanTex]

47. Right, but non-Dems still get to vote in the general election.

I don't know what HRC voters really means in this context, because she's not running.

And yeah, I think anyone who doesn't vote for the nominee in the general is being incredibly irresponsible, regardless of who they support in the primary. Obviously. But, I mean, I can't control what other people do. If it were up to me then Trump would get zero votes. We have to deal with the electorate we have.

[m-lekktor]

130. Many I encounter are only currently registered as Democrats so they can vote in closed primaries.

Once they vote in the primary, who knows what happens after that. I am in the thick of the Bernie campaign and this IS a legit worry . I see the Bernie or Bust sentiment mostly amongst the younger crowd. I always vote for the democrat in the end even if I don't care for them much and even though I am in a SAFE blue state where i could get away with not voting which i would never do.

[squirecam]

200. Thank you

for being honest about it.

[iwannaknow]

46. 90% of Bernie's supporters voted for Hillary in the 2016 GE

[NCProgressive]

49. Only 84% did ... even less in MI and WI

[OilemFirchen]

62. ... of those who voted.

Always mysteriously missing from this pseudo-statistic.

[NCProgressive]

76. Precisely - the ones who stayed home are omitted

[Raven123]

55. If they think Trump is better than a Democratic President, they are as cynical as Trump voters

Reflexively responding to such rumors is unwise and playing off fear.

[Tiggeroshii]

59. They suck, I agree.

But they would suck whether Bernie ran or not. The difference is, Bernie running gets them to vote for him. Those are millions of folks that will vote for us if Bernie is the nominee.

[Tiggeroshii]

57. Yes it is a GOOD thing if true

Those people not being Democrats means he is attracting more independents than any other candidate. Bernie not technically being a Democrat is an asset, not a liability.

[Demsrule86]

60. No, it is liability. He should not have been permitted to run as a Democrat unless he signed an

agreement to remain a Democrat permanently.

[Tiggeroshii]

70. A liability who happens to dot he best with independents?

[Thekaspervote]

71. +1000

[Eyeball_Kid]

63. The election is 10 months away. Let's breathe a little.

Any rumor about what Bernie's supporters will or won't do is virtually worthless. There's no need to create additional anxiety over a rumor that will not apply in November anyway.

This kind of rumor is exactly what can and will be planted by Russian hackers and bots. Relax, folks. Just think a little. Creating conflict among activists is exactly what Vladimir wants.

[showblue22]

69. In my opinion, this suggestion is a form of manipulation

Last edited Mon Jan 27, 2020, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

I saw some white checks on twitter say this. It's insulting and a form of manipulation, I think anyway. It's fear mongering. " Vote Bernie or Bernie supporters will give us Trump." I hope no one falls for this crap.

[gopiscrap]

205. welcome to DU

[kurtcagle]

74. Based on one poll?

I think Bernie MAY win Iowa. He's always done better in Caucus states. He might win New Hampshire. After that, I don't see a snowball's chance in Hell of him winning the nomination. Bernie is not polling even remotely well in the Midwest or the South. He's also basically splitting the progressive vote with Warren, and I suspect that by the time the primary rolls around, if she's not the nominee presumptive, her votes will more likely boost Biden than Bernie.

I think Biden will probably end up the nominee regardless, and it has more to do with fear than agenda. The prospect that Trump wins in November is increasingly terrifying for a lot of people (myself included), and Sanders, in general, has done nothing to really show that he can defeat Trump. Overall Biden's been focussing on appealing to the centrists, independents and Never Trump Republicans, because he knows that the progressives, while noisy, are NOT going to vote for Trump. I'm a progressive, and I've been all over the map this election as far as who I'm supporting, but I've been very impressed by his organization, the fact that he's remained above the fray, and his awareness of the voters. I am not seeing the same thing with Sanders, who frankly is coming off increasingly as a cranky old man.

Bernie might surprise me, but I doubt it.

[mcar]

75. You don't see this as a threat?

Vote for my guy or I won't vote for yours. Talk about holding the country hostage.

Remember all those Bernie supporters who have been asking non-supporters, "will you vote for the Democratic Party nominee, whoever it is?" Now they are saying they won't. Nice.

[DanTex]

78. I'm definitely not threatening anyone, to be clear.

I don't even know who I'm voting in the primary, and I'm voting for whoever the nominee is in the general, even if we end up nominating a fire hydrant. We can't have Trump again. No.

Maybe some Bernie supporters are doing it as a "threat", maybe not. Who knows. That's stupid if they are. But, I mean, the same exact thing could be said for centrists who would vote for Biden but not for a socialist. Is that a threat?

But I think that, rather than figuring out who is threatening who, and who is a swing voter, or whatever, we should just try to get the most votes and beat Trump.

[mcar]

96. Please point to any data that says that a high percentage of Biden supporters

will not vote for the Democratic nominee. Thanks.

[DanTex]

97. None that I know of.

But somewhere there have to be some voters who would vote Biden and not Bernie. Right? That’s the whole Biden electability argument. That he can get the centrists that Bernie will scare off with his socialism.

Or maybe not. Maybe Bernie picks up every voter Biden here plus some others that would only vote Bernie.

[sheshe2]

101. Biden can get the black vote.

You can't win without it.

[The Mouth]

104. So do you think many African Americans simply

wouldn't vote at all if Bernie somehow ended up being the nominee?

[sheshe2]

106. No.

They are far smarter than us white people and have far more at stake to elect a DEMOCRAT.

Fact BS will never get the primary nomination without the black vote.

Is that clearer?

[The Mouth]

112. YES, THANK YOU

I agree. They are practical and realistic. I meant to ask, what do you think the African American voters, on average, would do if, for some reason, Joe didn't get the nomination?

[sheshe2]

114. Then they vote for the Democratic Candidate that does. nt

[mcar]

102. More than 40% of Bernie supporters

are saying they won't vote for the nominee if it's not Bernie. That is not the case with the other candidates, save Yang, according to a recent poll.

Of course there are some supporters who would vote Biden and not Bernie. But not nearly in the numbers for the opposite. That is the problem. That is the ongoing issue.

That he can get the centrists that Bernie will scare off with his socialism.

And yet you also argue that Bernie, with his great and wonderful endorsement by Rogan, will get a whole bunch of white centrist or far right guys who, apparently, won't be scared off by his socialism.

Doesn't make sense, does it?

[sheshe2]

108. Bazinga!

[mcar]

110. This line of reasoning has me

[sheshe2]

115. Lol!

Me too, mcar.

[redstatebluegirl]

129. They are definitely threatening just like 2016.

Allowing him to run as a Democrat was my parties biggest mistake in decades.

[Oldest_Millenial]

77. Same story as 2016...

Both Dem candidates were projected to beat Trump in head to head matchups. The Party ultimately chose a vanilla establishment candidate over a candidate that excited and turned out new voters. I've read that 1 out of 4 Sanders supporters either sat out the General Election or voted for Trump (whom they saw as a change candidate). The big question is whether history will repeat itself in 2020.

[squirecam]

201. Change can be very very bad.

Nt

[Hoyt]

79. They believe another term for trump or similar GOPer will lead to revolution to install Sanders, etc

[Turbineguy]

80. It's a similar problem to what republicans have.

A cult following makes another candidate impossible.

Sometimes societies make a collective choice to destroy themselves.

[Loki Liesmith]

81. VOTE FOR BERNIE OR YOUR PARTY GETS IT.

[MineralMan]

86. Nice party you got there...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

89. Your concern is noted about what you've "heard."

The last time Sanders didn't win the nomination, a higher percentage of his voters voted for Clinton than Clinton voters voted for Obama. So, he'll do his job.

[spin]

92. Perhaps Bernie supporters will just write in Bernie's name. (n/t)

[liberal N proud]

94. We all know how well that turned out in 2016

[DanTex]

107. We didn't nominate Bernie in 2016.

And it didn’t work out well at all.

[ehrnst]

134. You mean giving the nomination to the choice of Democrats by a huge margin was

not a good idea?

[DanTex]

136. Nobody "gave" anyone the nomination. Hillary won the nomination.

I'm just saying that it didn't turn out well, in the sense that Trump became president.

[ehrnst]

140. Why do you think that the outcome of the General election would have been different had

Hillary not won the nomination, or had the superdelegates done what Sanders wanted them to do?

[DanTex]

142. I don't know if it would have been different. The polls said so, but there's no way to know.

I'm just saying that nominating Hillary didn't turn out well. That isn't really controversial, is it?

[ehrnst]

144. What polls?

If you say "the polls said so" you need to provide evidence that these polls exist, and are accurate and reputable.

[DanTex]

147. The ones that have been posted here.

For example this OP.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=447326

Usually it's posted by anti-Bernie people, to imply that Bernie supporters are "disloyal".

[ehrnst]

150. Stay on topic: the polls you mention in post #142 that say the outcome of the 2016 General election

"would have been different" had Bernie had been nominated.



Those polls.

Links please.

[DanTex]

152. You're right. I was thinking of different polls. Here you go.

Here are the 2016 head-to-heads with Bernie vs Trump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

[ehrnst]

161. Well those didn't turn out to be very accurate in terms of predicting the eventual

choice of Democrat, did they?

Bernie also had some support from GOP dark money super pacs boosting him at that point.

Russia was also boosting Sanders in order to create division in the Democratic Party, as the Mueller Report revealed.

See, the thing is, the GOP wants Sanders as the candidate.

President Trump’s advisers see Senator Bernie Sanders as their ideal Democratic opponent in November and have been doing what they can to elevate his profile and bolster his chances of winning the Iowa caucuses, according to Republicans familiar with the plans.

This will change completely if he was to win - then the GOP will use all the oppo they have been saving up. I'm imagining that Russia would also aim all of the weaponry that they used against HRC in the General on Bernie. Those specific polls took none of what I've just shown you into account.

I find that those sources a much more reliable indicator of what might happen should Sanders get nominated.

[DanTex]

165. Actually, yes, they were. Hillary consistently polled ahead of Bernie, and she won the nomination.

[ehrnst]

171. Um... you just changed polls again...

You stated that those polls said Bernie would beat Trump over Hillary.

Now you're trying to switch gears.

[DanTex]

175. I haven't switched anything. It's the same link I've posted 3 times.

From 2016, showing Bernie polling way ahead of Trump. What are you talking about?

[ehrnst]

176. You keep switching - saying that that poll is from the primaries, then the General...

I read the link.

Did you?

[DanTex]

178. The Bernie vs Trump polls from 2016 are general election polls.

Obviously, since Trump wasn't competing in the democratic primary. Should I post the link again?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

I mean, even in the link, it says "general election trump vs sanders". Not sure what the confusion is.

[ehrnst]

182. The "general election" refers to what the poll is asking about. Look at the dates...

MAY 2016.

That's where your confusion is.

The General didn't start until August 2016.

How could a poll taken in May 2016 be a poll taken during the GE?

It's a poll taken in May, during the primaries, asking people how they would vote in a hypothetical GE matchup between Sanders and Trump.

Think about it...

[DanTex]

184. Yes, that's correct. Polls about the General Election

Once Bernie was out of the race and Hillary was the nominee, they stopped doing Bernie-Trump matchups, so those are the last GE polls from 2016. That's the best data we have that I'm aware of. If there were Bernie-Trump polls from later, maybe there are, but I'm not aware of them.

[ehrnst]

187. There were none. That's what I was trying to tell you.

That's where you got confused.

[DanTex]

190. Of course there were. Tons of them, which I linked to in RCP.

[ehrnst]

191. There were none after August 2016, which is when the General Election started....

You are still confusing the subject of the poll with the time during the election cycle the poll was taken.

[DanTex]

192. I think we're in agreement.

The subject of the poll was the General Election, and the time of the poll was before the General Election.

[ehrnst]

198. So it's 'impossible' to know what would have happened to that number in a GE

because there was no real matchup between the two...

But you also said that the "polls said" that nominating Bernie would have changed the outcome of the GE...

And "hearing that lots of Sanders supporters" may do something is worth an OP suggesting that it's enough of a factor that we should nominate Sanders.

Which is it?

[DanTex]

199. That's correct, it's impossible to know.

That is what the polls said, but its also impossible to know for sure. The whole race would have been different if Bernie was the nominee. It's a hypothetical, nothing can be said with certainty.

[ehrnst]

216. Different like McGovern?

[R B Garr]

195. +1, there seems to be a malfunction junction. nt

[Demsrule86]

229. Since Sanders never campaigned.... no way we will ever know. So those polls

are bullshit.

[liberal N proud]

219. Exactly

And many of his supporters refused to vote for the nominee. And some were disruptive.

[myohmy2]

95. I see what you're saying...

...anything that brings millions of new voters into the Party is a good thing...

...and there are millions of new highly enthusiastic Bernie supporters out there,

...we are all in this together...

[The Valley Below]

98. That's a nice party you have there.

It would be a shame if anything happened to it.

[MontanaMama]

103. You floated this balloon on another thread.

The answer is no. A solid no.

[whistler162]

105. I believe you mean a lot of Trump supporters

who pretend to be Sanders support. In other words same S**T as 2016!

[bitterross]

109. No, that's like paying ransom to terrorists. Bernie has a responsibility to the nation to convince

Bernie has a responsibility to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who that is. There is nothing less than the fate of the nation at stake. I mean that very seriously.

[greatauntoftriplets]

111. Okay, I'll vote for Sanders in the Illinois primary.

But I'll only do that if you give me $10 million by February 15. That makes about as much sense as your OP.

I don't respond to threats or bargain with people who try to tell me how to think of what to do.

[The Mouth]

113. An honest question

Isn't it equally as morally reprehensible for a Biden, Yang, or Warren supporter to say that if Bernie got the nomination they would not vote for him?
I swear I've seen people on DU who wouldn't vote for Bernie if, for some reason, he was the nominee.

Personal opinion: fuck anyone who won't vote for the nominee in the general, irrespective of race, gender, reasoning, or preferred candidate.

[nolawarlock]

121. You post this as your initial post yet ...

… further down in the threads, you fire back by asking about Biden voters who won't vote for Bernie. If you really thought that was an equal potential problem, especially given that you are listed as "undecided," then why didn't you make the "No Bernie" Biden voters part of your initial post? Why did you wait till further down to even entertain the possibility that there were Biden voters that wouldn't vote for Bernie. Surely even you realize that there are far more of this type of voter in Bernie's camp. If you don't recognize that fact, then your initial post makes entirely no sense.

[Amimnoch]

126. Been posted here as well, and hell fucking no.

Yes, for years now we've had the.. pleasure.. of hearing that we should be held hostage and vote for Bernie because a segment of dipshits refuse to vote for any of our other candidates.

My vote will not be held hostage by them.

Fact is, the only reason he's viable at ALL is because our side... the grownup side.. is much more willing to support him should he secure the nomination. However that is changing rapidly this time around, as his tactics have so soured many LONG term and highly loyal Democratic Party supporters to start deciding that they won't support him if he gets the nomination now.

And, mathematically speaking, while it's true it will be harder for actual Democratic Party candidates to win without Bernie's supporters support, it would be downright fucking impossible for him to win if those of us who do vote, and do support the Democratic Party refuse to get behind him.

We HAVE won without his devoted before, nobody running a race like him has ever won without us.

[betsuni]

127. No.

[lark]

132. Is all the support really Bernies' or just repugs trying to get the candidate they want?

There's lots of questions about that since it's been reported 17% of Bernie supporters voted for drumpf - so really didn't support Bernie's principals at all, just fake support to get the result they want. With RT being so supporting of Sanders, this is a valid question.

[fallout87]

135. Im not going to be held hostage

because a bunch of brats will sit out the election if they dont get their way.

[ehrnst]

137. You think perceived threats by a candidates' supporters is a valid reason

to support that candidate?

Not qualifications?

[wyldwolf]

138. It's essentially a threat to take hostages if a ransom/votes are not delivered.

[ehrnst]

141. I agree. (nt)

[DanTex]

139. Well, there's electability and there's policy.

On policy, most people, at least progressives, would think that Bernie has the best platform. Obviously, centrists and Never Trump Republicans disagree, but among the base, Bernie's got policy.

The knock against Bernie has always been electability. I mean Jill Biden pretty much admitted that Bernie was better on policy when she told people to "swallow" and vote for Biden.

“Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election,” Biden said. “And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘O.K., I sort of personally like so-and-so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.”

But the question is, if there's this big chunk of voters that will go for Bernie in the general election, and not the other candidates, is Biden the most electable after all?

[ehrnst]

143. So you think that threats from "a big chunk" of a candidate's supporters

should be a reason to support that candidate in a primary.

Even if you can't quantify what "big chunk" of their voters means in numerical terms?

This again?

[DanTex]

145. No more or less than "threats" from centrists who won't vote for a socialist.

I think votes are votes.

The hypocrisy, again, is the thing. On one hand, a Republican like Jennifer Rubin or Bill Kristol writes about all the "moderates" out there (without quantification, like you say), that would vote Biden and not Bernie because of the socialism. And I guess it gets posted here or on twitter because I guess Biden supporters think that's a reason to support a centrist candidate.

But here, we have a chunk of voters that will support Bernie but not Biden, and somehow the same Biden supporters don't want to accept them into the calculus because these are "threats". As if votes from people one labels "threat" count less than others.

Mathematically, all votes are the same. Either the Biden centrists are "threats" or else the Bernie people are "threats". Or else they're both not "threats", they're both voters that we need. You can't really have it both ways.

[ehrnst]

148. So, no you still can't quantify what "chunk of his voters" is, but somehow

you expect us to follow your opinion, that they are numerous enough harm the Democratic candidate in the General if it's not Sanders?

And when have Biden voters "threatened" to do the same as you say Sanders supporters are threatening?

[DanTex]

149. I linked to one such poll in my last response.

There have been a few OPs about it, referring to this poll.
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-poll-warren-biden-2020-nominee-emerson-college-1483831

Neither Bernie voters or Biden voters have actually "threatened" anything. "Threat" is your word, not mine. I'm just saying that if one class of voters (Bernie not Biden) are considered "threats" than so should the other (Biden not Bernie). For consistency.

I think votes are votes, which is why I think that these voters that would go for Bernie but nobody else are an asset to Bernie.

[ehrnst]

154. Yes, you are responding to it as a threat in your OP.

And you want people to be afraid that 52% of Sanders supporters - saying this now, in one poll - is enough to throw the General to Trump?

When you can't even provide backup for your claim that "polls showed" that the General in 2016 would have turned out differently if Sanders had the nomination?

Really?

[DanTex]

156. Again, only you are using the word "threat". Why would you characterize it that way?

People vote how they vote. I don't want anyone to be "afraid", although I admit, I am afraid of what Trump would do in a second term. I think a lot of people are, which I think is understandable.

I backed up the claim about 2016 in the other sub-thread with the link to 2016 polling. I didn't say it "would have", I said it might have. We know for sure that it turned out badly with Hillary as nominee, and also that Bernie was polling way ahead of Trump. But it's impossible to say for sure what would have happened, as it usually is in politics.

[ehrnst]

163. Your OP characterizes it as a viable threat to the chances of anyone but Sanders.

And you have still not quantified what "52%" of Sanders supporters means. You haven't even acknowledged that it was 52% of those 'polled' not 52% of all who currently support Sanders.

You said that the "polls said" that the election would have gone differently.

Have you changed your mind since post #142? Or just backpedaling now that you've been shown some real evidence?

[DanTex]

166. Absolutely not. You're reading that into my post.

My OP is characterizing it as a chunk of voters that only Bernie, of all the candidates, can get to vote D in the general election. I don't see how that's anything but a good thing for the case for nominating Bernie.


PS, for the second time, here are the polls for the 2016 general election Bernie versus Trump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

[ehrnst]

167. "A chunk" once again....

Even though you are again and again referencing a poll that states "53% of Sanders supporters say they won't vote for any Dem candidate for Berne....

"I don't see how that's anything but a good thing for the case for nominating Bernie.."

A passive way to promote the inverse which is "I don't see how that's anything but a bad thing for the case for nominating anyone but Bernie.."

[Act_of_Reparation]

146. It's been amusing watching the Biden camp lose their shit over this.

It's not like "Candidate X will make sure Demographic Y shows up to vote" hasn't been the cornerstone of their sales pitch since he announced his intent to run.

That's not to say they're wrong about this. Just inconsistent.

[R B Garr]

151. I'm hearing that lots of Republicans are crossing over to vote for Bernie in the Democratic primary.

What gives? Why would they do that?

[DanTex]

153. Really? I haven't heard that at all. Independents maybe, but not Republicans.

I mean, it could be, in which case it's great that Bernie can draw support from across the aisle. I just haven't heard much of that.

[R B Garr]

155. I've heard it plenty. It's hard to believe you have never heard that.

It's regularly pushed by all the nasty little Republican media types. I know of at least one in California who is a Trumpster voting for Bernie, edit: in the primary -- a friend of a family member. Now, why would he do that?

Seriously, anyone who has been exposed to the least bit of media knows that this happened.

[DanTex]

157. Anecdotally, I've heard lots of things.

But it's well into conspiracy land to suggest that any significant amount of Bernie's primary support comes from people trying to intentionally disrupt.

[R B Garr]

162. That's pretty hilarious that you think Rush Limbaugh is not mainstream Republican media.

He is at least one known to push that disruption strategy. Seriously, it's hard to believe that you are not versed in the many disruption techniques of Republicans. I find that hard to believe. That was the whole strategy behind the Russian interference -- get as many people to disrupt. It's pretty hilarious that you think it's some "conspiracy" when it is a well-known GOP media strategy.

Hilarious that you think Joe Rogan is some kind of guru to influence people with some lame podcasts, but someone like Rush Limbaugh you don't know about.

[DanTex]

168. When did I say that? This is the first I'm hearing of Rush Limbaugh this thread.

Yeah, he tells people to disrupt, at least he's done in the past (has he done it this time, I don't know) but does that actually amount to any significant share of the primary vote? I doubt it. Certainly I've seen no evidence aside from anecdotes that anti-Bernie people tell about their cousins.

[R B Garr]

170. That's laughable you know anecdotal things about all the Joe Rogan listeners, yet make snide

comments about someone's "cousins" who happen to be "anti-Bernie".

It's hard to take you seriously if you don't even know the history of how Bernie was used to influence our last elections. Whatever you are typing seems to be a narrative that is divorced from what actually happened. It's literally been mainstream media news for years now. Years.

[DanTex]

173. What anecdotal things about Joe Rogan?

He's got over 7 million subscribers, that's not anectodal. Also, he's an independent.

How was Bernie "used" to influence our last elections, would you say? Is there any evidence that "disruptive" voters accounted for any significant portion of his primary support? I'm curious to know. I haven't seen any.

[R B Garr]

181. You've had post after post for days about Joe Rogan. You have had many false analogies

that show you are trying to push false narratives about what is offensive versus what is not based on Bernie supporters versus "centrists".

But Rush Limbaugh supposedly has 15 to 20 million listeners, yet you know nothing about his "disruption" strategies, as if that word is so "curious" for you.

It's hard to believe you have read no news about the GOP being in bed with Russia to push Bernie. Do you really think the GOP and Russia back Bernie?

LOL at your use of "Independent", as if that means they are all ex-Democrats.

[ehrnst]

188. Mueller Report

Inside the Russian effort to target Sanders supporters — and help elect Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-russian-effort-to-target-sanders-supporters--and-help-elect-trump/2019/04/11/741d7308-5576-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html

[R B Garr]

211. Who would ever say it was a significant portion, lol.

You just made that up. It’s also well-known that most elections are pretty close. The old adage “close enough to steal” comes to mind.

BTW, your entire OP is anecdotal.

[The Mouth]

204. There's no reason for any Republican in California

to *NOT* create as much havoc in the Democratic primary as possible. OTOH I know plenty of Democrats who have done just that when the Democratic nominee was already in the bag- change to Republican and try to promote their worst candidate, hoping for a convention fight, etc). Anytime on party as an almost certain nominee, such as an incumbent, it happens.

It would be a missed opportunity for any R to change to D and vote Bernie, or Tulsi. Just the way it is, no way to really prevent it short of requiring someone to have been registered for X amount of time before being allowed to vote in the primary. IIRC Americans have been doing this since we've had political parties...

[R B Garr]

213. Yes, it's definitely a well-known strategy. nt

[johnnyplankton]

158. Maybe you should stop engaging in speculation

It sounds like Trump. People are telling me....

[DanTex]

160. Please don't compare me to Trump.

And it's not speculation, I've seen it posted here on DU. For example.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=447326

Usually these posts are anti-Bernie, trying to suggest that somehow Bernie's supporters are "disloyal". Which is a strange way of looking at the fact that Bernie is able to bring in voters from outside the reliable Democratic electorate. Isn't that the whole way to win elections?

[ehrnst]

169. You are being vague and avoiding actual citations... when someone challenges you on

what 53% of Sanders supporters say, you then backpedal and say, "I said chunk"

You don't get to have it both ways. And still be taken seriously, anyway.

[DanTex]

172. I've given citations. I'll give them again if you want.

Here are the 2016 GE polls showing Bernie way ahead of Trump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
Here's one of the OPs talking about how only 53% of Bernie primary supporters are certain to vote for other candidates in the GE.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=447326

You're right, I use the word "chunk" instead of "47%". I think 47% is a "chunk". 25% could also be a "chunk". You're right, it's a bit vague, but you get the idea. If you want you can replace "chunk" with "47%" when you read my posts.

[ehrnst]

174. "Chunk" is a quantifiable term, and you refuse to specify what it is.

Here are the 2016 GE polls showing Bernie way ahead of Trump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

If you had read the link you shared you would know it was the RealClear politics May 2016 primary polls on Bernie v Trump, not the GE polls... the GE wasn't until August 2016.

Care to retract?

[DanTex]

177. I see why you are confused.

There are two different polls. One of them shows only 53% of Bernie primary supporters would vote for any other candidate in the general. That's what I was talking about in the OP.

The other poll is with regards to 2016, showing polls of a Bernie-Trump matchup with Bernie way ahead of Trump.

[ehrnst]

179. You keep posting a poll you say is from from the General election 2016, but it was from May 2016.

You're the one who is confused.

The "53%" poll has nothing to do with 2016, but you keep posting it as some sort of evidence that the 2016 election would have gone differently.

You started the "nominating Hillary was a mistake, if Bernie had been nominated, the 2016 election would have turned out differently, "the polls" said so" thread.

You seem to be confusing the two.

[DanTex]

183. It's a General Election 2016 poll from May.

They stopped polling Bernie vs Trump matchups after that, because Bernie was out of the race, so that's the last polling data we have. But, like I said, based on the polling data available, Bernie was in fact way ahead of Trump.

I don't know what would have happened if Bernie was the nominee. It's impossible to know for sure.

[ehrnst]

186. Again... in May 2016...

The GOP and Russia were very much supporting Sanders as the candidate, as the Mueller Report and the links in my earlier post showed.

If he had won, they would have treated him very, very differently than they were in May 2016.

No poll taken in the Primary would have been polling a public subject to a full out GOP campaign against him in an actual GE between the two of them.

So no, "the polls" didn't show anything near what would have been reality in a GE that actually pitted Trump against Sanders.

[DanTex]

189. Isn't that what I said? GE polls from May 2016.

Actually looks like June 5 is the last date from RCP, but still, yes, I know that Bernie would have been treated differently if he had been the nominee. That's why I said it's impossible to know what the outcome would have been with Bernie. All I said was that polls suggested that Bernie would have done better, which, in May/June 2016, which is the last available polling data, is what they said.

Of course, there's no way to know. Maybe he would have gone down in the polls with the GOP attacks. Or maybe he would have gone up -- in this primary, certainly the attacks on Bernie ramping up have coincided with his poll surge. Who knows. I'm certainly not saying that I know 100% what would have happened in 2016 with Bernie as nominee.

[ehrnst]

193. No, you said GE polls, which is a poll taken during the GE.

You are confusing the subject of the poll (hypothetical GE matchup) with the time in the election cycle that the poll was taken (the primary).

It's also impossible to know what the effect whatever "chunk" you are talking about of Sanders supporters now would have on the GE should he not be the candidate, but you are certainly supporting giving that "hypothetical" enough weight to say that we should consider nominating him in large part because of it...

You can't have it both ways, and be taken seriously.

[DanTex]

194. I meant the subject was the General Election, not the time was the General Election.

I believe that is the source of the confusion.

[ehrnst]

196. When you say "General election polls" that means polls taken during the GE.

[DanTex]

197. I meant "polls about the General Election", sorry for the confusion, but it's cleared up now.

[Huin]

202. And then there might be voters...

who would not vote for Bernie because they think his programs cannot be funded without printing paper without value. They might think of future generations needing a financially sound country to live in. Communism has never worked well anywhere.

Mathematically speaking that should be considered as well.

[DanTex]

203. There might be, but people who think of Bernie's plans as "communism" are probably a lost cause.

I mean, I know Trump has accused Bernie of being a communist, but I don't think too many people outside of his rallies actually believe that.

[Huin]

207. Never been to one and never will, but ...

there is one thing I believe Trump and Bernie have in common: Both are so engrossed in themselves and in their ideals that they cannot think of ultimate results of their actions and demands.

[DanTex]

210. I don't think Trump has any "ideals". He just wants power and money for himself.

[Huin]

212. Those are Trumps ideals...n/t

[Scotch-Irish]

206. Just more effort to turn people against Bernie and his supporters.

It's bullshit.

[Blue_Tires]

208. What if I told you a large chunk of that crowd

would mysteriously find a way to stay home or vote Trump even if St. Bern was the candidate??

[Blue_Tires]

217. Yeah, implied extortion is a great way to win allies...

[FBaggins]

230. That coin has two sides

There are very possibly more voters who will not support Bernie but would support any other nominee.

[Nikki28]

231. I was done with Bernie

after he dd not concede to Hillary in 2016 election primary.He was like man baby when he did that ad every since I have had a bad vibe with him.He is also divisive and has the worst in his campaign and if it weren't for him, Hillary would not have gotten such flack with the email mess and the trump team ran with it. Not blaming him for her losing because she did not lose.Russia put Trump in the WH. I will vote for whomever win,but hope it is not him. I won't work against him or anything,but he is just not someone that will be on my 5 or 6th list.he also admitted he was not a Democrat and went back to his IN when he lost.So the less I say about him, the better. JMHO.

[DanTex]

232. The email thing. Like when he said "I don't care about your damn emails"?

You think that was a bad thing for Bernie to say?